Galpin Motors, Inc.

GALPIN MOTORS, INC. Galpin Motors, Inc. and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94 and Its Affiliated Local Lodge 2327. Cases 31-CA-1264-1, 31-CA-1264-2, and 31-CA-1264-3 June 16, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN , AND JENKINS On February 26, 1970, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup- porting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no- prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Galpin Motors, Inc., Sepulveda, California, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herein: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Offer Robert A. Ruffino, Alexander Ross, and Sol S. Steelman immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, consistent with the requirement set forth within The Remedy section of this Decision." 447 2. Substitute the following for the fifth indented paragraph in the notice: WE WILL offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them. Robert A. Ruffino Alexander Ross Sol S. Steelman TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAURICE M. MILLER, Trial Examiner: Upon charges and amended charges filed on November 26 and December 4, 1968, and duly served, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board caused a complaint and notice of hearing to be issued and served on Galpin Motors, Inc., designated as Respondent within this Decision. The complaint issued March 14, 1969; therein, Respon- dent was charged with unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519. Within Respondent's duly filed answer, certain factual statements in General Counsel's complaint were conceded; Respondent, however, has denied the commission of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter was held at Los Angeles, California, between April 30 and May 2, 1969, both dates in- clusive, before me. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel; complai- nant Union noted its appearance through a business representative. Each party was afforded a full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses , and to introduce evidence per- tinent to the issues. Since the hearing's close, briefs have been received from General Counsel's representative and Respondent's counsel; these briefs have been duly considered. Upon the entire testimonial record, documentary evidence received, and my observation of the wit- nesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent raises no question herein with respect to General Counsel's jurisdictional claims. 183 NLRB No. 58 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the complaint's relevant factual declarations, which have not been controverted, I find that Respondent was, throughout the period with which this case is concerned, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and business activities which affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. Further, with due regard for presently applicable jurisdictional standards, I find assertion of the Board's jurisdiction in this case warranted and necessary to effectuate statutory ob- jectives. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, jointly designated as complainant Union within this Decision, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as amended, which ad- mits certain of Respondent's employees to member- ship. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues Within his complaint, General Counsel has charged Respondent with Section 8(a)(1) and (3) violations, bottomed upon the firm's discharge and subsequent failure or refusal to reinstate three salesmen-Robert A. Ruffino, Alexander Ross, and Sol S. Steelman-because they had joined or assisted complainant Union herein. The complaint further charges Respondent with certain specified conduct reasonably calculated to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its salesmen with respect to their exercise of rights statutorily guaranteed. Respondent generally denies any responsibility for statements or conduct claimed to constitute Section 8(a)(1) violations; regarding the discharges, Respondent contends that Ruffino, Ross, and Steel- man were terminated, separately, for good cause. General Counsel counters with a contention that Respondent's presently proffered reasons for ter- minating the salesmen designated must be con- sidered, really, pretextual. B. Facts 1. Background a. Respondent's business Respondent, functioning in corporate form, maintains a Ford dealership in Sepulveda, Califor- nia; this place name designates a San Fernando Valley community, within the northwest portion of the Los Angeles metropolitan district. There, Respondent engages in the retail sale of new and used motor cars and trucks. Respondent handles comparatively few "fleet" sales . With respect to "single" car sales within the Los Angeles metropolitan district, the firm stands second among Ford dealerships in sales volume . Some 5,000 plus cars, new and used, are normally sold yearly. Respondent dealership employs some 170 peo- ple; this figure compasses 135 concerned with new- and used-car sales and service. (Respondent likewise maintains a restaurant, located on its busi- ness premises, which employs some 35 persons.) During the 6-month period with which this case is concerned, Respondent maintained a 28- to 33- man sales force. Of this number, some 20 to 23 handled new-car sales primarily; there were 8 to 10 men who served, principally, within Respondent's used-car depart- ment. Throughout the period with which this case is concerned, Herbert F. Boeckmann III was Respon- dent's president and sole stockholder; he devoted, and continues to devote, full time to Respondent's management. Joseph Castagna functioned throughout the same period-and still functions- as Respondent's general sales manager. Under Castagna, Richard Sweet and John Johnson presently serve as new-car sales managers for Respondent dealership. (During early 1968, when the developments with which this case is concerned began, John Billingsley had been one of Respon- dent's new-car sales managers. Later during the year-so the record shows-he ceased work under circumstances not herein material. Following a period of service with another Ford dealership Billingsley was rehired by Respondent; when this case was heard, he was a new-car salesman.) Respondent currently employs two more sales managers , Vito G. Congelos and Joe Boggio, responsible for used-car sales, with Congelos designated as the dealership's man in charge. These men-together with two men responsible for selling insurance on motor cars sold, plus the dealership's leasing manager-constitute Respondent's sales management team. Their several roles, with respect to matters with which this case is directly con- cerned, will be discussed hereinafter. b. The union campaign begins In February 1968, complainant Union com- menced a campaign to organize Los Angeles metropolitan area automobile salesmen. A citywide GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 449 campaign meeting was held at Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium. Six of Respondent's salesmen, plus General Sales Manager Castagna, attended. Shortly thereafter, during Respondent's next regularly scheduled salesmen 's meeting , President Boeckmann discussed complainant Union's cam- paign. The dealership's salesmen were told, sub- stantially, that their right to attend complainant Union's meetings and to make their own decision with respect to union membership would be respected. Boeckmann, however, declared that Respondent's salesmen, within his view, did not need unionization ; he suggested, therefore, that they should adopt a so-called "wait- and-see" posture regarding the desirability of union member- ship. During the February sales meeting, Frank Colet- to, testimonially described for the present record as then a sales manager with Respondent dealership, remarked that "back in 1960," while in Respon- dent's hire, he had participated in some union ac- tivity, not specified, but that he had become "dis- enchanted" with unionization. (With respect to Coletto's remark, the record reveals testimonial conflict. Sol Steelman, herein one of General Coun- sel's three claimed discriminatees, proffered a recollection that Coletto said he had been discharged by Respondent's management "back in 1960" because he had taken part in some union ac- tivity, and that he (Coletto) did not recommend such conduct. However, Christian Preussner (Chris Price), likewise a former salesman and General Counsel's next witness, could recall no such "ex- plicit" statement by Respondent's purported sales manager. With matters in this posture, the record presents a minor credibility problem-which, how- ever, may be considered representative of similar problems presented throughout the present tran- script. Steelman testified forthrightly. His purpor- tedly straightforward recollection regarding Colet- to's remark, however, must be considered, within my view, reasonably subject to discount. Since General Counsel presently proffers him as vic- timized by discrimination, his technically "adverse" posture, and presumptive bias, vis-a-vis Respondent herein cannot be disregarded; his witness chair memory-more than 1 year after Respondent's February sales meeting-could, conceivably, have been colored by some post hoc rationalization. Such a possibility, with respect to Steelman's testimony, however-without more-does not dictate cre- dence, necessarily, for Price's variant recollection. The latter's testimonial recital with respect to Coletto's purported comment-though less dra- matic than Steelman's version-likewise lacked something. He was generally cautious, sometimes hesitant. Though presumably disinterested-so far as this case was concerned-he seemed, generally, ready to proffer tailored testimony, patently refraining from formulations which might suggest personal hostility or resentment directed toward Respondent's management. Nevertheless, despite some suspicion that Price may have been trying to water down his testimony, reflection has persuaded me-following a review of both versions given herein regarding Coletto's remark-that his proffered recollection with respect thereto merits Board credence. My determination rests primarily on considerations of probability. Within my view, the likelihood that a presumptive "sales manager" with Respondent dealership would have spoken as freely and forcefully as Steelman's testimony sug- gests-with Boeckmann present-must be con- sidered remote.) Nothing further of significance, with respect to Respondent's sales meeting, has been reported. So far as the record shows, none of Respondent's salesmen, during this February 1968 period, became union members. Complainant Union's citywide organizational campaign, however, lay more or less dormant thereafter. No meetings were called for several months. c. Subsequent developments In April 1968, General Sales Manager Castagna hired Robert Ruffino and Alexander Ross for ser- vice as new-car salesmen. Both men, when hired, held complainant union membership; they had joined while employed elsewhere, following the February citywide union meeting previously noted. Nothing in the present record however, would war- rant a determination that their union membership status was known to Respondent's management representatives. (Ruffino, with whom Castagna had worked at various times throughout a 20-year period, was hired-so Castagna's testimony shows-with the concurrence of Billingsley, then Respondent's new-car sales manager and Castag- na's direct subordinate; Billingsley had, himself, known Ruffino for some 8 years. Ross, whom Castagna hired following a consultation with Con- gelos, had likewise been recommended-this time by Johnson, then a used-car sales manager with Respondent dealership. Johnson had previously known and worked with Ross for some 8 months; Respondent's general sales manager was told -so Johnson's testimony shows-that he thought Ross' personality would "fit" the dealership's store, that he (Ross) was a gentleman, and that he would "fit in as a good salesman" with the firm.) Some time during late May or early June, Ruffino was trans- ferred, temporarily, to Respondent's used-car sales 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD staff. Shortly thereafter-for reasons which will be discussed subsequently-Ross was likewise reas- signed to used -car sales. After 4 weeks , Ruffino was transferred back to new-car sales; Ross, however, remained a used-car salesman. No determination would be warranted, on the present record , that Ross' union sympathies were made manifest during this period . The transcript, however , will support a factual conclusion-within my view-that Ruffino's union sentiments did become known. While a witness, Ruffino described a June con- versation with Billingsley regarding Respondent's business, which " kind of drifted " into a discussion of unionization . According to Respondent 's former salesman , Billingsley declared , inter alia , that he had "heard " Ruffino might be "in" the complai- nant Union herein ; Respondent 's new-car sales manager-so Ruffino testified-then commented that if anyone could become involved Ruffino could , and that if he [Billingsley ] ever heard such news, he would personally "blow" the salesman out of Respondent's place of business . Billingsley, sum- moned as Respondent 's witness-when finally queried directly regarding this testimony -did not deny a conversation with Ruffino during which unionization was mentioned . With respect to his contribution , however , Respondent 's present salesman and former new -car sales manager testified as follows: ... the only thing I told Bob , I said , "Bob, I have known that you are a [obscenity signify- ing a person with a propensity for making him- self obnoxious ]" and I said " I don't want to have any of this in this organization . [All] I want you to do is to sell automobiles and stay away from the other salesmen and stop gather- ing in groups and just leave the other salesmen alone" ... . Before proffering this testimony, however , Billing- sley had been questioned by Respondent's counsel regarding a later conversation which he purportedly had with Ruffino , following complainant Union's charge herein. In this connection , Billingsley had significantly blackguarded Respondent 's former salesman , reporting that during the prehearing con- versation in question-which had purportedly taken place before Billingsley's recent resumption of sales work with Respondent dealership-he had been promised a little "green stuff" should he provide helpful testimonial recollections. Summoned in rebuttal , thereafter, Ruffino countered with recriminatory testimony. Specifically, he declared that, during two prior conversations , Billingsley had initially described himself as gratified to learn that Respondent 's course of conduct was being chal- lenged; that he had promised help, should it be requested; that he had thereupon volunteered infor- mation regarding a presumably significant admis- sion which General Sales Manager Castagna had purportedly made, during a telephone conversation, regarding Ruffino's discharge; but that he had, despite all this, rejected a request to testify regard- ing Castagna's statement for fear of being blackballed. Subsequently, so Ruffino testified, Billingsley had reversed his position and had queried "what it would be worth" should he pro- vide a tape recording of Castagna's purported con- versational concession or favorable testimony with respect thereto. These tentative soundings, suggest- ing a willingness to be suborned, were-so Ruffino testified-rejected. Neither Billingsley's denunciatory testimony nor Ruffino's recrimination-with regard to their recent conversation or conversations-struck me persua- sively. Respondent's witness has proffered a recital in that connection which-when studied closely- stands revealed as bottomed substantially on sur- mise . And Ruffino's testimonial counterthrust cer- tainly reflects a lack of logical consistency and files in the face of the probabilities. (Billingsley's pur- ported quotation of Ruffino's presumptive sug- gestion surely must be considered less than clear. He reported a purported statement by Ruffino which could reasonably have been construed mere- ly as the latter's candid observation that Billing- sley's favorable testimony "could be worth a little green stuff" so far as he [Ruffino] was concerned; Billingsley, however, volunteered a witness chair "guess" that Ruffino, rather, had meant to suggest that he [Billingsley] would get some money. Such testimony-clearly subjective in character-would hardly warrant a clear-cut determination that Respondent's former salesman was trying to suborn perjury. And Ruffino's somewhat disjointed rebut- tal testimony, considered in totality, struck me as motivated primarily by pique over Billingsley's in- vidious suggestion. Within my view, Respondent's former salesman was merely trying to turn the ta- bles.) Their divergent recollections regarding their June conversation now in question, therefore, must be considered and reviewed directly. And-with due regard for the logic of probability-I find myself constrained to conclude that Billingsley's testimony probably reflects their conversation more precisely. During June 1968, complainant Union's campaign had become superficially quiescent; Respondent's management, therefore, presumably would have no reason to feel threatened. Under such circumstances, Billingsley might reasonably have considered it necessary or proper to suggest that Ruffino refrain from open discussions related GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 451 to unionization during working hours. I consider it highly unlikely , however , that he would have con- sidered it likewise necessary to buttress any such suggestion with a blatant threat of possible discharge . Therefore , I conclude-consistently with Billingsley 's testimony-that Ruffino was not threatened . Nevertheless , determination seems clearly warranted-bottomed upon the generalized warning which I find Respondent 's salesman did receive-that Respondent 's management was, to say the least , cognizant of his union sympathies. I so find. 2. Interference , restraint, and coercion a. Complainant Union's renewed campaign After a seeming 8 -month lull, complainant Union 's citywide organizational campaign was reac- tivated ; plans were made for a second meeting, scheduled for November 13 at Los Angeles' Em- bassy Auditorium at 10 p.m Complainant Union 's October 31 news bulletin described the scheduled conclave as Lodge 2327's first regular meeting for members in good standing only. Nevertheless, licensed automobile salesmen throughout the Los Angeles basin were notified that they could attend , contingent on their signing a membership application and paying complainant Union 's then current $ 10 organizing fee. Copies of the bulletin in question , plus a brochure entitled "It Is Your Right As An American To Join The IAM," were mailed some time during November 's first week . Several of Respondent 's salesmen-so the record shows-received their copies by November 7 specifically. b. Respondent's reaction On November 8, while Ruffino and Castagna were in consultation within the general sales manager 's office , Congelos entered, carrying com- plainant Union's news bulletin and brochure. Wav- ing the documents , he exclaimed , "Look what I received in the mail . I suppose they don't know I am a manager , and this is a joke on them." Then- noting Ruffino 's presence-he chivvied the latter, so I find , with a rhetorical declaration , " I suppose you're in the union , too" but then said nothing further . Ruffino left Castagna 's office . Shortly thereafter-so I find-the dealership's used-car manager likewise came out, still carrying complai- nant Union 's bulletin and pamphlet . Directing him- self specifically to Ruffino on Respondent's showroom floor, Congelos remarked , laughingly, that he supposed the latter was "the union's or- ganizer" within Respondent dealership . Ruffino thereupon suggested that he consider complainant Union 's material seriously , and noted that he could "write down " whatever Congelos might say. Respondent 's used-car manager, however, merely laughed and departed . (These factual findings derive directly from Ruffino's testimony , which I credit in this connection . Congelos denied making the comments noted . His denials however , within my view, merit rejection . Throughout the present record , Congelos stands revealed as frequently given to barbed comment and rough humor; his witness chair demeanor , within my judgment, pro- vides more than sufficient justification for such characterizations . Thus, Ruffino's testimony-that Congelos greeted him , twice, with challenging rail- lery-struck me persuasively . True, within this Decision , the salesman 's testimonial recital regard- ing his purported conversations with Billingsley has been rejected . My credibility resolution with respect to that testimony , however, does not derive from any conclusion that Ruffino's purported recol- lections were generally unreliable ; I concluded, merely , that-regarding the particular matters then in question-his recollection had been colored by rationalization. Well-settled decisional doctrine teaches, clearly , that triers of fact may believe some, though not all, of a witness' testimony. Com- pare N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C .A. 2) in this connection.) Shortly thereafter, Ruffino sought Castagna's concurrence regarding a prepared appraisal with respect to a possible trade -in vehicle . Castagna, so I find, thereupon stated , "You had better have this just right if you 're a member of the union now. I want everything just right." The proffered appraisal was, however, approved . (Castagna denied making the remark noted ; he testified that he does "per se" do appraisals. He conceded , however, that on two of three successive weekends ( Friday , Saturday, and Sunday ) he regularly relieves one or the other of Respondent 's two new-car sales managers, and that-while functioning in their stead-he does rou- tinely review new-car "deals" which may involve prepared appraisals with regard to possible trade-in vehicles. The record otherwise shows that Castagna was working , pursuant to this schedule , during the weekend of November 8, 9, and 10. His denial re- garding the remark now under consideration has not been credited .) Later that same day-with castagna, Ruffino, and Congelos, plus another salesman , once more present in Castagna 's office- the dealership 's used-car manager, so I find, resumed his purportedly bantering tactics. Ad- dressing Ruffino , Congelos reiterated , " I see this Union is getting off the ground , and I suppose you 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 30 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are organizer here." Ruffino, this time, vouchsafed a somewhat chaffy reply; he pleaded the Fifth Amendment and refused comment. Castagna, how- ever-so Ruffino's credible testimony shows-then interjected, "If I were you I would shut up, too." Their conversation then turned to company busi- ness. On November 13, the date of complainant Union's scheduled Embassy Auditorium meeting, Ross was working Respondent's early sales shift. Congelos asked him-so I find-whether he was going to complainant Union's conclave; Ross, how- ever, proffered no reply. Later, that same day, Con- gelos summoned Steelman to his office; the latter was requested to notify his fellow salesman that Congelos was calling a used-car salesmen's meeting for 10 o'clock that night. Steelman asked whether Respondent's used-car manager was "kidding" with his meeting call; Congelos declared, however, that he was serious. (Steelman's testimony-which has not been contradicted in this respect-warrants a determination that four or five of Respondent's used-car salesmen were present, within hearing distance, during this exchange. I so find.) Steelman, then, reminded Congelos that complainant Union's meeting was scheduled for the same time; the latter, however, replied that, "I know it, but we are going to have the meeting anyway." Steelman, with support from some of his fellow salesmen, then sug- gested that their sales meeting be held forthwith, or possibly by 8 o'clock that night. Congelos, how- ever, refused to considered these substitute sug- gestions. Some time later , Respondent 's general sales manager-who had heard "rumors" that Congelos was scheduling a sales meeting-visited Respon- dent's used-car lot; he commented that he did not know whether Congelos was joking or serious, but that, if Respondent 's salesmen were union mem- bers, they had a right to attend their union meeting. Castagna thereupon advised Respondent's used-car manager-so his testimony, which I credit in this connection, shows-that, "If you are serious and I don't know, why don't you schedule it [the sales meeting] for another time." (My factual determina- tion, regarding this development, rests on Castag- na's testimony . The record does reflect Steelman's divergent recital that Castagna was told 80 percent of Respondent's salesmen were already union mem- bers, and that he then told Congelos, "Oh, let them go. We will get rid of them later." And Steelman was-within my view-generally a reliable witness; his testimony was offered forthrightly, precisely, and, so far as I could tell, derived from his best recollection . However, his recital regarding Castag- na's threatening comment to Congelos, noted, struck me as reflective of hyperbole, derived from afterthought presumably. Castagna had no reason, then, to consider complainant Union's renewed campaign a source of concern for Respondent dealership; Steelman 's testimony, therefore, that Respondent 's general sales manager coupled his suggestion to Congelos regarding the sales meeting with a reference to possible future discharges, under the circumstances, suggests a strained reac- tion to complainant Union's campaign which I would find considerably less than likely.) While a witness-following Castagna's testimony-the dealership's used-car manager purportedly could not recall whether he had been directed to cancel his proposed November 13 sales meeting. He declared, rather, that his direction to Steelman had really been given in jest; that he had merely been trying to "shake up the troops" thereby; and that he had never really meant to conduct such a meet- ing. There can be no doubt, however, that Steel- man, initially, took him seriously. Further, the record clearly warrants a determination that Respondent's general sales manager considered the matter sufficiently serious to countermand Con- gelos' putative directive, specifically. c. Complainant Union's meeting Complainant Union 's November 13 meeting was held pursuant to schedule . Some six or seven of Respondent dealership 's salesmen were there. They may have been union members ; the record shows that, lacking prior membership , they would have had to sign membership application cards, and that they would have had to pay a designated "organiza- tional " fee to procure admission . ( Ross testified herein-credibly and without contradiction-that he saw Respondent 's salesman , Jerry Schnoeblen, present during complainant Union's meeting taking notes. Schnoeblen however-designated for the present record, without challenge , as one of Respondent's former new-car sales managers-was not summoned herein for testimony . Respondent has proffered no contradiction whatsoever regard- ing Ross' recital in this connection .) During the meeting, there were nominations from the floor for a bylaws committee, responsible for drafting Lodge 2327 's bylaws. Ross and Ruffino nominated each other; Ross prefaced his nomination of, Ruffino, so the record shows, with a lengthy speech. d. Subsequent developments The following day-before, during, and following Respondent's regularly scheduled sales meeting- the developments of the previous night seem to GALPIN MOTORS, INC. have been a general subject of conversation between Respondent 's salesmen and management representatives. First, early that morning, so Ross' credible , undenied testimony shows , the latter ob- served Salesman Schnoeblen, noted as having been present at complainant Union's meeting, conferring at length with Castagna and Congelos ; significantly, however, he (Schnoeblen ) was not, thereafter, present doing Respondent 's general sales meeting. And Castagna's opening sales meeting remark, so the record shows, was, "Well, fellows, I guess you like meetings . You had one last night and you have one this morning." Later, during their discussion, someone asked whether Respondent 's salesmen would get Thanksgiving Day off; Castagna, so I find, commented , "Well, when the union comes in you won't have to worry about it." And, when the sales meeting concluded, Congelos-presumably still bemused-commented to Steelman that, "I can't believe it. Five of my men went to the meet- ing. I can't understand how they could do that to me." The record does not reveal Steelman 's reply. Congelos, however, further revealed his sense of perturbation . During a conversation later that day with Ruffino, he commented that he had "heard" Ruffino was a union officer now; the salesman, so his testimony shows, greeted this comment with a shrug. And still later, during the day, Congelos was seen wearing one of conplainant Union's buttons, which had been distributed the night before. (While a witness , Congelos did concede that he had, in- deed, procured a union button that very day from Schnoeblen, and that he had, for a time thereafter, worn it on his lapel.) Seeing Ross, Congelos gibed, "Ross, look at my union button. Where's yours?" When Ross replied that his was larger , Congelos declared, " I am not even going to nominate you." The record reflects no rejoiner by Respondent's salesman. Within a few days thereafter-during a social "gathering" at Howard Johnson's restaurant near Respondent dealership, attended by President Boeckmann , Castagna, Congelos, and Salesmen Chris Price, Dave Reza, and Sol Season , complai- nant Union 's meeting was still one topic of conver- sation . Respondent's used-car manager-so Price credibly testified-recited the names of various salesmen who had attended complainant Union's meeting . During a somewhat disconnected discus- sion of complainant Union's meeting and unionism generally, -which followed, President Boeckmann mentioned that both Ross and Ruffino had been nominated for union offices; then he queried the salesmen present as to how they would like to have Ross represent them in negotiations with him. This query, which , Boeckmann clearly conceived as rhe- 453 torical merely, was-so I find-reasonably calcu- lated to suggest that, within Boeckmann 's view and possibly that of his listeners , Ross would probably prove a poor negotiator. 3. Discriminatory discharges a. The discharge of Ruffino (1) Conflicts in testimony On Sunday , November 17, just 4 days after com- plainant Union 's meeting, Ruffino was discharged by Respondent's general sales manager , personally. Their respective testimonial recollections with re- gard to this development-though mutually cor- roborative generally-differed in detail . Since these differences in detail could , conceivably , be crucial, the testimonial recitals of both Castagna and Ruf- fino have been reviewed carefully and scrutinized closely. On November 17, Ruffino was, presumably, working Respondent's late shift. He testified that -having just returned from "lunch" about 5 o'clock - he was standing in Respondent 's showroom, together with Salesman Chris Price , New-Car Sales Manager Johnson, and one Nick Rosenthal, fleet manager for another Ford dealership , when Castag- na approached and requested him (Ruffino) to produce his salesman 's "follow-up" records for review . (The record reflects some confusion with regard to those present. For example , Ruffino and Castagna designated Johnson as physically present on Respondent's sales floor ; Johnson described himself as seated within his "open " office nearby. Ruffino designated Rosenthal as standing together with Price and himself when Castagna approached; Castagna, however , described Rosenthal as merely a personal visitor, who happened to become a member of the group, and thus happened to over- hear the conversation now under consideration, while in his (Castagna's) company. Further, coun- sel for Respondent presently proffers testimony re- garding this Ruffino-Castagna conversation through Salesman Steve Wilson , whom no one else recalls as having been present. These testimonial discre- pancies regarding those present , per se, raise no sig- nificant credibility questions ; they do suggest, how- ever, that-for both Ruffino and Castagna particu- larly-the passage of time may have dimmed recol- lection and fostered rationalization. The divergent testimony regarding their conversation's substance and subsequent developments has, therefore, been carefully reviewed.) According to Ruffino, Castag- na looked a little bitter , while declaring that he wished to see Ruffino 's "follow-up" records then 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and there . When the salesman asked Castagna, then, what "follow-up" records he wished to see, Respondent 's sales manager purportedly replied, testily , "Don't get smart with me or you will be working down at Ray Bros . Ford tomorrow." Ruf- fino further testified that : he thereupon repeated his query regarding what Castagna wished to review ; he was told merely to produce his "follow- up" records ; he went back to his desk and picked up the first thing he could find-which happened to be his so-called "appraisal" book within which data was recorded regarding the trade -in cars which his most recent customer contacts had proffered-for submission to Respondent 's general sales manager; but Castagna promptly returned the book , declar- ing it was not a complete "follow-up" system. Ac- cording to Respondent 's salesman , Castagna did not further explain his book 's rejection. (The present record clearly warrants a determination that Respondent 's management has, for some years, strongly pressed its salesmen-particularly new-car salesmen-to maintain and rely on "follow-up" records . Specifically , Respondent 's salesmen have been requested to prepare and maintain some sort of notation system or record covering prospective car buyers, possible first-time customer contacts, and possible "repeat" customers . With respect to such conceivable sales prospects , Respondent's salesmen have been requested to note names; ad- dresses; telephone numbers ; the new-car model line, body style , and color regarding which some in- terest may have been manifested by the person designated ; the make , model , and model year of their possible future trade-in cars; plus other rele- vant data which might bear on their status as prospective customers. Periodically , Respondent's management-during regular weekly sales meetings-has stressed the value of such detailed notes; dealership salesmen have been told, re- peatedly, that such records, when properly main- tained , constitute a valuable customer prospect file, which should be "worked " through repeated con- tacts, looking toward possible future sales. Thus, when Castagna requested Ruffino to produce his "follow-up" records, he was really requesting Respondent 's salesman to produce his file or bun- dle of notes regarding prospective customers.) This rejection , according to Ruffino 's recollection, ter- minated their conversation for the moment; Ruffino testified that he left Castagna's office without rais- ing any further questions. Regarding this particular verbal confrontation, Respondent 's general sales manager proffered some significantly different recollections . Thus, he testified that : he requested Ruffino to produce his "follow-up" records for review ; Ruffino , instead, replied , "What 's that?" suggesting a complete lack of comprehension with regard to Castagna 's mean- ing; the salesman was then told Castagna wished him to produce those records which Respondent's management usually talked about in sales meetings; he was requested once more to bring such records, plus his owner's file, into Castagna's office; he thereupon repeated his query , "What 's that?" very sarcastically ; Ruffino was , again , requested merely to produce his records promptly ; shortly thereafter, Respondent 's salesman produced his appraisal book; and, when asked whether this was his sole "follow-up" record , he replied , "I sell everyone I talk to . I really don 't need a follow-up record. I have thrown all my records away." While a witness, Castagna commented-by way of explanation-that Ruffino 's so-called appraisal book could not really facilitate future sales "follow-up" contacts, since the data therein merely pertained to possible future trade-in cars , without any references to new-car models which particular prospective traders might wish to purchase . Continuing , Castagna testified that: Ruffino was asked whether this was all he had; and the salesman then stated the book was all he had readily available , but that he had his owner's file at home . Respondent 's general sales manager- according to his testimony-declared , "That is a heck of a place for an owner 's file to be " with the dealership 's current business so slow. He noted that-though Ruffino might be "hitting a little good" currently-he had managed no more than 2 good months since his hire . Ruffino was told-so Castagna testified-that his "follow-up" records could not be considered sufficient ; he was further criticized for reporting that he had thrown away such records. With respect to subsequent developments, the record reflects further divergencies . Returning to Ruffino , Respondent's salesman testified that: he returned to Castagna 's office some 10 to 15 minutes later ; he asked Castagna whether Respon- dent's management was installing some new type of "follow-up" program ; he further queried Respon- dent's general sales manager regarding what "fol- low-up" records he wanted , since he ( Ruffino) did have some loose, noncollated "follow-up" notes within his desk ; and he found Castagna very bitter, and concluded that his currently maintained "fol- low-up" records would not be considered satisfac- tory . Therefore-so Ruffino testimonially declared-he did not pursue the subject but, rather, requested Castagna to say whether he was being discharged . Castagna then replied-so the salesman recalled-that he would have to let Ruffino go. Re- garding the balance of their conversation , Respon- dent's former salesman proffered the following GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 455 recital : That he did mention his relevant records and requested time to get them organized , but the focus of conversation then shifted to Castagna's decision regarding his termination ; that he (Ruf- fino ) was "very upset" since he considered his sales record for the current month , before November 17, sufficiently good to suggest the possibility that he could have qualified for Respondent 's monthly sales prize ; that he pleaded for his job, therefore, without success ; that Castagna then designated a document lying on his desk , within which Respon- dent's entire new- and used-car sales force roster was listed with 10 names circled , saying that he (Castagna) was being pressured to let these men go; that Respondent's general sales manager finally suggested Ruffino could return in 2 weeks and request his job back ; but that Respondent's salesman described himself as not the type of per- son who would plead for rehire , under such circum- stances. Continuing, Ruffino testified , finally, that: I said , "Let's face it, Chuck. Was it because I was organizing the union here in Galpin Ford?" In which he replied , "That is part of it." ... I told Mr. Castagna that I was going to go to the union because I felt he terminated me because of union activities, and he said something about the union giving him a little bit of pressure . I said, "I don't know ." He said, "Lots of luck ." We left in a friendly term with ourselves shaking hands and him offering to buy me lunch any time I came back. Castagna 's purported recollection differed. With respect to this portion of their conversation, first, we may note that Respondent's general sales manager did not recall a break during which Ruf- fino left his presence . He testified , rather, that: their single conversation continued ; Ruffino was told he was being " let go" with a recommendation that he seek work with some other dealership where he might learn to keep and rely upon "fol- low-up " records; Ruffino voiced surprise regarding Castagna's decision to dismiss him because of their long friendship , he was told he was doing both him- self and Respondent dealership an injustice because of his failure to keep records and that he had made Respondent 's general sales manager look ridiculous through his "insubordination " displayed on Respondent 's showroom floor ; and "Ruffino, nevertheless, requested a chance to remain until the current month 's end , since he felt confident that he could qualify for that month 's sales prize; but that his plea was rejected." Castagna conceded that , during this conversa- tion , there had been a sales force roster on his desk with a number of names circled . He recalled mak- ing a statement that he was " under the hammer" since President Boeckmann had requested him to talk to certain salesmen-designated within the roster-whose record showed sales of 12 or fewer cars during October , the previous month-for the double purpose of determining why their sales were down , and warning them that they might be subject to termination thereafter should their sales produc- tion continue low. (Ruffino was-so the record shows-within the group of 10 men whose names had been circled on the document in question, Respondent 's sales summary record for October 1968.) Respondent 's general sales manager, how- ever, denied making any direct declaration that he was under pressure , currently , to terminate designated salesmen. Then , with regard to Ruffino's final remarks, Castagna ultimately testified as fol- lows: ... and he said "we have been friends for a long time , so just between you and me I have an opportunity to go to work for the Union and I am going to tell the Union you fired me for Union activity and they will welcome me with open arms " and I said "I don't follow you, Bob, what do they mean they will welcome you with open arms ." He said "they will." He said "I can get a job with them and they will pay me $250 a week plus expenses to go to the dif- ferent dealers and try to organize salesmen." I said that if this is what you want to do, go ahead and do it. Respondent 's general sales manager conceded a query by Ruffino as to whether his union sym- pathies had had "anything to do" with his termina- tion. While a witness , however , Castagna denied making any concession whatsoever in that regard. He testified that Ruffino was , rather, told, "Bob, I have known you for too long for something like that to come in the way of friendship . You have made me look like an ass in front of men out there and then you come in with an appraisal book and no type of follow-up at all , what the hell can I do. I have to let you go ." Ruffino was further told specifically-so Castagna testified-that his in- volvement with complainant Union had nothing to do with his discharge. (2) Credibility resolutions The respective testimonial recollections of Ruf- fino and Respondent 's general sales manager- which have just been summarized-present several serious, direct conflicts which must be resolved. This task, within the context of the present record, may justifiably be described as fraught with con- siderable difficulty. Determinations with respect to credibility must necessarily derive from a trier of facts considered 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD judgment with respect to more than one factor presented by the relevant record. See Casa Grande Cotton Oil Mill, 110 NLRB 1834, 1845-46, for a general discussion. Still, with relevant and material factors in mind-so far as some particular record may reveal them-clear-cut dispositions with respect to credibility problems can rarely be facile- ly reached. However dispassionate triers of fact may wish to be-no matter how carefully they may try to discover what really happened-they cannot, reasonably, consider themselves divinely ordained or qualified to pronounce final truths. Their deter- minations therefore-so my late colleague, Trial Examiner Leedom, once noted-can merely "stand in" for the facts. Such being the case, reasonable men may frequently differ, both with regard to par- ticular credibility resolutions, and with respect to required factual determinations, premised upon conclusions regarding where the testimonial pre- ponderance lies. Triers of fact, therefore, can but use their best judgment. The present record, considered in totality, con- strains me to conclude-somewhat diffidently, per- haps, but with requisite finality, nevertheless-that both Respondent's former salesman and Castagna possess no more than partial recollections, presently, regarding the specific conversational gambits which preceded Ruffino's discharge. With respect to both men, further, I find myself per- suaded that subconscious rationalization may well have colored memory. Necessarily, therefore, the record within my view calls for factual determinations based, not on pin- pointed testimony which one particular witness, deemed generally credible, may have proffered, but on some reasonable synthesis, derived from the complete testimonial record, with due regard for the natural logic of probability. Cf. Phaostron In- strument and Electronic Company, 146 NLRB 996, enfd. 344 F.2d 855 (C.A. 9); cf. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, 113 NLRB 1122, 1124-27, cit- ing N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749 (C.A. 2). My determinations, herein, have been derived from such a synthesis; whenever necessary, however, reasons for particular factual conclusions will be noted. First: Was the salesman's initial response-when confronted with Castagna's request that he produce his "follow-up" records for review-really challeng- ing and sarcastic? With due regard for the record, this trier of fact remains persuaded that such a characterization would reflect hyperbole. True, Ruffino's testimony with respect thereto does sug- gest that he may not have taken Castagna's first request seriously. The purportedly responsive query which his particular testimony reveals, "What fol- low-up, Chuck?" may well have been proffered with a somewhat nonchalant, flippant, or lighthearted manner-perhaps, even, suffused with raillery. I am satisfied, however, that Ruffino was neither deliberately sarcastic (in the sense of being cuttingly hostile or contemptuous) nor defiant. Nor can I conclude that his queries were consciously calculated to convey some completely "pretended" lack of comprehension, with regard to Castagna's request; he was not, within my view, being deliberately refractory. (The record clearly shows that Respondent's management had, throughout Ruffino's period of service, repeatedly stressed the desirability of maintaining so-called "follow-up" records, current owner files, and prospect files- particularly for new-car salesmen. And Respon- dent's defensive presentation, which has not been challenged in this connection, further warrants a determination that-for at least I week, possibly longer, before Ruffino was requested to produce his records-the dealership's general sales manager had been calling on various salesmen to produce their personal records for review, following a request from President Boeckmann that Castagna check the performance of Respondent's less productive sales personnel. Within such a context, Castagna's testimonial profession of belief that Ruf- fino had really pretended lack of comprehension- when confronted with a demand for "follow-up" records-carries no present persuasion. Such a pretension would have been both defiant and futile. So far as the record reveals, however, Ruffino had been given no cause, real or presumptive, for defi- ance manifested through such pretence. Further, his generally "correct" restrained demeanor-both while testifying before me and while listening to others testify-would hardly warrant a conclusion that he possesses temperament so volatile that he would, willy-nilly, have proffered a futile and defi- ant reply when confronted with Castagna's request. With due regard for the record, considered in totality, I am satisfied, shortly, that he would not have deliberately "baited" the dealership 's general sales manager gratuitously . Castagna's presumptive conclusion, that he did so, must be rejected.) Within my view, therefore, Castagna's reaction, when he was confronted with Ruffino's clearly "chaffy" response, really reflected hypersensitivity. There can be no doubt that Respondent' s general sales manager did construe Ruffino's deportment critically; I so find. Further, however, I consider a determination warranted that Castagna's manifest resentment represented something more than a reasonably justified response. (This, despite Chris Price's witness chair concession that, during a sub- sequent conversation with Ruffino in Castagna's GALPIN MOTORS, INC. presence, he (Price) had declared his personal view that the salesman's conduct had left Castagna with no choice.) The real significance of the sales manager's reaction will be considered,. further, within this Decision. Second: Did Ruffino subsequently display a disrespectful nonchalance when Castagna told him that his trade-in car appraisal book could not be considered a proper "follow-up" record? The present record, certainly, would warrant a conclu- sion that Respondent's salesman did not really maintain a well-organized prospect file, or readily usable records; clearly, Castagna's request that he produced such materials, forthwith, found him non- plussed. Under such circumstances, Ruffino's testimony-that he merely seized the "first thing" he could find; that he presented his appraisal book to Respondent's sales manager; and that he then left without a reply when the latter rejected his presentation-rings true. Castagna's witness chair suggestion that Ruffino promptly disclaimed any need for "follow-up" records-declaring, further, that he had thrown his records away-merits rejec- tion within my view. Respondent's salesman did not strike me as disposed to reckless bravado; con- fronted with a recital, therefore, which substantially suggests that he countered Castagna's request with responses calculated merely to exacerbate their confrontion, gratuitously, I must reject such a possi- bility as remote. Further, note should be taken that Castagna's testimony-with respect thereto-lacks consistency. First, he purportedly recalled that Ruf- fino promptly claimed to have discarded "all" his relevant records; then, he testified that Ruffino claimed to have some such records, particularly his owner's file, at home. With matters in this posture, I conclude that Castagna's testimonial recital-re- garding this portion of the conversation now in question-reflects memory colored by afterthought. Third: Did Respondent's general sales manager specify his reason or reasons for Ruffino's discharge? Substantially , Respondent's salesman testified that-within a context of discussion re- garding the dealership's so-called "follow-up" record program-he (Ruffino) first asked whether he was being terminated , and that Respondent's general sales manager-without further particu- larizing his reasons-merely responded affirmative- ly. Castagna 's testimony, considered in totality, would warrant a determination , however, that he (Respondent 's general sales manager ) broached the subject of discharge ; that Ruffino, pleading for reconsideration, mentioned their long friendship; that he (Castagna ) then cited Ruffino's failure to maintain proper "follow-up" records, while declar- ing further that the salesman 's "insubordination" which had been manifested on Respondent's showroom floor had made him look ridiculous. Re- 457 garding this portion of their conversation , Castag- na's testimony may, within my view, be credited. Ruffino's suggestion that Respondent 's general sales manager, during a relatively lengthy conversa- tion, proffered no specific statements-calculated to justify discharge-strikes me as hardly likely. Their verbal confrontation , clearly, took some time. Castagna was-so I have found-both professedly resentful and distressed . Under such circumstances, testimony which suggests that he failed to proffer any specific reason for Ruffino's termination runs counter to probability, within my view. Ruffino did testify, finally, that Respondent's general sales manager- during their conversation- said, generally, that "the pressure was on him" to ter- minate certain salesmen . Considered in context, however, Castagna 's denial regarding this pur- ported remark merits credence . ( Ruffino's testimony , relative to this portion of their conversa- tion , lacks certainty . First, he quoted himself as querying Castagna with respect to whether he (Respondent's general sales manager ) was under pressure . Then , he charged Castagna with the quotation noted . Further, Ruffino pinpointed Castagna's purported comment as directed toward 10 specific salesmen , whose names had been cir- cled on Respondent's October sales department roster. The record with regard to this document, however , will support a determination, merely, that Respondent 's general sales manager-pursuant to President Boeckmann 's direction-had circled the names of 10 salesmen with whom he proposed to discuss poor sales performance . No conclusion would be warranted , however , that he had been directed to discharge them forthwith . Upon the present record, I consider it less than likely that Castagna would have , deliberately , misstated or overstated his list's purpose .) Thus, any determina- tion- conceivably derivable from Ruffino's testimony-that Respondent's general sales manager merely said the salesman was being discharged because he (Castagna ) was functioning under "pressure" from unspecified sources must be dismissed as lacking credible record support. I so find. Fourth: Did Castagna concede that Ruffino's discharge was partially bottomed upon his par- ticipation in complainant 's union organizational campaign? The divergent testimony which Castagna and Ruffino have proffered-regarding this portion of their conversation-clearly presents a crucial credibility question. With respect thereto, the whole record-reviewed with due regard for those further judgmental clues which a trier of fact's direct observations may provide-persuades me that Ruffino 's recital, in this connection , merits cre- dence. I note, first, that Respondent 's general sales manager-when he first learned that complainant Union had scheduled a second citywide meeting- had suggested to Ruffino that union members 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would be required to have "everything just right" when presenting trade -in deals for his concurrence. Further, I note Castagna 's subsequent suggestion that Ruffino would be well advised to maintain a discreet silence regarding his union sympathies. Such comments , though not necessarily probative of strong antiunion bias, certainly provide some sup- port for a determination that Castagna 's prior knowledge regarding Ruffino's union proclivities may well have contributed to conditioning his reac- tion during their final talk; I so find. True, Respondent 's general sales manager-while con- ceding that Ruffino had asked whether his union sympathies had "anything to do" with his termina- tion-did testify that Respondent's salesman was told "something like that " would not have "come in the way" of their long friendship . His further testimony, however , regarding his purported coun- terstatement-that, despite their long friendship, his decision had been dictated merely by Ruffino's failure to produce proper "follow-up" records, cou- pled with conduct calculated to make him (Castag- na) look ridiculous-fails to persuade . Upon the entire record , plus observation of both witnesses, I am satisfied that Respondent's general sales manager did-during the conversation now in question-concede a further reason . ( I note, inter alia , the fact that Castagna and Ruffino were, con- cededly, friends of long standing; the fact that Respondent 's management had never, previously, defined precisely what files , notes, or other records would be considered sufficient , and had never, previously, dismissed a salesman for deficient or poorly kept "follow-up" records ; and the fact that no dealership salesman had even been warned, previously, that deficiencies with respect to the maintenance of such records would be considered a ground for discharge . I further note the fact that rough , heavy-handed banter seems to have been tolerated within Respondent dealership ; plus my finding, previously noted , that Ruffino 's showroom floor reaction , with respect to which Castagna professed resentment , could not reasonably have been considered grossly demeaning or defiant. With these factors in mind , I credit Ruffino's testimony, therefore , that Castagna-when queried directly- realistically found himself constrained to justify Ruffino's termination by conceding a further motivation for his discharge decision .) Thus I find-consistently with Ruffino 's testimony-that Castagna, when confronted with a direct question, did finally concede that Ruffino's participation in complainant Union's campaign had partially motivated his discharge decision. Castagna 's further declarations , that Ruffino had-during their con- versation-fully disclosed a plan to charge Respon- dent with statutorily proscribed discrimination, fol- lowing which he would "get a job " with complai- nant union organizing salesmen , carries no persua- sive thrust . I consider it rather less than likely that, within a context of strained conversation culminat- ing in discharge , Ruffino would have spoken thus freely regarding his future plans; Castagna's pur- ported recollection regarding this portion of their conversation , therefore , struck me as mere em- bellishment , proffered to provide some ver- similitude for prior disclaimers. (3) Subsequent developments During Respondent 's regularly scheduled Mon- day, November 18, sales meeting (held 1 day after Ruffino's discharge ), Castagna announced that he had been constrained to release an employee, whom he had known personally for 25 years, because he didn 't have his sales "follow-up" records when requested . Respondent 's general sales manager then declared-so Steelman credibly testified-that "If you guys want to be productive professionals and want to be union men , you had better get on the ball and act like professionals." (Emphasis supplied .) Steelman 's testimony, with respect to this remark , has not been denied. b. The discharges of Ross and Steelman (I) Respondent 's expansion program For several months-between June and October 1968, specifically-the Respondent dealership's sales force had been growing ; during the period in question, it expanded from 28 to 33 salesmen. Despite some significant turnover, Respondent's new-car sales force rose from 20 to 23, while used- car salesmen grew in number from 8 to 10. (During October, particularly, Respondent hired or rehired six salesmen : five were hired for new-car sales and one for Respondent's used-car department. Three salesmen , one for new cars and two for used cars, left Respondent 's payroll, permanently or temporarily .) During this period, further , Respon- dent's management was planning a physical expan- sion for its used-car department . The dealership's used-car lot was being moved across the street, to a new, larger location ; preparatory thereto, new of- fice facilities for Respondent 's used-car sales staff were being constructed . These facilities were planned-so the record shows-to provide office space for the department 's 2 managers, plus a sales force which might number as many as 12 men. Early in November, some 7 to 10 days before complainant Union's campaign meeting , Respon- GALPIN MOTORS, INC. dent's used-car sales force was summoned to meet. The purpose of their meeting-so Ross and Steel- man credibly testified-was "to work out a new work schedule and to choose offices" within Respondent's new facility, which would be opening shortly. The used-car salesman then in Respon- dent's employ-with Ross and Steelman both in- cluded-were assigned their future offices based on seniority; no definitive work schedules were, how- ever, then promulgated. During the meeting, further, the subject of Respondent's desire to find more salesmen was discussed. Congelos, so I find, specifically asked those present whether they knew any good used-car salesmen they could recom- mend, who might wish to work for Respondent dealership. (While a witness, Congelos did not directly deny this recital. He did testify that Respondent dealership was generally reputed to be a good place to work; that he frequently received volunteer employment applications from salesmen working elsewhere; that such applications were nor- mally retained, for some time, in his desk; and that Respondent's management, therefore, never really had to solicit applications. The record does show, however, that-sometime following the specific events with which this case is concerned-the dealership did advertise for salesmen within a San Fernando Valley newspaper. Upon this record, cou- pled with my observation of Congelos' witness chair demeanor previously noted, I conclude-con- sistently with Ross' and Steelman's testimony-that Respondent's used-car manager did solicit the dealership's sales staff either to provide the names of possible salesmen or to suggest that such prospects file applications.) Further, during the meeting salesman Glenn Williams, whose produc- tion for several months had been relatively low, asked Congelos whether Respondent was then con- templating that "low men" would be terminated? He was reassured-so I find-that low sales produc- tion would not be the "only reason" determinative of possible discharge. Williams could not-while a witness-recall whether Congelos then "itemized" some grounds which might trigger a termination; Ross and Steelman, however, testified-credibly, within my view-that he (Congelos) said low sales producers would not be terminated unless they were, concurrently, considered chargeable with misconduct or some dishonest practice. The subject does not appear to have been pursued. (2) The sales managers ' meeting Every Wednesday , throughout the period with which this case is concerned , Respondent's management " team " regularly met-with President Boeckmann normally present-to discuss the 459 dealership's business problems; this group included Respondent's several "department" heads. Follow- ing this "general" conference, Respondent regu- larly convened a sales managers ' meeting. This group, previously noted within this Decision, com- passed Castagna, Respondent's two new-car sales managers , Congelos, the dealership's second used- car manager, and two "insurance " men, plus the dealership's leasing manager. On Wednesday, November 20-so President Boeckmann testified-these men met to discuss Respondent's possible need to hire additional salesmen to staff the firm's new, about-to-be-ac- tivated, used-car lot. (According to Boeckmann, Respondent's management was then considering "going from eight to ten or whether we would need twelve" salesmen to handle the dealership's pro- jected sales volume. In fact, Respondent already had-during the previous month-raised to 10 its roster of used-car salesmen.) A discussion followed, so Respondent's president testified, with respect to various salesmen , their performance, capabilities, and potential. The present record-which reflects little more than some minor variations between the testimony of Respondent's several witnesses, bot- tomed upon their differences in recollection-will warrant a determination that, while the "entire sales force" was purportedly reviewed, most of the sales managers' time was spent discussing five men. (No more than three of these-Ross, Steelman, and Williams-were used-car salesmen. The two others principally discussed, Larry Weisberg and Robert Cheney, were, so far as the record shows, new-car salesmen.) Weisberg's purportedly low sales production was canvassed. New-Car Sales Manager Sweet requested a chance to work "personally" with Weisberg, however, since he felt the salesman had "good" potential and had developed "outside" sales; this request met with the group's concur- rence . Cheney's manager-while conceding the salesman 's relatively poor record due partially to his diffidence in approaching " walk-in " showroom visitors-requested a chance to work with him because he felt that "over the long pull " Cheney could develop into a good man; this request was likewise granted . Williams, with a previously poor sales record , was likewise discussed ; Boeckmann's testimony suggests that his retention was con- sidered , however, because he had previously been a top salesman with other dealerships; because he had been in management ; because he had business knowledge; and because "we" felt that his potential for the dealership could be "very" good. With respect to Ross and Steelman, President Boeckmann 's final testimony reads as follows: In the discussion when we came to Mr. Ross' name, Mr. Congelos recommended dismissal 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because he felt that Mr. Ross did not have the ability to learn the automobile business suffi- ciently, and properly carry on his duties as an automobile salesman in our establishment. He was backed up in his thinking and his remarks by Joe [Boggio). Joe also felt-in fact voiced the opinion that Mr. Ross required a tremen- dous amount of personal attention. There were similar comments by the other managers who had been familiar with Mr . Ross in the establishment so it was decided to terminate Mr. Ross with all managers in concurrence. When we went to Mr . Steelman , the discussion came up then and I honestly don't recall whether I brought it up initially or Mr. Con- gelos did, but we had been having these com- plaints again about him interfering and usurp- ing the role of the managers in interfering in the business of the salesmen. Mr. Steelman had constantly questioned the manager's position. In other words, anything the manager said was questioned in a very negative way, apparently on the basis that management had made an error or that management was carrying on their functions incorrectly. He was constantly interfering with other salesmen in their duties, complaining to them. He complained, from what was told to me, regarding sales contests; he complained regarding work shifts; he com- plained regarding every aspect of the business that he came into contact with, so the question did come up then as to whether Mr. Steelman should be terminated. The consensus of opinion was .. backed up by many, many managers ... actually it ended with all favoring the dismissal of Mr. Steelman. Respondent's monthly records of sales performance reveal that two more salesmen-Welch (used cars), and Zimmermann (new cars), specifically-showed low sales performance records statistically com- parable with those of Cheney and Williams. Welch, with a 4-month average level of sales considerably below Respondent's presently declared norm, had previously been discharged on November 8 and rehired November 18. The present record, how- ever, gives no indication that the wisdom of his rehire was canvassed during the sales managers' conference now under consideration. Zimmer- mann , with a 2-month record considerably below Respondent's purported standard, likewise does not appear to have been discussed. (3) The discharge of Ross Later on November 20-which happened to be the day when Respondent's used-car department was moved-Ross was summoned to Congelos' of- fice; Castagna was there. Respondent's general sales manager told Ross that his sales production record was low, and that Respondent would have to let him go. The salesman-stating that he was most amazed, and that he did not think he had done too badly-protested Respondent's decision. His testimony, which I credit in this connection, reveals that Castagna thereupon asked him how many sales he (Ross) then had for the current month; Ross ex- pressed the belief that he had "about five or six cars out" for this period. Castagna then asked what Ross had during the previous month. The record shows Ross replying again , that he had sold "about" four or five; his testimony regarding his response, however, may reflect a misunderstanding on his part with respect to the purport of General Counsel's question. (The record does show, other- wise, that Ross' name had previously been "cir- cled" on Castagna's copy of Respondent's October sales summary; he (Ross) had been credited with 10 sales that month. Despite Castagna's conceded program for personally reviewing the performance records of low producers-which he had started two weekends previously-nothing in the present transcript would warrant a determination that Ross had been contacted, or that his October sales record had-before then-been reviewed by Respondent's general sales manager .) Congelos then joined the conversation. He noted, "Well, we need men who can write at least 15 deals a month, and I have no time to help. I have no time to help them." Ross protested that Respondent's used-car department had never reached such a level of sales performance. Their conversation, however, ter- minated with Congelos declaring his readiness to give Ross "one of the best references" and to buy him a drink. (4) The discharge of Steelman Steelman 's record reveals two service periods with Respondent dealership. His first period had run from February 1967 to April 23, 1968; on the latter date-following an argument with Billingsley, then a new-car sales manager-he had been discharged. Steelman 's testimony regarding this ter- mination, which stands in the record without con- tradiction, reads as follows: I had an argument with ... Billingsley ... which had nothing to do with the agency or the business of the agency. He spoke to me in a derogatory manner, in derogatory terms, in a way I didn't like, and I answered him in the same manner . And he said, "get off. You are fired." I said, "You can't fire me." He said, "Yes, I can." GALPIN MOTORS, INC. However, Klindt, then Steelman's direct supervisor, told him to "stick around" and declared that he would straighten out matters. Following a managers' meeting the following Saturday, Billing- sley again told Steelman he was terminated. Some 4 days later, however, Congelos telephoned him, and reported that he could resume work if he first apologized to Billingsley. Steelman thereupon telephoned Respondent's new-car manager at home, said he was sorry, and was told to come back to work. Within a few days, however, Castagna told Steel- man that he was again discharged, because he had been rehired without a prior clearance from Pres- ident Boeckmann, contrary to Respondent's nor- mal practice. On July 10, following a 2-1/2-month break, Boeckmann did rehire Steelman. The present record, with respect to their conversation, reveals little. Steelman's testimony, which I credit, war- rants a determination, merely, that the two men discussed "various things" regarding salesmanship. Inter alia , Boeckmann commented , " It is not what is said. It is who and how you say it." Steelman replied, however, that he did nothing different than others did . Boeckmann first requested Steelman to come back the following day. Then, since their con- versation was being frequently interrupted by vari- ous people who were entering and leaving his of- fice, Respondent's president told Steelman, "Don't take up any more of my time. Go out and see George. Get a schedule and go back to work." When asked whether Boeckmann had further told him to "keep [his] nose clean" Steelman could not recall, but conceded that Respondent's president might have done so. Respondent's move to its new "used car" lot was made on the morning of November 20. Steelman, though scheduled to work a shift beginning at I o'clock that afternoon, voluntarily reported at 9:30 and helped drive cars from the dealership's old lot to the new one. He had not been requested to per- form this service. Later, about 4:30 that afternoon, Castagna and Congelos notified him that he was being discharged. Castagna, so Steelman's testimony shows, proffered Respondent's reason. The salesman's recital in this connection-which I credit-reads as follows: A. He said that he was sorry that he had to let me go, but that-I think the wording was, "I was interfering with management and agita- ting." Q. Did he explain what he meant by inter- fering with management and agitating? A. I asked him and he gave me one instance 461 where I had interfered with another salesman, Glenn Williams, whom I have known for about 12 years, shared the office with. Q. Did he mention anything about going through papers on his desk? A. No. And I said I wasn't surprised, because I felt it was coming, and Congelos said, "You must feel guilty, then." I said, "No, I just felt it. I just know you, and I know George, and the attitude towards me since the union meeting has been altogether different. I just knew something was amiss." Q. (By Mr. Kohn) Did Mr. Castagna ex- plain to you what he meant by agitating? A Only the example of interfering with Glenn Williams about a certain deal was pointed out to me, and I said, "I haven't done anything any different than anybody else," and then the phone rang, and by that time it didn't matter. I just walked out. I went to my office, packed my stuff, and-stayed around and waited for my check. Someone-presumably Respondent 's general sales manager-offered to pay Steelman $25 for his voluntary service that morning, moving Respon- dent's cars. Steelman protested that he had not volunteered for money, but that he had come down because he thought it was the right thing to do. He rejected the proffered payment. c. Subsequent developments On two December weekends , following his November 17 termination, Ruffino picketed Respondent dealership . Subsequently, on December 18, pursuant to Ruffino's request (which Preussner had relayed ), Respondent 's general sales manager met with Ruffino and Preussner for lunch; they gathered at Howard Johnson's restaurant near- by. Castagna , so I find , asked Respondent 's former salesman why he had picketed the dealership; Ruf- fino replied that he had done so to get complainant Union recognized , and to stop Respondent's "wholesale firing" of salesmen because of their union activities . The discharged salesman , further, requested reinstatement for himself , Steelman, and Ross. Castagna replied-so Ruffino credibly testified-that the three salesmen would not be rehired under any circumstances. During their luncheon discussion-so I find- Castagna reiterated his contention that Ruffino had really been discharged for "inadequate follow-up" conjoined with his "attitude" when requested to produce his "follow-up" records. The present trans- cript does contain testimony-which I credit-that Ruffino, when confronted with Castagna's state- ment, conceded, "Well, I know I wasn 't fired for union activity as such." Respondent dealership 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD requests that I consider Ruffino's remark a conces- sion that he, himself, did not really believe his previously expressed union sympathies had played any part with regard to Castagna 's discharge deci- sion. Considered in context, however, the salesman 's remark-within my view-cannot be, reasonably , so construed . ( While a witness, for ex- ample , Salesman Preussner testified-so I note- that he did not, himself , take Ruffino 's remark as calculated to convey the meaning which his words, superficially considered , might suggest.) Ruffino was-so I find-really conceding nothing more than that Castagna had never freely declared himself primarily motivated by statutorily proscribed con- siderations, when reaching his discharge decision- while implicitly contending , further , that Respon- dent 's general sales manager had , rather, proffered pretextual reasons. In this connection , Respondent 's counsel would have me find , further, that a signed statement, which Ruffino gave a Board representative , reflects a concession that Castagna had really discharged him merely for his failure to produce "follow-up" data. With due regard for the present record, how- ever, this trier of fact remains satisfied that Respon- dent 's former salesman-when he gave his signed statement-was merely describing therein a prior conversation , during which he had concededly re- ported to a fellow salesman , Preussner, Castagna's proffered justification for discharging him. I find nothing , within the total context of Ruffino 's state- ment, sufficient to warrant a conclusion, that- when he merely reported his prior conversational reference to Castagna 's claimed justification-he was further conceding that justification's validity. The present record-regarding Ruffino's December 18 luncheon conversation-reveals con- siderable additional diversity . On balance-having considered Ruffino 's and Castagna 's witness chair demeanor, together with their testimony 's logical consistency or lack thereof-this trier of fact is per- suaded , however , that Ruffino 's testimony , regard- ing the balance of their talk , merits credence. Thus, I find that , within a context of discussion regarding both complainant Union 's campaign and work with other dealerships, Respondent 's general sales manager did warn Ruffino to take care , thereafter, since he could easily be "blackballed " because of his union connection ; that Castagna claimed Respondent had forestalled a previous union cam- paign and would similarly stop the current try; that he told Ruffino his recently filed unfair labor prac- tice charge would not be found meritorious ; that he said there was "no way" through which complai- nant Union could win representative status at Respondent dealership ; and that, should Ruffino, Ross, and Steelman win reinstatement , he would make things so "tough " for them that they would be unable to breathe . Castagna 's divergent testimony-so far as it may reflect some specific or implied denials regarding these matters -must be rejected . ( During his direct testimony , I note, Castagna first conceded he could not recall exactly how their luncheon conversation started Then, having recalled the discussion regarding Ruffino's picketing , he confessed some initial confusion re- garding their conversation 's subsequent course. He conceded , further, that he could not remember, fully, their discussion regarding Ruffino 's discharge. When asked whether Ruffino had requested rein- statement , Castagna first testified that he had not done so directly ; then he declared that Ruffino had requested his job back , but that he had been told there was "no way" this could be done , since things had gone too far. Castagna proffered no more than a single flat denial ; he denied that Ruffino had been told he would be blackballed. During cross-ex- amination-so the record shows-Castagna first conceded that Ruffino had mentioned his pending unfair labor charge; he (Castagna ) could not, how- ever, recall promptly his comments with respect thereto. Finally, he conceded that - following Ruf- fino's reference to his possible reinstatement-he (Castagna ) had said that if Ruffino came back to work , he would quit.) The testimony proffered by Respondent's general sales manager does purport to reflect his variant recollection that Ruffino had praised complainant Union's campaign , and that he had described his role therein with a crusader's zeal. Such proffered recollections , however, cannot really be considered contradictory , when compared with Ruffino's testimony . I find , therefore , that-re- gardless of what Ruffino may have said in this con- nection-his direct witness chair recollections, previously summarized , have not been rebutted and deserve acceptance. The luncheon conference which we have con- sidered, clearly, produced no changes in position. So far as the record shows , Ruffino has had no per- sonal contact with Respondent 's present manage- ment personnel, since that luncheon 's date. C. Review and Conclusions 1. Interference , restraint, and coercion Within General Counsel 's complaint , Respondent stands charged with statutorily proscribed inter- ference , restraint, and coercion , beginning in June 1968 and continuing to date . Despite Respondent's general and specific denials, these charges have been-within my view-largely substantiated. GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 463 General Counsel charges that, during the latter part of June 1968, New-Car Sales Manager Billing- sley threatened Ruffino with possible discharge should the latter persist in promoting Respondent's unionization. I have herein found, previously, that no specific threat of possible discharge was made. Upon testimony which Billingsley himself provided, however, there can be no doubt that his remarks were reasonably calculated to convey a suggestion that Ruffino's union sympathies were known, and that he would be well advised to confine his sales floor activity to selling automobiles. Billingsley's communication, then, must be considered reasonably sufficient to have generated, within Ruf- fino's mind, the belief that his union activities had been kept under surveillance, together with a belief that their continuation might generate some possi- ble managerial reprisal. Within this case's total con- text, conversational comments calculated to generate such beliefs clearly merit statutory proscription. On November 8, when complainant Union's plan for a second citywide salesmen's meeting first became known to Respondent's managerial person- nel, Ruffino was favored with several comments calculated to reveal Respondent's wariness and possible displeasure. Used-Car Sales Manager Con- gelos-so I have found-twice proffered remarks which, despite their purported declaratory form, were clearly designed to solicit responses which might be revelatory of Ruffino's union sympathies. Thereby, Respondent 's sales manager was, so I find, questioning Ruffino obliquely, perhaps, but not very subtly. Further, his bluff, heavy-handed banter was, so I find, reasonably calculated to convey a suggestion that Ruffino's union sympathies were really known. Sanitary Bag and Burlap Company, Inc., 162 NLRB 1648, 1650. In short, Congelos' re- marks were calculated to convey a statutorily proscribed "impression" that Ruffino's union ac- tivities had been under managerial surveillance. General Sales Manager Castagna , likewise- within my view-participated in statutorily forbid- den interference , restraint, and coercion. During a conversation with Ruffino devoted to business mat- ters, previously noted, Castagna declared- somewhat less than directly, perhaps, but neverthe- less clearly-that unionized members of Respon- dent's sales force would be held to high standards of quality performance. Arkansas Grain Corpora- tion , 166 NLRB 111; Hy Plains Dressed Beef, Inc., 146 NLRB 1253, 1262. Later that day, Ruffino was further told-so I have found-that he would be well advised to keep quiet regarding his union sym- pathies; Castagna's last-mentioned remark clearly constituted a not-so-subtle threat that continued solicitation in complainant Union's behalf might subject him (Ruffino) to possible reprisal. Cf. Kawneer Company, 164 NLRB 983, 985. 1 so find. On November 13, the date of complainant Union's scheduled meeting, Congelos queried Ross directly regarding his plans to attend. M. & B. Headwear Co., Inc., 146 NLRB 1634, 1640-41. Later, so the record shows, Respondent's used-car manager cynically directed Steelman to publicize a proposed salesmen's meeting, deliberately timed to conflict with complainant Union's scheduled city- wide gathering. Congelos' testimony would probably warrant a determination that his pronouncement regarding the projected meeting had really been made facetiously. This was not, however, made clear; Congelos, when asked whether he was "kidding" regarding the matter, had declared, forthrightly, that he was serious. With due regard for firmly fixed precedents-too nu- merous to cite-there can be no doubt that Respondent's used-car manager, thereby, did sig- nificantly interfere with, restrain, and coerce Respondent's salesmen with respect to their exer- cise of rights statutorily guaranteed. The present record will likewise support a factual determination-which I have made-that, during complainant Union's November 13 meeting, Salesman Schnoeblen was seen taking notes. Then, early the following morning he was seen conversing with Congelos and Castagna. Later that day, for a brief period, Congelos wore a union button which Schnoeblen had, concededly, provided. Such conge- ries of circumstance might well generate a suspi- cion that Respondent's management had either sponsored or welcomed the fruits of surveillance, so far as complainant Union's meeting was concerned. General Counsel, however, currently makes no such contention. Nor would a factual determination with respect to surveillance be warranted, within my view. Schnoeblen's conduct may well have been suspicious. But General Counsel's testimonial presentation with respect thereto will not-so I find-support a definitive determination that statu- torily protected conduct by Respondent's salesmen was really subjected to surveillance. There can be no doubt, however, that Used-Car Manager Congelos, particularly, did subsequently participate in conversations calculated to generate an impression that such surveillance had taken place. For example: Following Respondent's November 14 sales meeting, Congelos revealed his knowledge-during a conversation with Steelman particularly-that five of "his" men had attended complainant Union's meeting. Cf. Red & White Super Markets, 172 NLRB 1841. Further, Ruffino was told that Congelos had "heard" he was a union 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD officer. (Such was not, of course , the case.) While wearing Schnoeblen 's union button , Respondent's used-car manager queried Ross with respect to where his button was and then proffered a gibe re- garding Ross ' committee nomination . Finally, dur- ing a subsequent social "gathering" with Respon- dent's management personnel and several salesmen present, Congelos repeated the names of various salesmen who had attended complainant Union's meeting. These comments , considered in totality, were-so I find-clearly calculated to convey Respondent's sense of concern regarding complai- nant Union 's campaign , together with manage- ment's possession of data , relative to the participa- tion therein of Respondent's salesmen , necessarily derived through questioning or surveillance. On November 18, during Respondent 's regularly scheduled sales meeting following Ruffino's discharge, General Sales Manager Castagna warned his subordinates that, should they wish to become "union" men, they had better " get on the ball" and behave like professionals. Since this comment was made following his reference to Ruffino 's dismis- sal-purportedly for the latter's failure to maintain "follow-up" records-the dealership 's salesmen were, realistically , put on notice thereby that management 's prior lectures regarding the desira- bility of such records would be complemented, thenceforth , by definite requirements with respect to their maintenance . See Dale Industries, 145 NLRB 1050 , 1056. Substantially , Respondent's salesmen were being told that compliance with stricter standards would be expected of them now that complainant Union 's campaign had touched Respondent dealership. (General Counsel would, further, have me find President Boeckmann's disparagement of Ross as complainant Union's possible contract negotiator-during the November social gathering previously mentioned-likewise violative of Section 8 ( a)(1); the suggestion, how- ever , must be rejected . Boeckmann 's rhetorical question in this regard , though clearly calculated to disparage Ross ' capacity should he be required to function as complainant Union 's spokesman, con- stituted-within my view-nothing more than a statutorily permissible view, argument, or opinion. Should a contrary determination be deemed war- ranted , President Boeckmann 's comment could hardly be considered deserving of this Board 's stric- ture . Within its context , it was not-within my view-a significant manifestation of Respondent's position.) Finally, Castagna's December 18 luncheon comments-that Ruffino might be "blackballed" should he continue proselytizing in complainant Union's behalf, and that Respondent's three dischargees would find their working condi- tions with Respondent dealership burdensome should this Board direct their reinstatement- clearly constituted threats reasonably calculated to interfere with, restrain , and coerce Ruffino and Price , his listeners ; I so find. 2. Discriminatory discharges a. Preliminary considerations The record herein-with respect to manage- ment 's discharge decisions affecting Ruffino, Ross, and Steelman , particularly-primarily presents several related questions of motivation . These must be considered close questions; their closeness ac- counts, largely, for the length at which the relevant testimony has been reviewed . On the one hand, despite Respondent 's citation of some superficially plausible reason for each challenged termination, management's several discharge decisions cannot, really , be readily reconciled with genuine business- grounded motives. But, on the other hand , General Counsel 's present contention, that Respondent's course of conduct was motivated "in significant part" by statutorily proscribed considerations, derives, primarily , not from direct testimony but from collateral circumstances , which he proffers as sufficient to warrant a Board determination that Respondent management 's cited reasons for these discharges were pretextual. This Board has never-so far as I know-chal- lenged the decisional truism that , union considera- tions aside, "management can discharge for good cause , or bad cause , or no cause at all" without violating the statute . N.L.R.B. v. T. A. McGahey, d/b/a Columbus Marble Works, 233 F.2d 406, 413 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 322 F.2d 913, 922 (C.A. 9). This pronouncement by Judge Brown , however, cannot reasonably be considered a suggestion that the quality of manage- ment's proffered reason for a discharge has no evidentiary significance, whenever a respondent employer 's "real " motivation for such action must be determined . Of course , when-with respect to some workers-conduct reasonably sufficient to warrant disciplinary reaction has been shown, the nature or severity of that reaction normally lies within his or her employer 's discretion ; motivation statutorily proscribed cannot be deduced from disciplinary reactions merely because this Board might deem them unreasonably severe . Thus, triers of fact, shortly , cannot proceed with a cavalier deduction that-whenever the employer's discipli- nary reaction has been one which the factfinder would not have matched under comparable circum- stances-the proffered reasons for such a reaction cannot have been "true" reasons; nor will it neces- GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 465 sarily follow that such true reasons must lie, there- fore, in whatever management union animus the record may circumstantially reveal. This Board has long recognized, however-with judicial concurrence-that where challenged, discipline reflects a reaction wholly dispropor- tionate to some concerned worker 's offense, under particular circumstances, this factor may be taken into account when determining his employer's motivation . In short, when a challenged discharge cannot be rationally and fully explained on the basis of some genuine business-grounded motive, the real reason for such a tei urination may properly be found in relevant testimony which may ra- tionally explain the employer's conduct. For the truism , previously noted , that management can discharge for a bad cause or no cause at all, may reasonably be considered matched by the "normal presumption" that people, when conducting their business affairs, proceed pursuant to rational mo- tives. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 123 NLRB 1236, 1264. Cf. Mike Persia Chevolet Corporation of Houston, 134 NLRB 1402, 1411. Within the case last cited, Trial Examiner Somers notes, with Board approval, that: The fact that the cause assigned is "bad" or even that there is no cause does not establish that the cause was one which the statute for- bids. If there is independent evidence to war- rant the inference that the motive was to ad- vance or discourage union activity, then the matter of whether the cause assigned is "good" or "bad" is not an ultimate subject of inquiry, but merely an evidentiary item bearing on the weight of the evidence advanced by the em- ployer to offset such inference. This is so because normally where the reason assigned is "not one for which discharges were ordinarily made" (N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., 161 F.2d 798, 801)(C.A. 5), the testimony that that was the real cause does not carry the kind of persuasion to offset an in- ference of a discriminatory motive, flowing from other evidence, which a "good" cause would carry. Ibid. See also N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Tile Manufacturing Co., 282 F.2d 90, 92(C.A. 5). So the nature of the cause assigned is but an evidentiary factor bearing on the probability of whether it is the real cause. And the fact of the cause being "good" or "bad" or even that there was no cause is not absolute in its legal consequences: despite the normal improbability of a "bad" cause being a real one, nevertheless if the evidence that it is the real cause, how- ever "bad," carries sufficient persuasion in the particular instance to offset the inference of discriminatory motivation flowing from other evidence, the employer must be exonerated. Conversely, a "good" cause, while starting with the advantage of its probability as the real cause may retain or lose its weight on that score, depending upon whether the assertion that it was the real cause is or is not con- tradicted or impeached by other evidence. Substantially , therefore , triers of fact-with respect to these cases-must appraise two record presenta- tions proffered in collision with each other. And when strong evidence of statutorily proscribed motivation must be balanced against "business mo- tive" testimony really too weak to be persuasive of genuineness, such a record preponderance would normally warrant a determination that antiunion considerations provided the employer's "real" cause. Even slight evidence , however, calculated to suggest antiunion motivation-when balanced against some proffered business reason determined to be totally irrational or incredible within its con- text-can still be considered sufficiently weighty to warrant the conclusion that a respondent em- ployer 's discharge decisions derive from antiunion motives. The record, however, sometimes can be equally balanced. Casa Grande Cotton Oil Mill, supra. Then, determination would clearly be required that General Counsel's burden of proof has not been satisfied, and the respondent em- ployer's exoneration would necessarily follow. With these considerations in mind, General Counsel's proffered prima facie case must be reviewed, together with Respondent's counter presentation calculated to support its claim that Ruffino, Ross, and Steelman were terminated for reasons bottomed upon "business judgment" solely, because of their respective "attitudes" coupled with violations of company policy and company work rules. b. General statement Presumably, Respondent will not dispute General Counsel's contention that its management repre- sentatives knew Ruffino, Ross, and Steelman as union supporters; no contrary position has been taken in Respondent's responsive pleading or brief. Previously, within this decision, I -have found that Ruffino's union sympathies were known to Billing- sley-then a new-car sales manager-by mid-June 1968 specifically. Subsequently, so the record shows, Respondent's management "team" learned that he and Ross had been nominated for union committee posts. Concurrently, Steelman's view re- garding complainant Union's campaign became man- ifest when - so General Counsel notes - he "stood up" for his fellow salesmen and their right to attend complainant Union's November 13 meeting. 466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All three men-Ruffino, Ross, and Steelman-were thereafter present at that meeting, when, as previ- ously noted, Ruffino and Ross nominated each other for committee positions. Respondent's management , particularly Castagna and Used-Car Manager Congelos, learned quickly that these salesmen, among others, had attended complainant Union's meeting; clearly, likewise, they learned- from a source or sources which the record suggests but does not definitively reveal-what had taken place there. All three salesmen were discharged, so the record shows, within a week after complainant Union's meeting, though Respondent, concededly, was then contemplating the expansion of its sales force. With matters in this posture, General Coun- sel suggests, with his brief, that: These circumstances, viewed in the light of Respondent 's demonstrated union animus, marked by conduct which indicated [its willingness ] to overstep the bounds of lawful opposition to keep the Union out, established prima facie that the discharge of Ruffino, Ross, and Steelman was motivated in significant part by Respondent's anti-union animus. Dispassionately considered, however, these conten- tions-within my view-reflect overstatement. For example , Respondent 's president , so far as this record shows, never did declare a forthright opposi- tion with respect to complainant Union's citywide campaign. When that campaign subsequently touched Respondent's sales force, Boeckmann merely expressed concern. True, Castagna and Congelos did, clearly, react negatively; previously, within this Decision, certain of their reactive com- ments have been found reasonably calculated to restrain and coerce Respondent's personnel, with respect to their exercise of rights statutorily guaran- teed. However, their conduct-though herein found violative of law-hardly demonstrated a strong, pervasive animus focused on particular union sup- porters within Respondent's sales force. General Counsel's case with respect to these challenged discharges, must-therefore-rest upon proof that management's several "reasonable" justifications cannot really be sustained. c. The discharge of Ruffino Castagna's testimony-previously summarized herein-substantially reflects Respondent's present contention that Ruffino was discharged for "follow- up [failure to produce records when requested] and insubordination" which were the reasons purpor- tedly given when he was terminated. However, with due regard for the record, considered in totality, this trier of fact is persuaded that Respondent's proffered dual justification "fails to stand under scrutiny" when closely reviewed. N.L.R.B. v. Thomas W. Dant, d/b/a Dant & Russell, Ltd., 207 F.2d 165, 167 (C.A. 9). Several bases for this con- clusion may be mentioned: 1. 1 have noted, first, that Castagna did not com- mence his very first systematic review, with respect to whatever follow-up records Respondent's salesmen maintained , until the November 9-10 weekend which directly followed complainant Union's published notice that its citywide campaign was being reactivated. The general sales manager's program, further, was pursued with but a limited number of salesmen, purportedly Respondent's poorest producers during the previous calendar month. Within this limited group, he concededly checked one man's records twice, though no grounds for criticism had been developed during his first review. (Castagna, had he really considered proper well-maintained "follow-up" records a genuine sine qua non for productive salesmanship during a purportedly slow period, could con- ceivably have requested his subordinates within Respondent 's management " team" to commence a supportive full-scale review, calculated to check the records maintained throughout Respondent's new- car sales force . He testified that his subordinate managers did have some "system" for checking such matters. No such full-scale review seems to have been tried, however. The present record gives no indication whatsoever that Respondent's purpor- tedly heightened concern with "follow-up" record practices was mentioned during general sales meetings, before Ruffino's termination; nor does it suggest that salesmen considered average producers were even reminded of Respondent's position re- garding the desirability of proper records.) Respon- dent's defensive presentation suggests a contention that-despite its timing-Castagna's review pro- gram was undertaken solely because President Boeckmann had declared himself concerned over supposedly poor October sales. The contention, however, lacks significant record support. Summary dealership sales records-which have been produced for June, July, September, and October, particularly-reveal a substantial growth in Respon- dent's sales during the latter month. (For some reason, never stated for the record, Respondent's August sales summary has not been produced or mentioned; thus, no comparisons between that month and the several months which preceded and followed August have been possible.) Respondent's October business produced the highest gross profit ($152,997) for the 4 months noted; the figure cited reflects a particularly signifi- GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 467 cant increase when compared with September's gross profit result. Total car sales for October (447) reveal, consistently, that 108 more cars were sold than during September. With three more salesmen working, for a full or partial month, the average number of cars sold-per man-jumped from 11.31 to 13.54 during the 2-month period in question. Concurrently, Respondent's monthly average gross profit, per salesman, rose from $3,378.86 to $4,636.27, while Respondent's sales staff was being expanded. (The record herein reflects Respondent's reliance on a sales productivi- ty formula pursuant to which salesmen were nor- mally expected to sell 15 or more cars per month, while those who sold 12 or fewer were considered poor producers. During October 1968, no more than 13 of Respondent's 33 salesmen sold 15 or more cars. Out of 20 other salesmen, 15 sold 12 or fewer cars; 10 of these men had worked the full month. This record, however, was significantly better than September's; during that month, only 9 salesmen out of 30 had sold 15 or more cars, while 18 of 30 salesmen had sold fewer than 12 cars. Of the 18 salesmen last mentioned, 14 had worked the full month.) With matters in this posture, Castag- na's testimony that President Boeckmann was par- ticularly perturbed regarding Respondent's sup- posedly "poor" October sales record fails to per- suade. Necessarily, too, Respondent's contention that President Boeckmann's concern provided the sole motivation for his direction to Respondent's general sales manager-regarding a crash program of supervisory review, calculated to stimulate the firm's least productive salesmen-falls for lack of record support. 2. With respect to Ruffino, particularly, Respon- dent's summary records do reflect a significant Oc- tober drop in sales production. Having sold 18-1/2 cars during July, plus 17-1/2 cars during Sep- tember, Ruffino sold only 7 during the following month. However, his credible testimony-which Respondent's general sales manager cor- roborated-reveals that Castagna, throughout this period, maintained a wall chart within his office, whereon each salesman's sales record for the cur- rent month was recorded, with daily modifications. Castagna, therefore, must have known- during Oc- tober particularly -that Ruffino was doing poorly, despite Respondent's generally better overall sales record. (During the month in question, Ruffino finally ranked 25th among Respondent's 33 salesmen, both with respect to cars sold and total gross profit produced. His record in these respects did reflect a significant drop in productivity, com- pared with his July-September results.) Though Castagna, concededly, did speak to Ruffino regard- ing his sales slump during October, he did not, so far as the record shows, concurrently question Ruf- fino's practice with respect to maintaining "follow- up" records and prospect files. Nor does the record show that the salesman was then questioned or chided regarding his conceivable failure to utilize such sales tools properly. (Respondent's general sales manager testified that he had checked the "follow-up" records of some salesmen-those who were not doing "real good" work-during Sep- tember and October. He could recall only one salesman checked, however; Ruffino's name was not mentioned.) Castagna's failure to pursue these matters-dur- ing the very month when Ruffino's lower sales were purportedly a subject of discussion -provides rather cogent support for General Counsel's contention that Respondent's claimed November concern, re- garding his presumptive failure to maintain such records properly, should be considered, really, con- trived. 3. Respondent 's general sales manager-so the record shows-had known Ruffino for a number of years. Castagna had, particularly, hired Ruffino for sales work, while he (Castagna) was assistant general manager for another Ford dealer. The present record, therefore, warrants a deter- mination-within my view-that he (Castagna) must have been familiar, generally, with Ruffino's sales technique; I consider it more than likely that Castagna really was-throughout the period with which this case is concerned-fully congnizant that Ruffino might not be maintaining well-organized "follow-up" records. (Respondent's general sales manager testified that-when he hired Ruffino for Respondent's sales force-reference was made to the fact that he (Ruffino) had previously worked for a dealership which had permitted salesmen to follow a so-called "hit or miss" policy, with respect to maintaining follow-up records. Castagna recalled that he had, therefore, considered it necessary to tell Ruffino he would not be able to "live" while in Respondent's hire without good "follow-up" prac- tices.) I conclude, therefore, that-when Respon- dent's general sales manager finally did request Ruffino to produce such records-he must have known, or had some reasonable ground for belief at least, that nothing more than some scanty notes would probably be produced. Having so concluded, I find, further, that Castagna's demand for Ruffino's records really reflected a calculated ploy, bottomed on his reasonable ground for belief that such a request could not be fully satisfied. 4. My conclusion, previously noted, that Castag- na's November 17 request for Ruffino's records and prospect file really reflected a search for some pre- 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 31 468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sumptively ready pretext, calculated to justify the salesman 's termination, finds further support in Ruffino's testimony, which I credit, that his records had never previously been reviewed. The salesman, while a witness, did concede that-when first hired-he had been told by Billingsley what Respondent desired regarding "follow-up" record maintenance. I am satisfied, however, that Billing- sley did not, then or later, prescribe any specific forms which he should complete; nor did he define the data which Ruffino's prospect files should con- tain. (While a witness, New-Car Sales Manager Johnson testified that Ruffino's follow-up records had been checked three times and found in- adequate. This, Ruffino denied. Regarding this con- flict, I note, first, that Respondent's general sales manager had previously testified that Johnson had reported Ruffino as lackadaisical and had recom- mended his discharge. Johnson, however, testifying directly thereafter, declared that his findings rela- tive to Ruffino's work had not been reported to Castagna; he mentioned no discharge recommenda- tion. With Respondent's witnesses testifying incon- sistently, this trier of fact can only conclude that neither Castagna nor Johnson deserves credence in this connection. Ruffino's denial has been credited.) In June 1968, when he sold 10 cars, Ruf- fino was-so the records shows-serving in Respon- dent's used-car department; there, Respondent's management did not promote or suggest "follow- up" record maintenance. When he was transferred back to new-car sales, his July-September produc- tivity was better than average; for both July and September his total monthly car sales placed him 7th in productivity, within Respondent's 29- to-30 man sales force. Since Respondent's management "team" witnesses testified that they customarily reviewed sales technique and "follow-up" records only with salesmen in difficulty, Ruffino's testimony that his records were not checked during this period-within my view-rings true. 5. When Ruffino was requested to produce "fol- low-up" records, his November sales-so he testified-had reached 11-1 /2 cars; Respondent's management has not challenged the salesman's testimony in this connection. His November record, therefore, had significantly bettered his October showing, giving promise that he would, thereafter, reach or surpass Respondent's monthly norm. And, since Castagna's current monthly wall chart would concedely have revealed Ruffino's up-to-date sales record, Respondent's general sales manager must have known that his (Ruffino's) October slump had not continued; I so find. Nevertheless-when the salesman , during their final conversation, men- tioned his current sales record-Castagna declared that Ruffino's improved productivity would not af- fect his discharge decision. Such firmness of pur- pose, within this case's circumstantial context, per- suasively suggests-within my view-the presence of some motivation separate and apart from Ruf- fino's purported deficiencies. (The record shows that Respondent's general sales manager sub- sequently prefaced a statement regarding Ruffino's termination with "You wouldn't believe, but ...." This, within my view, will support the determina- tion-which I make-that Castagna knew Respon- dent's sales force would not credit any company contention that a salesman's lack of comprehensive "follow-up" records constituted "good cause" for discharge.) Castagna, certainly, did not consider his salesmen's maintenance of proper, well-kept "fol- low-up" records an end in itself; Respondent's management-so the record shows-regarded such records merely as tools which salesmen would be most likely to find helpful. (For example: While a witness, President Boeckmann conceded that "If the salesman is doing a top job he has to be using his follow-up and prospect records." He declared himself concerned about salesmen who were not doing top jobs.) With respect to salesmen showing creditable performance, therefore, Respondent's management would, upon its own showing, lack any pressing reason for reviewing sales techniques, prospect files, or similar collateral matters. And Ruffino, despite his poor October sales, was build- ing a creditable November record. Dispassionately viewed, therefore, Castagna's claimed determina- tion that he merited discharge, not for poor sales, but, inter alia, because he was presumably lax in maintaining a potentially useful trade tool while his sales productivity was improving, lacks rational justification. 6. There remains, for consideration, Castagna's claims that Ruffino was insubordinate. Previously, within this Decision, that claim has been rejected. Nevertheless, conceding, arguendo, that Ruffino may have been flippant, or that he may have been presuming upon his long friendship with Respon- dent's general sales manager, I am satisfied, further, that Castagna overreacted, and that his decision to respond with rigor derived-partially at least-from nonbusiness considerations. With matters in this posture, the applicable rule for decision has been stated many times. See N.L.R.B. v. Park Edge Sheridan Meats, Inc., 341 F.2d 725, 728 (C.A. 2), within which the court declared: The rule of law applicable in a case like this requires a delicate factual determination. "If employees are discharged partly because of their participation in a campaign to establish a GALPIN MOTORS, INC. union and partly because of some neglect or delinquency, there is nonetheless a violation of the National Labor Relations Act ...." N.L.R.B. v. Jamestown Sterling Corp., 211 F.2d 725, 726 (2 Cir. 1954); N.L.R.B. v. Great Eastern Color Lithographic Corp., 309 F.2d 352, 355 (2 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 950 ... (1963). On the other hand, if an em- ployee is discharged for neglect or delinquen- cy, there is no violation simply because he was engaged in organizing and the employer sheds no tears at his loss. N.L.R.B. v. Birmingham Publishing Co., 262 F.2d 2, 9 (5 Cir. 1958); Ore-Ida Potato Prods., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 284 F.2d 542, 545-546 (9 Cir. 1960); Local 357, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 365 U.S. 667, 679-680 ... (1961 )(concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan). Reconciliation of these two principles has its difficulties, especially in cases where the discharge was placed on a per- missible ground and the employee's conduct, while a sufficient ground for discharge, was not so egregious as to demand it. The General Counsel can win by proving that other em- ployees who committed similar acts but were not known to be engaged in union activity were not discharged, and he will normally lose if the employer can establish a record of discharges for similar conduct. See Tompkins Motor Lines, Inc. v. N.L R.B., 337 F.2d 325, 330 (6 Cir. 1964). In the many cases where no such proof is tendered, the General Counsel must at least provide a reasonable basis for in- ferring that the permissible ground alone would not have lead to the discharge, so that it was partially motivated by an impermissible one. Upon the present record, I am satisfied that General Counsel has, herein, provided a reasonable basis for concluding that-had Ruffino not become known to Respondent's management as a supporter of complainant Union's reactivated citywide cam- paign-he would not have been discharged. The validity of that conclusion has not, within my view, been vitiated by Respondent's defensive presenta- tion. My conclusion derives, partially, from Respondent's failure to present a consistent, ra- tionally persuasive justification for its contention that Ruffino's "neglect or delinquency" was serious or flagrant. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Co., 322 F.2d 187, fn. 2 at pp. 189-190 (C.A. 5). Further, however, reliance is placed on Castagna's candid concession, when Ruffino was discharged, that the latter's union activities were "partly" responsible for his termination. Cf. G. K. Chevrolet, Inc., 176 NLRB 415, 420. 1 find significant, 469 likewise, the general sales manager 's subsequent comment that Respondent's salesmen , should they choose to become " union " men, would have to behave like professionals. Thereby, Castagna clearly linked Respondent's determination to set new, definitively higher, standards of job per- formance-enforceable through discharge, should such action prove necessary-with a negative reac- tion to complainant Union's campaign. (Well-set- tled decisonal doctrine teaches that "anti-union bias and demonstrated unlawful hostility are proper and highly significant factors for Board evaluation in determining motive" with respect to challenged discharges. Compare N.L.R.B. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 274 F.2d 381, 384 (C.A. 5); accord: N.L.R.B. v. Lone Star Textiles, Inc., 386 F.2d 535, 536 (C.A. 5), in this connection.) When statutorily proscribed reasons for discharge, like those revealed within the present record, constitute a parallel or concurrent motivation for challenged conduct, which cannot be disentangled from so-called business reasons or separately weighed, discrimination to discourage union membership, within the meaning of the statute, has been shown. d. The discharge of Ross When discharged , Ross was told by Respondent's general sales manager that his "low production sales record" had motivated management 's deci- sion . Before me, however , Respondent 's position has been stated somewhat differently . Within his brief, Respondent 's counsel now contends that Ross was terminated because Respondent 's management team had concluded that his performance had demonstrated his lack of ability to become a suc- cessful salesman , though he had been given re- peated chances. The dealership 's contention has been put more concretely in General Counsel's brief: The thrust of Respondent 's defense as to the termination of Ross is that he was an absolute- ly incompetent salesman from the very beginning, who never improved and who required constant assistance in the closing of deals. Within my view, however , Respondent 's present defense-thus understood-lacks persuasive record support. The firm 's testimonial and documentary presentation , rather, provides ample justification for a determination that General Counsel's prima facie case-regarding management 's statutorily proscribed motive for Ross' termination -has not been overcome. First : The present record does not persuasively 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD establish Respondent's claim that Ross had a poor sales record. It reveals-contrariwise-that he con- sistently maintained a reasonably high "gross profit average" per transaction, and that he was never Respondent's poorest producer with respect to number of cars sold . During June 1968, he ranked seventh within Respondent's 28-man sales force, with respect to total monthly gross profit; he ranked 1 1 th with respect to total car sales. Of Respondent 's eight used-car salesmen , particularly, three sold fewer vehicles than Ross; his June gross profit "average" per sale was higher than six other used-car salesmen produced, while it matched that produced by one colleague. During July, when Respondent had nine used-car salesmen, four sold fewer cars that Ross; his gross profit "average" per sale was greater than five other used-car salesmen could show. With respect to total monthly gross profit, Ross ranked ninth within Respondent's 29- man crew; he ranked ninth in total car sales. During September, 4 of 10 salesmen working in Respon- dent's used-car department sold fewer vehicles than Ross; his gross profit average for the month, how- ever, bettered the figures shown for 8 fellow used- car salesmen. During October, his last full month, 3 of Respondent's 10 used-car salesmen sold fewer vehicles; Ross' gross profit average for the month in question exceeded that of 7 colleagues. While a witness, Used-Car Manager Congelos did concede-at one point-that gross profit was "the name of the game" for motor car dealerships. And President Boeckmann, likewise, characterized "profits" per transaction as one factor in measur- ing a salesman's ability. Ross' record - measured by this standard-clearly reveals his capacity to produce sales numbered within a presumptively "average" range, so far as Respondent's used-car department was concerned. Concurrently, his gross profit "averages" per month placed him within a median range or better. When Congelos was asked whether he had ever complimented Ross regarding his gross profit average per sale, he conceded that he might have done so. Further, Ross was never told-so I find-that his sales production was con- sidered dangerously low. Thus, Respondent can hardly now contend, persuasively, that Ross' mea- sured productivity, when compared with the productivity of fellow used-car salesmen, was so noticeably low as to justify discharge. Second: Respondent's related contention that- despite his record-Ross completely lacked com- petence; that he derived no benefit whatsoever from supervision or management's frequent training meetings; and that he could not consummate sales without managerial help, likewise simply fails to persuade. The record, considered in totality, sug- gest-rather-that Respondent's present position regarding the salesman 's claimed lack of com- petence reflects nothing more than a self-serving rationalization. In this connection , Congelos, testi- fying with regard to his claim that he was routinely required to help Ross in "closing" prospective sales, was questioned and responded as follows: Q. (Mr. Fredericks) Your purpose in help- ing him was to make the sale, I presume? A. It was. Q. Could he close them himself? A. No, sir, he could not .... He just didn't know how .... He didn't know what it was all about. He just didn't know how to make a sale. TRIAL EXAMINER: Now, Mr. Congelos, I thought I knew what you were driving at; now I am in the dark again. Do you mean that Mr. Ross simply didn't know what matters to discuss with the customers; he didn't know that he had to cover points A, B, and C in order to fill out the proper proposal form? THE WITNESS: Correct .... TRIAL EXAMINER: Now I will come back again . Do you mean that Mr. Ross simply didn't know what the figures were, didn't know the steps to follow-or that he couldn't do it artfully or persuasively? THE WITNESS: He just didn't know how to do it .... We mark our cars out there with prices that we expect to get. He will approach a customer and he will say this car is selling for 2995. He will bring the customer into the of- fice. If the customer said yes, he would buy it, he didn't know where to go from there. He would call the manager in and say this is the car he wants, this is what he wants to pay, what do I do now? Previously, within this Decision, reference has been made to Congelos' hearty, aggressive manner; his witness chair demeanor clearly revealed a gift for salemanship. Regarding his claim that Ross lacked competence, however, this trier of fact has been oversold. Congelos' contention, now, that Ross did nothing more than greet prospects, without himself even trying to consummate sales, simply strains credulity. In this connection, Respondent's used-car manager, for example, suggested that Ross had monopolized his supervisors' time by continuously requesting help. But Congelos, Johnson, and Billingsley testified that they frequently helped other salesmen who were "closing" deals. Further, Con- gelos' concession that he "may have" compli- mented Ross, regarding his gross profit average record, certainly cannot be reconciled, reasonably, with his presently professed belief that he (Con- gelos) was-throughout Ross' period of employ- GALPIN MOTORS, INC. ment-primarily responsible for closing the latter's sales. While a witness, President Boeckmann testified that Respondent 's management team reviewed the sales performance of various salesmen during every weekly management meeting ; further he testified that sales performances were reviewed daily by Respondent 's several managers . Nevertheless, Respondent 's president could not recall whether Ross' competence or performance had been con- sidered at any management meeting before November 20, when a decision was reached regard- ing his termination . And nothing within the present record , indeed , would really warrant a conclusion that Ross' record was , thus, reviewed . ( Signifi- cantly , 1 week before complainant Union's November 13 meeting-when Respondent's management was considering office space assign- ments for various used -car salesmen within the new, enlarged facility which Respondent was preparing to open-Ross was given an office assign- ment . Respondent's conduct hardly suggests that his competence was, then , held in question or that his termination , for any reason , was then being con- sidered .) Rather, the record suggests that-before November 20 specifically- Respondent 's manage- ment was not culling its sales roster to get rid of poor producers ; their removal was being left to nor- mal attrition through "turnover" resignations, sole- ly. During this period , further, Respondent's management was soliciting its salesmen to prose- lytize and refer qualified applicants for sales work; clearly, Respondent was planning a staff expansion, rather than a deliberate reduction in force. Respondent has proffered considerable testimony concerning the November 20 managers ' meeting, during which Ross' termination was decided. Con- sidered closely, however, the firm 's presentation suggests, within my view , that management's deci- sion-with respect to Ross particularly-did not derive from a planned, deliberate, or routine review of Respondent's sales roster. Neither Boeckmann, Castagna, nor Congelos seems to have been prepared beforehand to discuss Ross' record. Thus, Boeckmann conceded that his managers did not have Ross' 4- or 5-month sales record before them when they purportedly decided his fate; the salesman 's gross profit performance-revealed by the record herein as slightly better than average during most of the 4-month period covered by Respondent 's available sales figures-was not even discussed. (Further buttressing this conclusion- that Ross' discharge did not derive from a routine, objective review, dealing with his performance and competence-the following circumstances should be noted. When Castagna finally notified Ross that 471 he was being terminated because of low sales production, shortly following the managers' meet- ing, the salesman was-so I find-queried regard- ing his October sales record; likewise he was asked how many cars he had sold, thus far, during the current month. Since Respondent's general sales manager had, most recently, been review- ing Respondent's October sales summary-and since his currently maintained office wall chart would have shown Ross' November sales record- his seeming lack of knowledge regarding the salesman's performance , within my view , cannot be explained logically . Considered in context, how- ever, the general sales manager 's revelation that he lacked information regarding Ross' most recent performance record provides persuasive collateral support for a determination that Respondent's discharge decision had not, really , been derived from, a dispassionate managerial review , concerned with his sales productivity.) Finally, the record reveals that Congelos did, himself, possess the authority to discharge salesmen for poor per- formance-without any mandate from his fellow managers-and that he had, in fact, once exercised such authority. Yet he had never-so far as the record shows-seriously considered Ross ' discharge upon his own responsibility , before complainant Union's meeting. With matters in this posture , Respondent has not, within my view , made a sufficient showing that Ross' discharge derived from business considera- tions-precisely when the dealership 's used-car facility was being expanded , when the hire of more used-car salesmen was in contemplation , and when Respondent 's current sales force was being requested to refer prospective applicants for sales work . In this connection , General Counsel , within his brief, notes, persuasively, that: If, indeed , Ross were the gross incompetent described by Congelos, it is nothing short of amazing that he continued so long at Galpin Motors, that his poor performance was never discussed at any management meeting before November 20, or that Congelos had never even warned him he might be discharged if his per- formance did not improve. This trier of fact concurs. Upon the present record, I am satisfied that Respondent's defensive presenta- tion herein overblows whatever justifiable criticism Ross' job performance may have warranted, and that Respondent would have tolerated his pur- ported deficiencies-beyond November 20 cer- tainly-but for management's knowledge, so recently acquired, that he was presumably prepared to play some active role in complainant Union's revived citywide organizational campaign. 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD e. The discharge of Steelman somewhat of an independent businessman in his own right .... And Steelman, so the record shows, had sold au- tomobiles within the Los Angeles metropolitan area for some 25 years, during 17 of which he had managed or co-managed his own business; since 1962, he had been an employed salesman. Both President Boeckmann and Congelos conceded, while testifying, that Steelman was well qualified- so much so that he had frequently been placed in charge of Respondent's used-car lot when the firm's regularly designated managers were necessarily ab- sent for managers ' meetings, or for other reasons. Joseph Boggio, Respondent's second used-car sales manager, likewise conceded that he had sometimes requested Steelman 's assistance in performing his managerial duties. The record further reveals that New-Car Manager Johnson, during his period of service as Respondent 's used-car sales manager, had occasionally requested Steelman to appraise cars or to help other salesmen close sales. Finally, Congelos, himself, further conceded that-before he got a machine , presumably a calculator, with which to figure Respondent 's financial reserve "in- come" derivable from particular sales transac- tions-he had relied on Steelman to make the necessary calculations. Further, determination seems fully warranted that Steelman was a superior salesman . His full term of service with Respondent covered 22 months, with a short 2-1/2-month break before his final 4 months . And Respondent 's sales records for September-October 1968 reflect his sales per- formance for 2 of these last 4 months , within which he had worked full time . During September he had sold 17 cars, ranking eighth in this respect within Respondent 's total 30-man sales force , his total monthly gross profit produced was sixth highest among all of Respondent 's salesmen. During Oc- tober Steelman had sold 18 vehicles; these sales had ranked him seventh within Respondent's newly expanded 33-man sales force , while giving him sixth rank , once more , with respect to monthly gross profit produced. While in Respondent 's hire , Steel- man had won a number of monthly sales contests, inter alia , he had won a gold watch, which Pre- sident Boeckmann had presented , for having sold 29 cars during August 1968-the missing month in Respondent's several monthly sales summary records produced herein. In short , the present record-considered in totali- ty-clearly calls for a factual conclusion that, so far as Respondent's management was concerned , Steel- man was deservedly considered competent , produc- tive, and reliable. By way of further example: When Used-Car Sales Manager Boggio was designated to When Steelman was dismissed, following Respon- dent's November 20 managers ' meeting, Castagna cited "interfering with management and agitating" as constituting Respondent's reasons. Clearly, how- ever, this reference to Steelman's purported "agita- tion" did not concern his sympathetic posture or conduct related to complainant Union's reactivated organizing campaign Within his brief, General Counsel concedes that Respondent's defense, rather, derives from its contention that Steelman was a chronic complainer, who demoralized Respondent's sales force. Nevertheless, during their final conversation-so the record shows-Respondent's general sales manager cited merely a single instance concerning Steelman's purported "interference" and "agitation" directed toward management or fellow salesmen-one which had purportedly distressed Glenn Williams, his fellow used-car salesman and office partner. (On the occasion in question, Wil- liams had been drafting certain necessary papers re- garding a prospective "camper" sale, Steelman had purportedly volunteered doubts that his office partner's proposed sale terms would win manage- ment's concurrence.) While a witness herein, Con- gelos claimed-though he could not recall Castag- na's reference to the matter-that William, visibly disturbed, had registered a strong complaint, directly with him, regarding Steelman's conduct. Previously, however, Williams had testified herein-pursuant to General Counsel's call-that his "complaint" had been made to Steelman, Used- Car Manager Boggio , and another salesman; he de- nied discussing, or being queried about, Steelman's conduct by Congelos or any of Respondent's other management personnel. (When queried regarding his relationship with Steelman, Williams declared that they had known each other some 10 or 12 years, and that their relationship was friendly.) The specific incident cited had occurred some time be- fore Steelman's discharge, during early November; I credit Williams' testimony that he personally had never discussed it with Congelos or with Respon- dent's management representatives other than Used-Car Manager Boggio, noted. So far as the credible record shows, further, no management spokesman had mentioned the matter to Steelman before his discharge. The present record, considered in totality, strongly suggests that-apart from purported com- plaints regarding his conduct-Steelman was precisely the type of salesman Respondent's management valued . While a witness , President Boeckmann declared, generally, that: In our type of establishment we have to look for a well-rounded salesman , a man that can be GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 473 work out new shift schedules for Respondent's used-car salesmen-which management proposed to institute when the firm 's new used-car facility opened-Steelman was requested to work with him. During the morning of November 20, the day of his discharge , Steelman had voluntarily reported for work 4 hours early , on his own time , and had helped move various vehicles to Respondent's new lot. (Late that day, following his discharge, Respondent 's management had offered Steelman $25 pay for this extra work . He had , however, refused it.) Upon this record , Respondent would not-presumably-contest a determination that Steelman 's supervisors considered him a com- petent , knowledgeable salesman . Certainly, Pre- sident Boeckmann 's decision to rehire him in July, following his April 1968 termination , would seem to reflect reliance on a belief that his services would prove valuable. Despite this , Respondent seemingly contends now that-particularly following his rehire-Steel- man's personal relationship with some of his fellow salesmen became strained ; that complaints were made regarding his conduct ; and that these com- plaints "created" such serious problems that his termination was considered necessary . Within his brief, Respondent's counsel has put the matter thus: The Company had had many problems with Steelman relative to his demeanor and his as- sociation with the other salesmen . The uncon- tradicted evidence shows that he would inter- fere with the operation of the managers, where he had no business , and that he decreased the morale of other men. Consistently with this contention , President Boeckmann testified that he had received somewhat generalized complaints regarding "a man's" purportedly questionable behavior from two salesmen , Don Pittman and Dave Reza, specifically: according to Boeckmann , these men were com- plaining about Steelman's conduct . Pittman, so Boeckmann testified, had denounced Steelman broadly for displaying officious curiosity , complain- ing, and demoralizing fellow salesmen ; Reza, ac- cording to Respondent's president , had described him, generally , as "nothing but a troublemaker" who had previously had "run -ins" with two or three salesmen . No specific details, however, seem to have been proffered by these complainants. Respondent 's president could not " pick a date" for Pittman 's purported complaint; he recalled Reza's merely as made during late October or early the following month. ( Pittman 's name, I note , does not appear on any of Respondent 's monthly sales rosters during the period with which we are now concerned . Conceivably, some other salesman may have been designated ; the name "Pittman" may represent a reporter's or transcriber 's mistake. I have given President Boeckmann the benefit of this doubt.) While testifying regarding Steelman's con- duct, however, Congelos was more specific. He re- ported Williams' complaint, previously noted, plus a complaint by Salesman Sol Season , wherein Steel- man was likewise charged with having made deprecatory comments regarding a sales deal which the complainant was preparing for managerial con- currence . These four complaints were , reportedly, considered by Respondent 's management team dur- ing their November 20 meeting. Regarding these complaints , however , this trier of fact notes-first-that Respondent 's president, according to his testimony , did not press " Pittman" or Reza for details regarding Steelman 's purpor- tedly questionable conduct . Nor does the record show that Boeckmann tried to determine , himself, whether their complaints had any factual basis. Certainly, Respondent 's president did not query Steelman regarding them . He did not-so I find- request Congelos to make inquiries . Respondent makes no present contention that Season's com- plaint was ever discussed with Steelman . Regarding the Williams matter, management 's sole comment seems to have been made when Steelman was ter- minated ; Congelos' purported recollection that he spoke with Steelman regarding Williams' com- plaint, within a day after the latter 's report, deserves no credence . (The record suggests that Reza may have registered some "half dozen" further complaints with Johnson-both while the latter was serving as Respondent 's used-car sales manager and thereafter-that Steelman had been guilty of "skating" him. By this , Reza presumably meant-so Johnson testified-that Steelman had taken over some customer whom he had previously contacted, or that Steelman had completed a sales transaction which he (Reza) had first broached with the customer concerned . The record shows, however , that Johnson never contacted Steelman, himself, regarding Reza 's complaints; though his testimony suggests that the last of these complaints may have been referred to Congelos , nothing in the present 'record would warrant a determination that any such complaint was ever checked or verified. Steelman , himself-during his direct testimony-re- ported a conversation with Congelos and Boggio, shortly before his discharge , during which he was told that a sale recently consummated by him had previously been "promised " to another salesman, Linn Fuggetta ; when the situation was clarified-so Steelman testified-he apologized and the matter was closed. It does not appear to have been men- tioned in connection with his discharge.) 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With matters in this posture , then , several con- clusions seem warranted . First: Assuming, for the sake of argument , that four verbal complaints re- garding Steelman were really received , Respon- dent's management cannot now contend , persua- sively, that they were considered serious enough, when made , to warrant prompt investigation or to call for reprimands . Second: Assuming , for the sake of argument, that these complaints were finally re- called and discussed during Respondent's November 20 managers ' meeting, that discussion seems to have been bottomed on two complaints which lacked specificity , plus two which had never been verified . Third: Assuming , for the sake of ar- gument , that these complaints-despite their lack of specificity or verification-had been deemed worthy of consideration , Respondent 's manage- ment, within my view, nevertheless had reasonable grounds upon which questions could have been raised regarding the motivations and reliability of two complainants ; Reza and Season , both well- qualified and competent salesmen , were known, particularly by Congelos , as Steelman 's most for- midable competitors for sales leadership , within Respondent 's used-car department . Fourth: As- suming, for the sake of argument , that Steelman may really have questioned the soundness of cer- tain "deals" which Williams and Season were preparing for Congelos ' concurrence , the present record would clearly support a conclusion that such comments were made in Respondent 's business in- terest; they would have reflected Steelman 's belief that the particular "deals" in question were hazardous , or that they had not been "worked" suf- ficiently to produce their maximum potential profits. ( Respondent 's defensive presentation herein-particularly President Boeckmann's testimony-suggests a contention that management had begun to notice similar questionable conduct before Steelman 's April 1968 termination-and that , when finally rehired , he had been warned, therefore , to keep his "nose" out of other people's business . The contention however-suggested dur- ing Steelman 's cross-examination by Respondent's counsel-lacks any reliable , substantial , or proba- tive support. No specific charges of prior miscon- duct have been proffered. And Steelman denied that President Boeckmann-when rehiring him- had admonished him, in so many words , to mind his own business ; his denial is credited . The salesman did concede that Boeckmann "might have " warned him to keep his "nose " clean ; within context, how- ever, such a comment would merely have connoted a suggestion that Steelman would be well advised to eschew personal conflicts with superiors , like the verbal exchange with Billingsley which had precipitated his April termination . I so find.) With these considerations in mind , Respondent 's conten- tion that Steelman was properly charged with job- related derelictions, sufficiently serious to warrant his termination , fails to persuade. Respondent contends , however, that Steelman's purported complaints and challenging comments directed to fellow salesmen-which I am requested to consider proven, despite Respondent's failure to produce witnesses other than Season , qualified to provide direct, first-hand testimony which would warrant a conclusion that such remarks were made-demoralized Respondent 's sales force. When, however, Congelos and Johnson were requested to describe why such purported com- ments would have demoralizing effects, neither could proffer a persuasive rationale . (While a wit- ness herein , Steelman volunteered a comment-dur- ing cross-examination-that Respondent main- tained a "wonderful" well-run store, which he characterized as the "best store " he had ever worked in, with a fine location, excellent service department , and knowledgeable managers. He did not impress me-despite the generalized charac- terizations of President Boeckmann , Congelos, and former Used-Car Manager Johnson herein- as con- sistently malcontent.) True, Respondet's purported complainants , Reza, Williams, and Season, were described as momentarily upset and resentful of Steelman 's conduct; Williams and Seasons so described themselves. The dealership' s testimonial presentation , however, will not-within my view- support a conclusion that they were really "de- moralized" thereby. President Boeckmann's testimony that Steelman was "continually" running down Respondent's business, thus "demoralizing" his fellow salesmen , struck me as general , conclu- sionary, and hyperbolic. In this general connection, Respondent has proffered considerable testimony that Steelman was frequently seen going through various papers, deal- ing with "deals" currently in process, while they lay on Congelos' desk. Regarding this factual conten- tion , however, little need be said. Steelman con- ceded that he had, on occasion , gone through vari- ous documents on Congelos' desk while searching for his own deals. The record reflects parallel testimony by Congelos, however, that other salesmen frequently have scanned documents on his desk, while searching for their " deal" papers, and-likewise-while searching for deals written by other salesmen which might reveal "skating" so far as they were concerned; such tolerated searches would necessarily have required salesmen to can- vass deals proffered by their fellow salesmen, as well as their own. (In this connection, Ross and GALPIN MOTORS, INC. 475 Williams testified, credibly, that they had checked their "deals" while they were on Congelos' desk, and that they had seen other salesmen , likewise, going through Congelos' papers. Used-Car Manager Boggio testified that when he was a salesman-be- fore he became a manager-he had sometimes scanned papers on Congelos' desk, looking for his own deals-and, further, that he sometimes had done so to determine whether other salesmen had "skated" him. Additionally, Boggio conceded that he has seen other used-car salesmen similarly occu- pied for what he believes to have been similar reasons.) Respondent contends that Steelman was admonished to desist. The record shows, however, that Respondent's other salesmen were "some- times" similarly admonished; both Johnson and Boggio so testified. Respondent's contention that Steelman's conduct, when he canvassed Congelos' documents, was-somehow-more gross, or more reprehensible, smacks of puffery; this trier of fact has not been persuaded. And Respondent's further contention that Steelman's conduct-since it sup- posedly transgressed tolerable limits-constituted a violation of company policy sufficiently serious to warrant his discharge, merits characterization, therefore, as pretextual. I so find. Steelman had-so the record shows-defied Respondent's management by defending his fellow salesmen's right to attend complainant Union's November 13 meeting. Thereafter, he-together with Ruffino, Ross, and others-had, to Respon- dent's knowledge, attended that meeting. His discharge followed, within a week, despite Respon- dent's previously demonstrated regard for his com- petence-and despite management's then projected expansion program for used-car salesmen. With matters in this posture, Respondent has not-within my view-sustained its contention that Steelman should properly be considered chargeable with job- related derelictions sufficiently reprehensible to warrant his discharge. This trier of fact is per- suaded, rather, that Respondent's management would have tolerated Steelman's purported "per- sonality conflict" with Congelos (noted by John- son), together with his purportedly abrasive com- ments, criticism, or complaints-because of his recognized competence and demonstrated sales productivity-but for management's knowledge re- garding his professed union sympathies. I am satisfied that, for Respondent's management, Steel- man's demonstrated support for complainant Union's campaign, manifested on November 13 and 14, consituted the final straw. And since Respon- dent's discharge decision-with respect to Steelman particularly-would not have been reached, within my view, but for considerations which the statute proscribes, his termination must necessarily be con- sidered violative of law. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's course of conduct described in sec- tion III, above-since it occurred in connection with Respondent's business operations, described in General Counsel's conplaint and concededly described correctly therein-had, and continues to have, a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, absent correction, such conduct would tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since I have found that Respondent engaged in and continues to engage in certain unfair labor practices which effect commerce, I shall recom- mend that it be directed to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action, including the posting of appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended. Specifically, since I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the statute through the discriminatory terminations of Robert A. Ruffino, Alexander Ross, and Sol S. Steelman, I shall recommend that Respondent be required to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. It will be recom- mended further that Respondent be required to make these individuals whole for any pay losses which they may have suffered, because of the dis- crimination practiced against them, by paying each of them a sum of money equal to the amounts which he would have earned as wages, salary, or commission, between the date of his discharge and the date of his reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period. Backpay for each salesman designated should be computed by calendar quar- ters, pursuant to the formula which the Board now uses. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. In- terest thereon should likewise be paid, computed at 6 percent per year. See Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, in this connection. In the light of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the fol- lowing: 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging salesmen from becoming or remaining members of International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, or from participating in union or other concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, by discharging them, or by discriminating in any other manner with respect to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term of condition of their employment, except as authorized under Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing em- ployees-by discharges, by interrogation with respect to their union membership or activities, by threats of reprisal because of their participation in union activity, by statements reasonably calculated to convey an impression that their union activities were under surveillance, by deliberately scheduling employee meetings at times which would conflict with previously scheduled union organizational meetings for the purpose of interfering with the rights of its salesmen to attend such union meetings , or by any like or related conduct-with respect to their exercise of rights which the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, guaran- tees. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended: (a) Offer Robert A. Ruffino, Alexander Ross, and Sol S. Steelman immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any pay losses which they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, consistently with the requirement set forth within The Remedy section of this Decision. (b) Notify Robert A. Ruffino, Alexander Ross, or Sol S. Steelman, 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 analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its place of business in Sepulveda, California, copies of the attached notice marked 1. Galpin Motors, Inc., an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, is engaged in commerce and business activities which affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. 2. International Association of Machinists, Dis- trict Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act, as amended, which admit cer- tain employees of Galpin Motors, Inc., to member- ship. 3. Respondent herein-by questioning salesmen, both directly and indirectly, regarding their union membership and activities; by declaring that they would be required to meet higher or stricter stan- dards of performance, or that they would meet with reprisals, should they continue activity in complai- nant Union's behalf; by volunteering statements reasonably calculated to convey the impression that their union activities had been or were under sur- veillance; and by making threats of discharge, or statements that salesmen had been discharged because of their union membership or activity-has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees with respect to their exercise of rights statutorily guaranteed. Thereby, Respondent did engage in and continues to engage in an unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. 4. Respondent, when it discharged Robert A. Ruffino, Alexander Ross, and Sol S. Steelman because of their support for, or activities on behalf of, complainant Union herein, discriminated, and continues to discriminate, with regard to the hire and tenure and terms and conditions of employ- ment of its employees, thus discouraging their union membership and their participation in con- certed activities for mutual aid or protection. Thereby, Respondent has engaged in and continues to engage in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Board, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, order that Respondent, Galpin Motors, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: GALPIN MOTORS, INC. "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding 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 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 2 ' 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 shall 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 Na- tional 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 " ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, 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 Government WE WILL NOT question our salesmen, directly or indirectly, regarding their union member- ship or activities. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our salesmen, in their exercise of rights which the National Labor Relations Act guarantees: By declarations that they will be required to meet higher or stricter standards of job performance, or that they will meet with reprisals, should they continue their support for International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327; by statements calculated to con- vey the impression that their union activities have been, or currently are, under surveillance; by threats of discharge; or by statements that salesmen have been discharged because of their union membership or activity. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity on behalf of International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94 or its af- 477 filiated Local Lodge 2327, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of any of our employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights which the National Labor Relations Act guarantees. WE WILL offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any pay losses which they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them. Robert A. Ruffino Alexander Ross Sol S. Steelman WE WILL notify these men, if presently serv- ing in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement, upon appli- cation, in accordance with the Selective Service kct and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All of our employees are free to become or remain members of International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94 and its af- filiated Local Lodge 2327, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members thereof, except to the ex- tent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization, authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. GALPIN MOTORS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 12100, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024, Telephone 824-7357.