Marine Welding and Repair Works, Inc.

MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS Marine Welding and Repair Works, Inc.; Williamson Engine and Supply, Inc.; Greenville Manufacturing and Machine Works, Inc.; Greenville Propeller Works, Inc. and Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees Division of National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2756, 26-CA-2843, 26-RC-2914, 26-CA-2861, and 26-CA-2875 February 20, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On September 4, 1968, Trial Examiner Herzel H. E. Plaine issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Finally, the Trial Examiner found the allegations of some of the objections to the election in Case 26-RC-2914, to have been established in the form and to the extent that they were also found to be unfair labor practices; dismissed certain other objections; and recommended that the results of the election be set aside, and that a new one be directed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a motion to quash and set aside, and exceptions to, the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief, and cross-exceptions with a statement in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 motion, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations' of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below. 'The Respondent excepts to various findings of the Trial Examiner, on the ground that he erred in crediting the testimony of certain witnesses. It is the established policy of the Board not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We find no sufficient basis for disturbing the credibility findings in this case. The Respondent also accuses the Trial Examiner, throughout its brief, of having variously exhibited extieme bias against the Respondent Having ORDER 661 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondents, Marine Welding and Repair Works, Inc.; Williamson Engine and Supply, Inc.; Greenville Manufacturing and Machine Works, Inc.; and Greenville Propeller Works, Inc., Greenville, Mississippi, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below. 1. Delete paragraph 2(e) and substitute in its place the following: "(e) Convene all its employees at 'each shop separately or at joint assemblages of two or more shops, as convenient, and a responsible official of the Respondent of department supervisor level or above, or a Board agent, shall read to the employees the contents of the attached notice, Appendix B." " 2. Delete paragraphs 2(f) and 2(g), and reletter paragraph 2(h) accordingly.' examined the record, however, we conclude that these claims are unsupported. On the contrary, the record shows that the Trial Examiner displayed fairness to, and patience with, the Respondent's counsel throughout the hearing, even though some demands which were made upon the Trial Examiner, and of witnesses, appear to have been frivolous, or dilatory, or both. 'The Trial Examiner found, among other violations, that the Respondent in effect forcibly prevented several employees from voting in the July 18 election, by using the gas-freeing operation on a barge , the Sinclair 4, as a pretext to keep these men offshore during the voting hours. In concluding that this forcible detention violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Trial Examiner relied in part on his finding that the operation lacked the urgency (owing to a customer's "emergency" call the morning of July 18) claimed by the Respondent. We think it is unnecessary to pass on the question whether the gas-freeing operation did or did not have the urgency claimed; for the other, attendant circumstances relied on by the Tiial Examiner are themselves sufficient to warrant his conclusion, which we adopt, that the detention on the barge was prolonged in order to prevent employees from voting in the election, and violated Section 8(a)(l). 'We find no merit in the Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's finding that employee Walker was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) In addition to the grounds relied on by the Trial Examiner, we note that Walker's discharge occurred the very day the Employer received notice of the filing of the petition and was followed closely by interrogation of employees and other widespread unlawfully coercive conduct, thus demonstrating that Walker's discharge was the first step in the Respondent's antiunion campaign . Notwithstanding Walker's candid admission that he had been criticized previously, referred to in the Respondent's brief, the Respondent's testimony is clearly to the effect that Walker had been a satisfactory employee until the last week of his employment, which we note coincided with his very active role in conjunction with the Union's organizational campaign V. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v N.L.R B, 380 F.2d 292, 304-305 (C.A 2), J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v N L R.B., 388 F 2d 896, 903-905 (C.A. 2) 'We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's recommended requirement that the Union have access, for 3 months, to the Respondent's bulletin boards The record affords no basis for any finding as to the necessity of the Respondent's bulletin boards to the Union's organizational campaign, J. P Stevens & Co , Inc v. N L R.B, 380 F 2d 292, 305 (C.A. 2); nor does it show that the Respondent used its bulletin boards as a coercive device, J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. N L R B., 388 F 2d 896, 905 (C.A 2) We also reject his recommendation that the Respondent make available to the Union facilities for a 1-hour meeting on company time Cf. Garwin Corporation , 169 NLRB No. 154; Crystal Lake Broom Works, 159 NLRB 429, 430-431. 174 NLRB No. 102 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on July 18, 1967, in Case 26-RC-2914, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 26-RC-2914 be, and it hereby is, remanded to the- Regional Director for Region 26 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. [Direction of second election6 omitted from publication.] 'An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all eligible voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 26 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner : This is a consolidated proceeding on 4 complaints of unfair labor practices against the Respondent , charging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), and on 18 unresolved objections to the results of a Board conducted representation election among Respondent's employees involving substantially the same-alleged misconduct of the Respondent recited in the complaints. The Pleadings The pleadings are complicated. Complaint 26-CA-2756 was issued June 22, 1967, amended July It, 1967, on a charge by the Union (the Charging Party) filed May 2, 1967, and amended June 21, 1967. Complaint 26-CA-2843, was issued August 31, 1967, as part of an order consolidating cases and a consolidated complaint, on a charge by the Union filed August 4, 1967, amended August 11, 1967. The order of August 31 recites and reiterates an earlier order of the Regional Director, dated August 22, 1967, in the representation case, 26-RC-2914, that dealt with 23 objections of the Union to the results of the Board conducted election held on July 18, 1967 among Respondent's employees. The Union lost the election, 24 for, 64 against, out of approximately 115 eligible voters. The order of August 22 overruled 5 of the Union's objections but referred the 18 remaining objections for resolution on an evidential hearing by a Trial Examiner, consolidating for hearing and decision the representation case, 26-RC-2914, with the complaint cases, 26-CA-2756 and 26-CA-2843. Complaint 26-CA-2861 , was issued September 6, 1967, as part of a second order consolidating the cases and an amendment to the consolidated complaint, on a charge by the Union filed August 24, 1967, and amended September 6, 1967. Complaint 26-CA-2875, issued September 14, 1967, as part of a third order consolidating the cases and a second amendment to the consolidated complaint, on a charge by the Union filed September 8, 1967. In addition, two responses by the General Counsel on July 5 and September 12, 1967, respectively, to motions by Respondent for bills of particulars, have elaborated or altered certain allegations of the complaints. At the beginning of the hearing, on September 26, 1967, General Counsel produced in one document, Exhibit GC-2, a compendium of the allegations in the consolidated and amended complaints and in the responses to motions for bills of particulars. The parties have accepted the compendium as the restatement of the total allegations of the complaints by the General Counsel.' The gravamen of the complaints was that the Respondent, comprising four corporations, constituted a single integrated business enterprise that had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by engaging in coercive and discriminatory conduct against its employees, involving among other things, interrogation, threats, creating the impression of surveillance, reduction of overtime, disenfranchisement, and the discharge of three of the employees, because of their union sympathies and activities. The Union's unresolved objections to the results of the election of July 18, 1967, paralleled various allegations of the complaints2 and thus raised no additional issues of fact.' Respondent filed three answers, dated July 18, September 15, and September 22, 1967, respectively, which were essentially general denials of the allegations of the complaints, and filed on October 2, 1967, in the course of the hearing, a statement of its affirmative defenses purporting to justify the discharges of the three alleged 8(a)(3) dischargees. The consolidated cases were tried on September 26-29 and October 24-26, 1967, at Greenville, Mississippi. Counsel for the General Counsel and for the Respondent have filed briefs. Upon the entire record of the case4 and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following 'Thereafter, in the course of the trial , on October 26, 1967, General Counsel was permitted a further amendment to the complaints based upon evidence brought into the case by the Respondent The amendment was an additional allegation to the effect that, on or about May 16, 1967, Respondent by its officers and agents sent Resp. Exh R-22 to its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Exhibit R-22 was a letter, dated May 16, 1967, circulated by Respondent to its employees "because of the union activity at the yard," discussing employee card signing and suggesting, among other things, that employees who had signed union authorization cards might ask for their return and should write letters to the union for the return, keeping copies of the letters as written copies of the cancellation of the pledge cards. The issue of unlawful request by the Respondent for employees' union cards was already in the pleadings (Exhibit GC-2, pars. 15(a), 16, 18 ) and had been litigated by the parties, and the additional closely related allegation involved no surprise to Respondenror need for time to prepare (Respondent had itself introduced the evidence underlying the allegation ), hence in my judgment the amendment was proper and timely N.L R B. v. Dinion Cott Co., 201 F.2d 484, 491 (C.A 2, 1952); N.L R B. v Hotel Conquistador, 398 F 2d 430 (C A. 9, 1968) 'A matching table is set out in the transcript of the proceedings, Tr 8-11. 'Two of the eighteen unresolved Objections Nos 10 and 21 (dealing respectively with claimed intimidation of a professional union organizer, and alleged prevention of an employee observer from serving at the election), were not paralleled by allegations of the complaints However, neither the Union nor the General Counsel presented any evidence that supported these two objections, and I granted Respondent's motion to dismiss Objections Nos. 10 and 21 Tr 835. 'To correct errors which appear in the transcript of the record, I have ordered the corrections set out in Appendix A [omitted from publication] of this Decision. MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 663 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent comprises four Mississippi corporations (referred to individually as Marine Welding, Williamson Engine, Greenville Manufacturing, and Greenville Propeller), with a common principal office in Greenville, Mississippi. Respondent is in the business of building, repairing, servicing, and supplying boats and barges that ply the inland waterways, and performing related machine and engine shop services for some nonmarine industrial customers. Respondent is a single employer within the meaning of the Act.' During the 12 months preceding issuance of the first complaint, each of the four corporations purchased and received at its Greenville, Mississippi location, materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside Mississippi. The four corporations individually and collectively are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Summary Background: The two Williamson brothers, W. M. (or Bill) and Bilbo, began the inland waterway shipbuilding and repair business in Greenville in 1947 under the name of Marine Welding and Repair Works. In 1952, Joe L. Williams became an employee of Marine Welding and took over the repair of diesel engines for which Marine Welding had the local Detroit Diesel dealership, In early 1959 Williams bought into Marine Welding and the three principal owners, Williams and the two Williamsons, formed an additional corporation, Williamson Engine and Supply, to handle the engine repair and supplies business. Both shops were located on a common lake front plot on Lake Ferguson, leased from the city. Lake Ferguson is the former bed of the Mississippi River at Greenville that was made into a lake feeding into the river when the river bed was artificially relocated several miles west of the Greenville levees. In late 1959, the three owners of Marine Welding and Williamson Engine purchased Greenville Manufacturing and Machine Works, located in the city about 18 blocks from their waterfront business, and it was developed into a shop doing marine and other industrial machine work and some fabrication. Finally, about 1964, the fourth corporation, Greenville Propeller Works, was formed by the two Williamsons and Williams and set up at the Greenville Manufacturing location to handle,- the boat propeller repair work brought in at the Marine Welding docks and to serve as distributor for a Seattle-propeller manufacturer, who preferred distribution by a propeller company. While each of the four companies has its own area of competence, they function and are operated as four divisions of a single enterprise. The three principal owners of the stock of the corporations are also the officers of all four corporations variously and combinedly engaged in active management and responsible for labor and hiring 'The details supporting this finding are discussed under heading II, B, infra policy, with W.M. Williamson in top command. A general office for all four corporations is maintained at the waterfront in addition to the separate office which each has in connection with its shop, and employees of Williamson Engine, Greenville Manufacturing, and Greenville Propeller move to and from the Marine Welding docks to work on vessels or in their shops on jobs brought to them from the docks, and Marine Welding employees do work, on the docks or at the premises of one or more of the other corporations. At the end of May 1967, Respondent had 110 employees, comprising 50 at Marine Welding, 17 at Williamson Engine, 35 at Greenville Manufacturing, and 8 at Greenville Propeller. Organization of the employees by the Union began in the last few days of April 1967 with a drive led by four of the employees to obtain authorization card signatures. The Union filed an election petition on May 1, 1967, 26-RC-2914, culminating in an election on July 18, 1967. The Union failed to obtain a majority by a vote of 24 for, 64 against, out of the then approximately 115 eligible voters, and filed its objections to the results of the election on July 24, 1967, alleging various acts of employer intimidation and coercion of employees that interfered with a free expression of choice Both before and after the election the Union filed charges, and the Board issued the series of complaints, of unfair labor practices by the employer, enumerated above under the description of the pleadings. The Union's objections to- the election results are substantially embraced in the allegations of the complaints. Issues: In total, Respondent is charged with unlawful coercive and discriminatory conduct against employees by interrogation of them concerning union sympathies, creating the impression of surveillance of union activities, demanding that employees obtain return of signed union authorization cards, cutting Saturday overtime work of certain employees, threatening to close the shop or to refuse to bargain with the Union if the employees should designate it as bargaining agent, preventing the' voting of some of the employees and interfering with the voting of others in the July 18 election, promising wage increases to certain employees to help keep the Union out, and discharging three employees and plotting the discharge of another from among the union activists, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent has denied any such misconduct and has offered purported justification for the three discharges and reduction of the Saturday overtime. General Conclusion: As the findings below indicate, the evidence established Respondent's guilt of serious and substantial violations of the self organizational rights of its employees, including the discriminatory discharge of three of them and the discriminatory reduction in the Saturday overtime work of several for antiunion motives and to discourage membership in the Union. The misconduct violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in selecting a bargaining agent in the election of July 18, 1967, and warrants an order that Respondent cease and desist from misconduct, reinstate and make whole the employees upon whom the discrimination fell, and take certain steps to remedy the imbalance created in the plant respecting employee self organizational rights. In the representation case, the results of the election of July 18, 1967 should be set aside, and a new election ordered upon request of the Union. 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Respon1ertY is a Sine Employer Marine Welding began business in Greenville, Mississippi in 1947, formed and owned principally by W. M. Williamson (known as Bill or Mr . Bill) and his brother Bilbo Williamson . AeooPding to the latter, Marine Welding is in the business of`buil g and repairing boats and barges that operate primarily in the inland waterway system. The business occupies a several acre tract leased from the city of Greenville an the' waterfront of Lake Ferguson where the oonipany triad rains drydocks,' loading docks, and a fabricating yard, according to Bilbo Williamson . Lake Ferguson is 'ttie old Mississippi River bed converted into a large lake or 'inlet that empties into the river several miles west where the river bed was artificially relocated. In 1952, Joe L. Williams caaiee to Marine Welding as an employee to handle repair"' of diesel` engines for which Marine Welding had a Detroit Diesel dealership. In 195'9, Williams bought some Marine Welding stock and thenceforth he and the Williamson brothers comprised the three principal owners of the company . They formed, in that year, Williamson Engine and Supply, to take over the expanding engine repair and supply business, and located its shop on the waterfront tract . Later in the year they bought Greenville Manufacturing and Machine Works, located in the city about 18 blocks from the waterfront business , and developed it into a shop doing general machine work and some manufacturing for marine and other industrial customers , according to the testimony of Joe Williams and Bilbo Williamson . Because of his experience in engine repair , said Joe Williams, he had the primary function of getting the two new companies going. A fourth company, Greenville Propeller Works, was formed out of Marine Welding, according to Joe Williams, in 1964, to do the boat propeller repair work that came in at the Marine Welding docks, and was set up as a separate corporation , said Williams, principally to satisfy a Seattle propeller manufacturer for whom Respondent had become a distributor and who preferred distribution by a propeller company. Greenville Propeller is next door to Greenville Manufacturing at a common location, where the employees share common toolroom, timeclock, and locker and toilet facilities, according to Bilbo Williamson. According to Bilbo Williamson, W. M. (Bill) Williamson is president , Joe L. Williams is vice president, and Bilbo Williamson is secretary-treasurer, of all four corporations . Together the three men own the principal stock of the four corporations and are actively engaged in the daily management of the companies . According to Bilbo Williamson, W. M Williamson is primarily responsible for labor policy and hiring policy at Marine Welding; Joe Williams and Bilbo Williamson have the prime responsibility for labor policy at Williamson Engine, and share control of hiring policy with Superintendent James Campbell; Joe Williams has prime responsibility for labor and hiring policy at Greenville Manufacturing ; Joe Williams and Bilbo Williamson share prime responsibility for labor policy at Greenville Propeller, and Joe Williams is responsible for hiring policy at Greenville Propeller . However , as Vice President Joe Williams testified , the "supreme command" is President W. M. (Bill) Williamson, and it was evident from some of the events related in the testimony that the purported lines of his division of authority with the other two officers are blurred in practice . For example, it was President Bill Williamson who fired employee Harrison of Willisem Engine with no apparent consultation of either Vice President Joe Williams, Secretary-Treasurer Bilbo Williamson, or Superintendent James Campbell. And, Foreman Dennis Ross of Williamson Engine reported employee problems he allegedly was having concerning employees Harrison and Webster directly to President Bill 'Williamson without going first to either of the other officers. While each of the four shops has a comparatively small officie in their respective shop premises, a combined main office for all four corporations is maintained at the lake front, building No. 1 on map, Exhibit R-1, and is used not only by the officers but also by some of the other supervisors, as well as by clerical people, on a regular basis. Thus, Marine Welding Office Manager Burchfield testified he has his offices in the main office, building No. 1, and does his work there; Bilbo Williamson testified that the payroll checks for all four corporations are prepared in the main office; and Marine Welding Superintendent Jack Ellis, whose primary work is on the drydocks, testified that his work also took him to the main office, building No. 1, and to the Williamson Engine shop, building No. 2 on map Exhibit R-1. Although it appeared from Bilbo Williamson's testimony that Williamson Engine and Greenville Manufacturing had other industrial accounts in addition to marine accounts, it also appeared, from his testimony and that of the other officers and supervisors, that the major work of the employees of the four companies originates at the docks and is performed there or brought to one or more of the three specialty shops, and that the employees move back and forth to and from docks and shops. Thus, engine repair work is done in the Williamson engine shop or on the dock by Williamson Engine employees, according to Vice President Joe Williams; and Superintendent Campbell of Williamson Engine testified that his mechanics and helpers spent 40-50 percent of their time on the Marine Welding docks, and that his parts men take and deliver parts orders at the Marine Welding docks Boat propellers are usually removed by Marine Welding employees and trucked to the Greenville Propeller shop for repair and back to the dock for reinstallation , according to Vice President Williams; but, he said, Greenville Propeller people occasionally will come to the docks to repair the propellers in place. Boat shafts needing new sleeves or straightening will be removed at the docks and sent to the Greenville Manufacturing shop, according to employee Milburn; but occasionally, according to Vice President Williams, a Greenville Manufacturing employee will work temporarily at Marine Welding, and Williams recalled one recent occasion when a whole crew of Greenville Manufacturing employees alternated working overtime at the docks with a Marine Welding crew of employees. Frequently, he said, Greenville Manufacturing machinists go down to the Marine Welding drydocks to make measurements and ascertain specifications. Employee Milburn, a welder for Marine Welding, referred to occasions when he worked side by side with Williamson Engine mechanics and Greenville Manufacturing welders. For movement of men in the other direction, the testimony of Vice President Joe Williams indicated that Marine Welding employees occasionally worked in the Greenville Manufacturing and Greenville Propeller shops, and Superintendent Campbell testified that occasionally Marine Welding employees would come to the Williamson Engine shop to braise pipe or use an electric saw. As already indicated, $uperintendent Ellis of Marine Welding said that his MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 665 duties also required spending some time in the Williamson Engine shop. Bilbo Williamson testified that when Williamson Engine, Greenville Manufacturing, and Greenville Propeller employees came to Marine Welding to work on vessels they would also make use of the Marine Welding toolroom, and that the Marine Welding boat operator provided transportation when their-work had to be done on the water. Workmen's compensation or insurance for work connected injuries for all of the employees was so arranged that, whenever an employee of any of the four corporations worked on the water or waterside, Jones Act (or Longshoreman's Act) insurance coverage automatically extended to him. In addition to the flow of work and workmen among the several locations of the four companies, there were occasional permanent transfers of employees from one company to the other. Vice President Williams testified that there were transfers from Marine Welding to Greenville Propeller when the latter had been formed from Marine Welding, and Superintendent Ellis of Marine Welding testified he had transferred employee Howard Mosby to Williamson Engine's diesel shop several weeks before the hearing, when Superintendent Campbell asked for him.' According to Secretary-Treasurer Bilbo Williamson, as of May 26, 1967, Marine Welding had 50 employees, Williamson Engine had 17 employees, Greenville Manufacturing had 35 employees, and Greenville Propeller had 8 employees, a total of 110 employees. All employees had the same working hours, and the same vacation, medical, and life insurance benefits. Conclusion: It is evident from the -foregoing recital that notwithstanding the formality of separate incorporation, the four corporations constitute a single integrated enterprise and a single employer within the meaning of the Act. Under the tests for "single employer" developed by the Board, 21st Annual Report NLRB (1956) 14-15, restated and I approved in Sakrete of Northern California v. N.L,R.B., 332 F.2d 902, 905-908 (C.A. 9, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 961, and by the Supreme Court in Radio and TV, Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, 380 U.SJ 255, 256 (1965), the question is whether the four corporations are sufficiently integrated to consider the business of all together in applying the standards of the Act.! The principal factors weighed in deciding that sufficient integration exists include the extent of (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial control. While none of the factors has been held to be controlling, stress has been laid upon the first three factors to show operational integration, particularly centralized control of labor relations. Id. Here all four factors are present. The two Williamsons and Williams are the owners, officers, and active managers of the four corporations, in control of their laboil relations subject to the supreme management and labor relations control of President Bill Williamson. All four companies occupy a single combined principal office at the waterfront. The major business of the companies originates at the Marine Welding docks where shipbuilding and repair is done.: The supporting specialty work performed by the 'Superintendent Campbell professed not to know of any permanent transfers when asked if he knew of any, but see payroll record of Williapison Engine , Exhibit R-21, on which employee Howard Mosby appears beginning in the week ending August 30, 1967 other three companies in fabricating, repairing, machining, or supplying parts and materials, is either brought to their shops from the Marine Welding docks or is performed at the Marine Welding docks or on the water by employees of the three companies. In turn, Marine Welding employees who perform the bulk of their shipbuilding and repair functions at the docks or on the water, occasionally do their work at the shops and with the equipment of the other three companies . The employees of all four companies, or a lesser combination of them, frequently work on the same shipbuilding or repair project, often simultaneously and sometimes side-by-side. The employees share the tools and equipment provided by one or the other of the companies. In addition to the temporary assignments of some employees to the shops of one or more of the other companies, a few of the employees have been permanent transfers from one shop to another. The employees occupy two basic locations, one at the waterfront and the other a short distance away in town, with employees and materials moving to and from each location. At the in-town location, the shops are side-by-side, and the employees share common toolroom, timeclock, locker, and toilet facilities, At the waterfront location, while the two shops there are a short distance apart, the Williamson Engine employees spend almost half of their working time on the Marine Welding docks and the Marine Welding employees spend some of their time in the Williamson Engine shop. All of the employees in all four corporations have the same hours, the same vacation, medical, and life insurance benefits, and are covered by workmen's compensation when working landside and by Jones Act insurance when working waterside. From the foregoing, it is evident that the four companies are closely integrated in their functioning and are operated for all practical purposes as four divisions of one company. The Respondent is a single employer under the Act.' C. The 8(aX l) Misconduct 1. Interogations, threats, creation of impression of surveillance Marine Welding's Officer Manager Burchfield testified that following the Union's filing and service of a petition for election on May 1, 1967, Respondent's President Bill Williamson signed and caused to be mailed to each Marine Welding employee on May 16, 1967 a copyof a letter, Exhibit R-22, written it said "because of the union activity at the yard ," suggesting that the employees not sign union cards or get them back if already signed, and that employees keep copies of the written requests for 'It is interesting to note that Respondent has made no contrary argument in its brief although it made a claim at the outset of the trial that it was contesting the issue and was permitted to introduce evidence on the subject, Amalgamated Clothing Workers v NL R B , 365 F.2d 898, 902-905 (C.A.D.C, 1966), notwithstanding Respondent had already litigated whether, and apparently thereafter conceded, it was a single employer in the representation case, 26-RC-2914, consolidated into this proceeding In that case the Regional Director in his Decision and Direction of Election June 20, 1967 , Exhibit GC-6, found, among other things, that the Respondent was a single employer . In its request for review to the Board, June 29, 1967, Respondent ' did not appeal this finding but only whether four units rather than one unit were appropriate for collective bargaining (along with the question of the voting eligibility of certain employees), a contention the Board rejected in denying the request for review, July 12, 1967, Exhibit GC-7 Nevertheless , my finding rests on the total evidence adduced in this trial , which included the transcript of the testimony in the representation case, Exhibit GC-5 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD return of cards as cancellations of nonreturned cards. President Williamson (Mr. Bill) and Superintendent Jack Ellis (Mr. Jack) followed up the letter with individual employees. According to employee Otho Fry, about three weeks after May 1, Mr. Bill asked him on the dock if he had joined the Union, and Fry said no. About two weeks later President Williamson asked employee Fry on the Craig boat, if he had obtained his card back from the Union and Fry said he had not. Fry testified he had signed a card About two weeks after that conversation, Superintendent Ellis asked Fry, near the crane house, if he had tried to get back his union card and Fry said he hadn't A week later employee Fry, while getting some parts, was stopped by President Williamson who, according to Fry said, "Fry, if the union take over we are going to have to close down. We will be out of a job"; and Fry replied, "Yes, sir." Shortly thereafter, according to Fry, while working on a barge, Superintendent Ellis asked Fry again if he had obtained the return of his card and Fry said no. Ellis then said, according to Fry, whenever he got ready to do it, to just take off without "punching out" and get the pledge card. Whereupon, said Fry, that was what he did, the same day, about 11 a.m., he went to the Union office in town, asked Union Organizer Wilson for his card, brought it back, and gave it to Superintendent Ellis at 1 p.m. near the crane house.8 President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis both denied having any conversations with employee Fry about the Union or pledge cards or receiving his pledge card, but I have credited Fry's testimony.' Employee Vonard Liggins testified that he had signed a union card which he received from employee Freddie Lee Walker, and that in early June 1967, Mr. Bill ( Villiamson) asked him, on the dock, to get the card back. Employee LLiggins answered he would, and sent a letter to the Union, written by his wife, but did not receive the return of the card. Two weeks later, according to employee Liggins, President Williamson asked Liggins, again on the dock, if he had the card back and Liggins said no but he had written for it. A third time, on a Friday in the latter part of June, on the dock, President Williamson said to Liggins, "I want you to get the card," Liggins testified, and added that Liggins didn't have to punch out. Employee Liggins said 'The evidence indicated that the union authorization cards are called pledge cards, prepared for filling and signing in duplicate, Exhibit R-2, and that Union Organizer Wilson gave back to employee Fry one of the two identical parts of his pledge card and kept the other 'Employee Fry is a Negro; without schooling, who cannot read, and who was in Respondent's employ at the time of hearing as a fitter 's helper. He became an employee about a year and a half previous to the hearing There was nothing in employee Fry's demeanor or the evidence he or others (than Williamson or Ellis ) gave to discredit him, whereas President Williamson's veracity on the unfair labor practices issues was thoroughly impeached by his own contradictions, noted throughout, infra, and by his concoction of a complaint against employee Isiah Layton by Respondent's witness-customer Poe in order to justify firing employee Layton, discussed, infra, under heading D,3. Likewise , Superintendent Ellis' deficient memory was exposed by Respondent's other witnesses Collier and Robert Ross (plus documents) on the matter of recent repairs to the barge Sinclair 4, discussed infra under heading C,2, and his veracity impugned by his testimony in the detention of the employees on that barge, heading C,2, and his testimony in the Layton discharge, heading D,3, infra. Because employee Fry was in the vulnerable position of a current employee testifying adversely to his employer, his credibility was entitled to added support, Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305, fn. 2 (1961); Wirtz v B.A.C Steel Co. 312 F.2d 14, 16 (C.A. 4, 1963). he would obtain the card. He went to the union hall without clocking out, or clocking in when he came back, but didn't get the card because, he said, Union Organizer Wilson was not there. Liggins went by the union hall the next day, Saturday, got the card, and brought it back to President Williamson, who put it in his billfold, testified employee Liggins. About the same time Superintendent Jack Ellis also asked employee Liggins if he had gotten his card back and Liggins said he told Ellis that he had given the card to Mr. Bill. President Williamson at first denied that he ever talked to employee Liggins about the Union, but ended up testifying (at this point in his testimony) that Liggins was the only employee he talked to about the Union."' Williamson admitted he received and pocketed Liggins' union card on the dock before the election, but claimed he told Liggins it didn't make any difference in his,right to vote for or against the Union Superintendent Ellis denied having any conversation with employee Liggins about the Union. It was fairly obvious from the combined testimony that employee Liggins had truthfully and accurately described the events leading up to and including his turning of the union card over to President Williamson." Employee Isiah Layton testified that he signed a union card on the street on April 30, 1967, at the request of employee Freddie Lee Walker, who was fired the next day. One day in May, Layton said, Superintendent Ellis spoke to him about the Union while he was working on a barge on the lake, saying that on September 8 Layton would be working there a year, and asking how many dependents did he have, and had he ever belonged to a union before. Employee Layton said he told Superintendent Ellis he had belonged to a union when he worked for the railroad company. Ellis then asked, according to Layton, if he had signed a union card, and when Layton said no, Ellis said it would be better for Layton if he didn't fool with it. Employee Layton further testified that he attended two union meetings and that, on the Monday following the Saturday night June 24 meeting, Superintendent Ellis stopped him coming out of the tool office and said he thought Layton had told him he wasn't fooling with the Union. Layton said he wasn't, that he had just gone to the meeting to see what was going on. Two or three days later, testified Layton, President Williamson was in the tool office and asked Layton if he had signed a union card. Layton said he replied, no sir, and Williamson told him not to sign because it wouldn't do him any good, when he belonged to the union at the railroad company did it do him any good; and Layton said he answered, no sir. I credit employee Layton's testimony (both here and in connection with his discharge, heading D,3, infra) and discredit Williamson's and Ellis' denials of the conversations with Layton for the reasons cited in fn. 9 "Later this assertion by President Williamson was further contradicted, by himself, when he admitted he had received union cards from other employees in addition to Liggins but could not remember how many "See also fns. 9 and 10 supra, respecting Williamson and Ellis Both men sought indirectly to impeach Liggms' account by suggesting there would be no occasion for Williamson to tell a truckdriver he need not punch out, since truckdrivers moved their vehicles in and out of the premises without clocking in and out . In so testifying they ignored undisputed evidence that employee Liggins performed other work than driving a truck. For example, employee Liggins was among the crew selected by President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis on the day of the NLRB election, July 18, 1967, to gas free the barge Sinclair 4. MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 667 and 10 supra and the related text.' 2 Employee James Conley was a welder's helper at Marine Welding from March to August 1967. He testified that on four occasions Superintendent Ellis questioned him concerning the Union The first time , said employee Conley, was in June during the campaign for the Union when, on the dock at the water fountain, Superintendent Ellis told Conley he, Ellis, was receiving from employees signed union pledge cards they had taken back and wanted to know if Conley had signed one. Employee Conley said he had, whereupon Superintendent Ellis said he'd appreciate it if Conley would try to get the card back, according to Conley. Conley said he told Ellis he would think about it. The second occasion was the next day on a barge at the dock. According to employee Conley, Superintendent Ellis said he'd appreciate Conley getting his pledge card back, and if he needed help it would be given; if he didn't want to go to the Union, he could write a letter, and if he didn't have the paper Ellis would supply the paper with carbons to show that Conley had written. The third occasion , said employee Conley, was on a Friday at the end of June or in the first week of July, at the fountain on the main dock, where Superintendent Ellis asked if there was anything he could supply Conley to get his pledge card back. If he decided to go to the Union office to get his card, he was not to bother about punching out, Ellis told him according to Conley; and after hesitating about an hour, Conley went to the Union office without punching out (or punching in on his return), and asked Union Organizer Wilson for his pledge card. Conley told Wilson the company suggested he get his card back, and Wilson apparently had him fill out a fresh card, backdated to the date he had originally signed, and Conley took this card with him. He had been gone only a short time and he did not show or give the card to Ellis. The fourth occasion, testified employee Conley, was on Monday, July 17, the day before the NLRB election while Conley was painting on the Craig boat. According to Conley, Superintendent Ellis said he had received quite a few union cards from the men and was waiting for Conley to get his, and asked what Conley was waiting for. Conley replied he hadn't got around to it and was thinking about it. Ellis said, testified Conley, that he would appreciate it if Conley would go on and get the card because they had a lot of men, and they were not going to let a union in, and "before we let a union in here, we will close the damn place down." The next morning, election day morning, July 18, according to employee Conley, President Williamson came clown a ladder to the engine room where Conley was working, put his hand on Conley's back and said, "You are not going to vote for that old union , are you." Conley said he replied, he didn't know, that he was an observer for the Union, whereupon Williamson said, according to Conley, "Oh hell. You are for it 100 percent." Conley answered he guessed he was, and Williamson ended the talk by climbing up the ladder. Superintendent Ellis denied all of the four conversations with employee Conley; and President Williamson, in "Further evidence of Superintendent Ellis' deficient memory, referred to in fn 9, supra, was his insistence that employee Layton was hired in March or April, 1967, notwithstanding the established fact that Layton started his employment in September 1966 Ellis conceded he may have asked employee Layton about the number of his dependents on the occasion on the lake to which Layton testified, but claimed it would have been to "clean up records," a claim I regard as highly unlikely in the circumstances denying Conley's version of their encounter, said that all he did on election day was tell employee Conley he was wanted for a preelection conference at Lawyer Merideth's office. I do not credit these denials, for the reasons affecting the veracity of Williamson and Ellis already noted in analyzing their testimony relating to other witnesses and events, and I credit employee Conley's testimony. Employee John Henry Litdell has been an employee of Marine Welding since April 1967. He testified that he had attended three or four union meetings at the in-town office of the Union, the last of which was on the Saturday night before the Tuesday July 18 NLRB election. On Monday, July 17, said employee Litdell, Superintendent Ellis spoke to him saying that fellow employee Harry Barrett had told Ellis that employee Litdell was a good hand, who would go along with the company each and every way, but "I see now," said Ellis, "you are attending a union meeting." Litdell testified that he replied he had attended to see what was going on, and that Ellis said, "Well, I thought you was going to tell me something," to which Litdell answered, "there was a lot more than me. I think they will probably tell you." Superintendent Ellis denied this talk with employee Litdell, but for reasons already stated above I do not credit his denial; and I credit Litdell's testimony for the additional reason that, as an employee at the time of his appearance, in the vulnerable position of testifying adversely to the employer, his credibility was entitled to added support. See cases cited in fn 9, supra. Employee M. C. Rush, who had been employed by Marine Welding two years at the time of the hearing, testified that a week before the election, while he was sweeping up in the new boat being built, President Williamson asked him if he was going to vote for the Union. Rush testified, "I told him no, sir ... to get him off my back." On the morning of the election day, according to employee Rush, while working on the back deck of the same boat, he heard Superintendent Ellis ask employee Williams on a deck below, about 15 feet away, who had he seen at the meeting and Williams replied, Rush and Howard Mosby (Rush's brother-in-law, also an employee). A few minutes later, said Rush, Superintendent Ellis came up to where he was and said, "Rush, I thought you wasn't going to go down there to the meeting." Employee Rush said he answered that he just went down to see what they were talking about, whereupon Superintendent Ellis said, according to Rush, "Well, I can't stop you from voting for the union, but I can work your goddamned ass so hard until you wish you had never seen the union." President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis, respectively, denied these conversations with employee Rush but I do not credit their denials for reasons affecting their credibility already stated above. I credit employee Rush's testimony for the additional reason that, as an employee at the time of the hearing, testifying adversely to the employer, his credibility was entitled to added support, see cases cited in fn. 9, supra." "Employee Rush also testified to hearing Mr. Bill (Williamson) tell Mr Jack (Ellis) prior to the election that he was going to give raises to only two men, Killibrew and Elmo (Mascagni), but Rush testified on direct that he did not hear President Williamson say why . Rush, a Negro, also testified to overhearing Superintendent Ellis tell white Foreman Dorris (Pugh) three days after the election, that he was going to fire "all of them niggers, if I have to fire them one by one " Again , Rush testified on direct that he did not hear Superintendent Ellis say why On cross-examination by Respondent, there was some confusing 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employee Dewitt (Ben) Harrison, who was a Williamson Engine mechanic for about two years, testified he began the campaign for the Union among his fellow employees along with employees Walker, Blaylock and Long, that he talked to the men at the shop, and that he obtained union pledge cards from about 20 employees at their homes, on the street, or placed in his pickup at work. Shortly after the Union sent Respondent a telegram, according. to Harrison, Superintendent James Campbell spoke to him in the shop about the Union trying to come in, saying they could not help, they might control the money end, but that would be all. On a second occasion in the shop, said employee Harrison, Superintendent Campbell told him the election would not be secret and that the employer would know how the employees voted. On another occasion, also in the shop, about the first part of July, according to Harrison, Superintendent Campbell asked him was he going to vote for the union and if so why. In this connection, on the night of July 17, just before the July 18 election, the Union had scheduled a meeting at its hall. At about 5 p.m., employee Harrison, while in process of leaving the Williamson Engine building for the day, encountered President Williamson in the presence of Superintendent Campbell, Foreman Ross, and Purchasing Agent Lusk. According to employee Harrison, President Williamson called to him, "in case you don't know it, they are having a meeting down at the hall tonite." And Harrison said he replied, "Yes sir, it's going to be at 7:30 and I will be there." President Williamson admitted the encounter, saying he was at the customer counter with Campbell, Ross, and Lusk when employee Harrison walked through. Williamson said that he was reading aloud the Union's handbill, Exhibit R-16, and claimed he was merely reading the portion announcing the meeting when employee Harrison passed by, a claim I do not credit Employee Charles Long testified to being present at a conversation between employee Blaylock and Superintendent Campbell, in which the latter asked Blaylock was he going to be for or against the company, observing that "we know how [Ben Harrison ] is going." The two men engaged in a discussion of the Union coming into the shop, continued Long, in the course of which Superintendent Campbell said the employees would have to picket for a contract, they would not be given a contract, if the Union came in. Superintendent Campbell denied having had any of these conversations with employees Harrison and Blaylock, denied that he knew in May, June, or July 1967 who was for or against the Union, and in particular where employee Harrison stood, and initially stated that he never once talked with an employee about the Union. However, the fact is Superintendent Campbell knew that employee Harrison was for the Union, at least by July 17, when, as President Williamson testified, he told Superintendent Campbell that Harrison was to be the union observer at the election and to release him for a testimony respecting these events growing out of prior written statements given to the Board by Rush, who had schooling only to the fifth grade and could read only a little The net effect of this additional testimony was to indicate that the Williamson and Ellis statements may have been in the context of giving the two named employees raises if they would vote the Union out and giving the white folks a raise if the Union were kept out. Nevertheless, in my view of Rush's whole testimony , without regard to the denials by Williamson and Ellis, Rush's testimony concerning these two happenings is too ambiguous to form the basis for finding in them violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. preelection conference; and 'Harrison served as a union observer on July 18 Moreover, Superintendent Campbell was concededly present on July 17, as already indicated, when President Williamson openly reminded employee Harrison of the union meeting and Harrison equally openly responded he was going. Superintendent Campbell also knew that his brother-in-law, Foreman Dennis Ross (who Campbell insisted was merely an employee rather than a supervisor) was against the Union. In his testimony Foreman Ross was quite clear that Superintendent Campbell knew how he, Ross, felt about the Union; and Campbell admitted to at least one conversation about the Union with Ross when Campbell said he reported to Ross about advice given at a meeting with Respondent's lawyer Merideth concerning the Union. These refutations of Superintendent Campbell's claimed innocence of knowledge discredit his denials of participation in the interrogations and other conversations suggesting surveillance of and threats to employees, described by employees Harrison and Long, and I credit their accounts of these conversations. Employee Harrison also testified to two conversations on the job with Foreman Dennis Ross, in the first of which Ross asked Harrison if he had signed a pledge card, and in the second told Harrison that he, Ross, knew Harrison was for the Union because he wouldn't talk against it when the subject came up. While Foreman Ross denied asking 'about the card signing, he did admit telling employee Harrison, when Harrison allegedly ,accused him of informing people that Harrison was "pushing" the Union, that Harrison had made it plain to Ross and others that Harrison was for the union. Ross added that he was against the Union, and hoped Harrison respected his view as he respected Harrison's view. Respondent has challenged General Counsel's assertion that Foreman Ross was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. At the Williamson Engine Shop Superintendent Campbell, according to his own testimony, had been a supervisor, just below the corporate officers, for four to five years before the hearing. In all of that time until May 1967 he was paid on an hourly basis, at $2.90 per hour since the general raise of January 1967, and had the title of shop foreman. In May 1967 he was given the new title superintendent, and put on salary. At the same time Dennis Ross, Campbell's brother-in-law, who had been with the company about 6 years and was second to Campbell in the diesel shop, was moved into Campbell's job as shop foreman. The two promotions were announced by new Superintendent Campbelll at a shop meeting of all the employees, with Ross present, according to the testimony of Campbell and employee Blaylock and Long. Superintendent Campbell said that at the meeting he used the phrase "working shop foreman" to describe Ross' new job, but the use of the word "working" had no particular significance to the men,14 or to Campbell or Ross for that matter,15 because, in his supervisory capacity, Campbell had been a shop foreman who did mechanical work, and as superintendent continued to spend 25 percent of his time doing mechanical work, according to his testimony. "Nor was it clear that it was used . Employee Blaylock said the description at the meeting was "shop foreman." "Witness customer Doyle, for whom Respondent did work on the Yacht Everlasting in the latter part of May 1967, said Campbell and Ross introduced themselves to him as superintendent and forman , respectively, and neither of them did the work, but assigned it to employee Blaylock and a helper MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS The significant matter to the employees at Williamson Engine, as appears from the testimony of mechanics Blaylock, Harrison, and Long, was that Foreman Ross as well as Superintendent Campbell now assigned work to them and controlled employee movements, and that in Campbell's absence Ross took control and was regarded by employees and management as the man in charge. An illustration was provided in the testimony relating to the events surrounding the alleged dispute between employees Harrison and Webster. According to employee Long, employee Harrison had asked employee Webster, who usually cleaned parts, to, steam clean some engine heads Harrison was working on and, when Webster refused, Harrison went to Foreman Ross to have him direct Webster to do the- cleaning; but Foreman Ross told Harrison he had assigned Webster to work with another mechanic, Peeks. Shortly thereafter, when Respondent's Purchasing Agent Lusk claimed he became aware that employee Harrison was telling employee Long that he, Harrison, was of a mind to chastise Webster, Lusk reported the matter first to Foreman Ross and only later to President Williamson. Foreman Ross was paid $2.65 per hour which, after Campbell's $2.90 per hour was converted into a salary, was the highest rate of pay in the shop. No other Williamson Engine employee received more than $2.15 per hour. Ross and Campbell were the only two men in the shop who had been sent, at Respondent's expense, to take special courses and had passed diesel mechanic tests at Detroit and Memphis. Foreman Ross conceded that when Superintendent Campbell was away President Williamson had him, Ross, carrying out Campbell's orders and that the men looked to him as their "leaderman," but denied that he ever assigned work or men. Because of the recited evidence that Foreman Ross did independently assign work and men, I do not credit his denial or Superintendent Campbell's assertion that Ross had no authority over the men unless Campbell gave him orders. In view of the supervisory authority and recognition he enjoyed, I find that Foreman Ross was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. James H. Matthews & Co. v. N.L.R.B., 354 F.2d 432, 434 (C.A. 8, 1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 1002; Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., 142 NLRB 53, 55 (1963). I also discredit Foreman Ross' denial that he interrogated employee Harrison about signing a union card. 2. Disenfranchisement and intimidation at the Board election The NLRB election, requested in the Union's petition in 26-RC-2914, was scheduled for and held on Tuesday, July 18, 1967, commencing at 3:30 p.m., according to employee Freddie Lee Walker who had been discharged but who voted. Notice was posted on Respondent's bulletin board well in advance of election day, according to Superintendent Jack Ellis. On July 13 or 14, according to Respondent's witness Charles Collier of customer Sinclair Refining Company, the empty barge Sinclair 4 came into Greenville at Marine Welding to be cleaned, gas freed, and drydocked, for U.S. Coast Guard inspection and for repairs. Sinclair Refining Company was a regular customer of Respondent's and its barges came through regularly for such service on a standing maintenance repair order under which each job was written up separately for time and material expended. 669 The Coast Guard inspection was a periodic obligatory inspection, in order to maintain the barge's license, and as Collier testified could range from 1 to 3 days. The barge had come empty from Old Hickory, Tennessee where it had unloaded its cargo of para xylene, a toxic and inflammable petro-chemical, that had been picked up at Houston, Texas. The barge was on its way back to Houston for a similar load, if its inspection and repair met with Coast Guard approval. According to Superintendent Jack Ellis, when the Sinclair 4 came in it was put in the fleet of boats and barges on the lake beyond the Marine Welding docks, where craft waited to be worked on, or to be picked up when work was completed. Before drydocking and repair could take place the barge had to be washed and freed of the residual flammable and toxic gas fumes, a requirement for safety imposed by law, and it was necessary to have the certification of a chemist that the barge was gas freed. The chemist was not based in Greenville and had to come in by prior appointment. To clear residuals from a cargo of para-xylene, that had a sickening odor, according to Collier, the dock area was too close to town, hence it was the practice to take this barge and barges that carried like cargos out of the lake into the river to a remote location for the gas freeing operation. Sinclair 4 was an old barge. Its sister barge, Sinclair 1, of identical size and construction and in similar condition, according to customer Collier and Superintendent Ellis, engaged in plying the same route with the same cargo, had come through Greenville one month earlier for the same required periodic inspection and repair. It arrived on June 13 or 14 and was gas freed on June 18, according to customer Collier, was inspected in drydock on June 21, and gave up its certificate when the owner decided that the repairs required were too extensive, according to Coast Guard Officer Robert Ross; and left Greenville about June 26 or 28, according to Collier. Notwithstanding the fact that Sinclair 4 had been waiting in the fleet at the Marine docks since July 13 or 14 a crew to do the gas freeing was not selected until the morning of July 18 the day set for the NLRB election. Designating the crew the same morning of the down-river gas freeing operation was in itself unusual, according to Superintendent Ellis and employees Rush and Litdell, since the operation took the better part of a day and it was customary to alert the selected crew the previous day so that they would bring their lunches. Superintendent Ellis testified he was told by President Williamson the morning of July 18 that they had a hurry-up job on Sinclair 4 to be done that day. Ellis said he picked a crew of seven or eight men (employees Litdell and Liggins confirmed that the number was eight), got hold of boat captain or boat operator Lee Muirhead and his helper Albert Macon, and, going aboard the boat himself with the crew, picked up the barge and took it down river for gas freeing. Superintendent Ellis said that President Williamson had general knowledge of whom he had selected to go, and, it is noteworthy that at least four were employees who had been the subject of importuning and pressures by Williamson and Ellis to obtain return of their union pledge cards, or concerning attendance at union meetings, or regarding voting. These were employees Layton, Liggins, Litdell, and Rush, see heading C, 1, supra Litdell and Rush had been doing gas freeing on a regular basis, but Layton was principally a welder's helper, and Liggins had not done gas freeing in five months, since he began driving a truck He said he was told to go by 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD President Williamson. All of the employees were unanimous that in their total experiences they had never had Superintendent Ellis along for a gas freeing job and that invariably Boat Operator Muirhead was in charge of the gas freeing operations. According to employees Rush, Litdell, and Liggins, they had "two bosses" along that day. Superintendent Ellis testified he would go on a gas freeing job when he thought he was needect, but it was also clear from his testimony that his going did not mean spending the day on the operation but rather an occasional visit by motor boat. Ellis conceded that the gas freeing to be performed on Sinclair 4 on July 18 was a routine job, apart from the claimed rush" and the failure of the inspecting chemist to arrive Employee Rush testified that Mr. Bill (Williamson) told Mr. Jack (Ellis) to go with the men and see that they didn't come back until after the election. Rush testified this was said while he was on the boat, tied up at dock, and Williamson and Ellis stood talking a few feet away on the dock. The total circumstances, as the events of the day unfolded, supports the truth of Rush's testimony, notwithstanding the denials of Williamson and Ellis Directly afterward, before the boat departed, according to employee Rush, President Williamson asked the men if they had their "dinner" with them and when he was told no, said he would send "dinner," which he did later by motor boat that brought the men some lunch, at their location down river. As the men testified, this too was novel in the gas freeing operations. The gas freeing operation of Sinclair 4 was performed in the river outside the mouth of Lake Ferguson about an hour's run from the docks and was completed about 4 p.m., according to employees Rush, Litdell, and Layton (employee Liggins thought it was closer to 3.30 p.m. and Superintendent Ellis thought it was 5 p.m.); but, all are agreed that instead of going back to the Marine Welding dock the barge was taken inside the mouth of the lake nearby the deserted shore and that barge, boat, and crew just sat until 6 p.m Some time before 6 p.m., according to employees Rush and Litdell, Rush asked about getting back but Boat Operator Muirhead told him he could walk. No one offered any explanation to the men for the wait. According to the men and Superintendent Ellis, at 6 p in. the boat and barge started back for the Marine Welding docks and arrived an hour later, at 7 p m." The election had been concluded and none of the men who were on the boat voted. Superintendent Ellis claimed that he had kept the barge from returning to the dock when the gas freeing was completed because he had been told that the inspecting chemist would come out to the barge and inspect in view of the great hurry, instead of inspecting as usual in the fleet at the dock location. However, Respondent's testimony, hereafter described, showed that there was no such arrangement and further showed that no one at Marine Welding knew until 8 p.m. that night, an hour after the barge finally got back, that a chemist would be coming to Greenville to do the inspection. According to Office Manager Burchfield's testimony, the regular chemist Swoboda, out of Cairo, Illinois, had notified Respondent on or about July 12 that he would be "Customer witness Poe testified that "everybody is in a hurry to get their equipment back in service." "Superintendent Ellis testified at another point that they docked at 6 p.m., illustrative of some of the confusion and inconsistency in his testimony unavailable in the period July 18-23, 1967, that a substitute, Shifley, could be obtained from St. Louis, but that Shifley was quite busy and required plenty of notice because "his travel time will be longer. He does not fly." Exhibit R-19. Customer witness Collier testified, that when he called Respondent on the morning of July 18 to ask that they get going on barge Sinclair 4 because it was badly needed, he was told by Mr. King in Respondent's office that there was no chemist for the gas freeing inspection. Collier volunteered, he said, to try to reach a chemist out of St. Louis and King said he would go ahead and start the gas freeing Collier testified that he called St. Louis and left word for the chemist to go to Greenville but had no knowledge of whether his message was received and did not call King back for another day or two, nor did King or anyone for Respondent check with Collier to find out if he had located a chemist. Office Manager Burchfield said he learned from King that evening at 6 p.m. (July 18), that the barge had not been inspected by a chemist whereupon he tried to reach the substitute chemist, Shifley, in St Louis, and got his home at 8 p.m. when he was informed that Shifley was on his way to Greenville. Chemist Shifley did not arrive in Greenville till the next day, July 19, according to Burchfield Although Respondent's boat had a ship-to-shore radio, Superintendent Ellis did not call the office from the boat to inquire about the chemist, and Respondent's office made no effort to notify Ellis or Boat Operator Muirhead that there would be no chemist coming out, if indeed there was any such arrangement. The total facts indicate that there was no arrangement that the chemist, to whom no one for Respondent had talked, would come out and do an inspection at an unknown location on Lake Ferguson on July 18. I am persuaded that Superintendent Ellis' story was a fiction" , and that Respondent used the cover of a routine gas freeing job, concerning which there was nothing special and no special urgency, to isolate and keep from voting in the NLRB election eight or more employees, some if not most of whom had been selected because of their known or suspected union sympathies." In connection with the voting on July 18, which began at 3:30 p.m., Respondent brought to the voting place at its waterfront yard three uniformed guards, who carried "Further doubt was cast on Superintendent Ellis' veracity or capacity to remember by his insistence that, in the succeeding days, after the gas freeing inspection of the barge Sinclair 4 and its inspection for repairs in drydock, customer Collier made the decision that the barge wasn't worth repairing and Respondent did no further work on it Respondent itself offered contradictory evidence , including testimony of customer Collier, Coast Guard Officer Robert Ross, and Office Manager Burchfield, that Respondent repaired Sinclair 4, that the repairs were inspected in progress on July 21 and approved when completed on July 24 (with bill rendered August 22, 1967, Exhibit R-18), and that the barge went back in service from Greenville July 26, all not very long before the trial in this case began "There was considerable testimony, pro and con as to whether Boat Operator Muirhead was on the one band a supervisor or agent of Respondent, or on the other hand merely a rank-and-file employee. The testimony was relevant solely in connection with the allegation of the complaint that Muirhead, as well as Superintendent Ellis, prevented the group of employees from voting in the July 18 election by the described detention on the vessel , see Compendium of Allegations , para 24, Exhibit GC-2 In view of the fact that at all times involving the particular violation the admitted supervisor , Superintendent Ellis, was present and in charge of all who were present, including Muirhead , and that the identical action taken by Ellis was the basis for the complaint against Muirhead , I see no need or useful purpose to be served by an analysis and determination of the status of Muirhead MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS pistols, plus a nonemployee friend of Bilbo Williamson, Cannonball Roebuck, according to Purchasing Agent Bobby Lusk, in order to maintain, he said, "a'test tube atmosphere." The armed guards were posted at various locations about the yard where they could see, and be seen from, the watchman's shack that served as the voting place. The three uniformed armed guards had been recently hired by Respondent from the Pendleton detective agency to take the place of the former night watchman who died, said Lusk (after the Union began its campaign, testified employees Conley, Harrison, and Long), and normally served from 5 p.m. to 6 a.m Purchasing Agent Lusk was apparently in general charge of this force of men during the election, and, he said, had stationed himself at about the driveway entrance to the property, where the chain had been drawn closing the entrance, to identify customers seeking admission to the premises. Freddie Lee Walker, a Marine Welding employee who had been discharged by Respondent on May 1, arrived to vote at 3:30 p.m., on advance advice that he was eligible to vote. Walker testified he was met by an armed guard and told by a second armed guard that he was to wait at the levee outside the property. At this point, Purchasing Agent Lusk intervened and, said Lusk, he had Walker wait in the Williamson Engine parts room and vote last with the Williamson Engine employees, though he knew that Walker had been a Marine Welding employee. According to Lusk, the Williamson Engine employees were the last to vote and it took a long time to get to them. Concerning Walker, said Lusk, he was following instructions from Vice President Bilbo Williamson and Lawyer Merideth. Walker testified that at 4:25 p.m. he was escorted separately by a Williamson Engine employee to the polling place. The show of force, which began with Respondent's unexplained substitution of three armed guards for night duty in place of one nightwatchman at the commencement of the union campaign, was made dramatically manifest to the employees, before and during the election, by bringing in ahead of their usual reporting time the three uniformed and armed guards, plus the additional guard not in uniform, stationing them about the voting place, and chaining off the entrance to the yard before the usual closing time. This was an unnecessary show of force (there was no evidence of previous violence or threats) the likely effect of which was to cause intimidation or an apprehension of violence among employees, affecting or deterring their voting. The interference of the armed guards and Purchasing Agent Lusk (conceded to be a supervisor under the Act) with employee Walker's access to the voting place, detaining him an hour, escorting him about, and preventing him from voting until after the others, particularly his former fellow employees of the Marine Welding shop, had voted, was equally reprehensible. Lusk's testimony makes clear that the events were not mere happenstance but were planned for Walker in advance by Respondent. As the General Counsel points out, Respondent's deliberate action in keeping Walker from voting either with or before the Marine Welding employees was an, admission that Respondent was well aware of Walker's leadership in the union campaign among the Marine Welding employees; and, it may be added, that the indignity visited on Walker was undoubtedly intended for the notice of the other employees. Respondent's conduct, including the maintenance and use of its own special guard force at the election, may wel1 have caused employees to wonder 671 whether the Respondent rather than the Board was in charge of the election. There was no evidence that any of the arrangements and actions described were approved beforehand by the Board. 3 Scheming discharge of employees Toward the end of May 1967, the yacht Everlasting, in need of repairs, tied up at the yacht club marina nearby Respondent's premises, and stayed about 1 week, according to Leslie Doyle of Chicago, Illinois, who was then the engineer for the yacht (and at the time of the trial operated his own towing service in Chicago). Yacht Engineer Doyle testified that Superintendent Campbell and Foreman Ross of Williamson Engine came to the yacht, introducing themselves as superintendent and foreman, and discussed, in two visits, what was needed and what was feasible. Employee Blaylock and a helper were assigned to, and performed, the work that was agreed upon. On a third visit before the work was completed, said Yacht Engineer Doyle, Campbell and Ross came and talked to him in the engine room. According to Engineer Doyle, Superintendent Campbell said they were dissatisfied with the two fellows who were doing the work on the yacht because they were union sympathizers, drunkards, and troublemakers for the company, and if Doyle would give a hand, give them something to drink, and call Campbell, he would have a reason to fire them; and for helping, $20 would be knocked off the repair bill. When employee Blaylock and his helper came back to complete the job next day, Engineer Doyle told Blaylock what his bosses had said, testified Doyle because, he said, he thought the men were getting a dirty deal. That night, testified Doyle, Organizer Wilson of the Union came aboard the yacht saying he had been told by the men about the matter and asking Doyle about it. Doyle gave Wilson a written statement on the subject and later, at the Board's request, gave the Board a written statement, both of which were produced at trial for use by Respondent in examining Doyle. Employee Blaylock testified that he had done the mechanical work assigned by Superintendent Campbell on the Yacht Everlasting and that, when he was ready to leave, Engineer Doyle told him of the suggestion emanating from Campbell and Ross that Doyle get him to drink a beer so that they could have an excuse to fire him because of some union mess.2° Notwithstanding the claims of Superintendent Campbell and Foreman Ross that they talked only about the yacht's repairs to Engineer Doyle, I credit Doyle's testimony as the account of a disinterested witness, who had had no "Subsequently, employee Blaylock let Superintendent Campbell and Foreman Ross know that he, Blaylock , knew of their attempted scheme to have him fired, indicating to Campbell he had a letter on the subject from Doyle While Superintendent Campbell made no reference to discussions with Blaylock, Foreman Ross testified he talked to employee Blaylock saying he had heard Blaylock had a letter from Doyle about the accusation , that it must be a mistake , and asking to see it. Blaylock did not show any letter nor was he asked to produce it at the trial ; and if there was a letter (rather than merely talk of one, as Blaylock's way of getting word of his awareness to Campbell and Ross), it apparently was not from Engineer Doyle, who denied writing any letter and would hardly have had reason to write one, having given his information contemporaneously with the incident to employee Blaylock and in writing to the union representative Foreman Ross also testified to a conversation in June 1967 with employee Blaylock in which they discussed the pros and cons of voting for and joining the union, said Ross Blaylock quit Respondent in mid-August 1967 (see R-21) and is now employed by the Corps of Engineers. 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD previous relationship with any of the parties in this litigation, who at the time of the incident appeared sufficiently moved by what he thought was an injustice to give a written statement on the subject and become involved, and whose credibility was not impeached.21 4. Reduction in Saturday overtime The allegation of the complaint was that at Williamson Engine, Respondent discontinued Saturday overtime from about May 19, 1967, because the employees engaged in union activities. Exhibit GC-2, Compendium of Allegations, paragraphs 12, 13 The Williamson Engine payroll records, Exhibit R-21, covering pay periods from January 4, 1967 through October 18, 1967, show a definite decline in Saturday overtime, amounting to a practical elimination of it, for the pay period ending May 31, 1967, through the pay period ending September 6, 1967, affecting the mechanics but not the parts people.22 The mechanics were employees Blaylock, Harrison, Long, Stevenson, and Robertson who was succeeded by Peets in mid-June 1967.23 Three of the four mechanics Blaylock, Harrison, and Long were the leaders among the employees for union organization, (a fourth leader, employee Walker, having been discharged on May 1). Superintendent Campbell conceded that the basic 50 hour week (all hours over 40 hours at overtime scale), that had prevailed for the mechanics in early 1967 and before, was reduced to a 45 hour week by eliminating the 5 hours on Saturdays.24 However, as among the mechanics and helpers, there was disparity because mechanic Peets, who came on the payroll in the week of June 14, 1967, worked on four Saturdays in the period through September 13, and mechanics helper Webster worked nine Saturdays, whereas in the period comparable with Peets mechanic Long had one Saturday and mechanics Blaylock and Harrison (up until the times in August when they left, see fn. 24, supra) had no Saturdays at all.25 Blaylock and Harrison testified that they had both been accustomed to working 50 hours and over per week, but in the period before leaving were averaging only 40 and 45 hours, respectively, per week; and the records substantiate the testimony. "The testimony indicated that Engineer Doyle had not seen any of the persons involved in the incident since its occurrence at the end of May 1967 He did not know the names of the two workers nor could he identify them among eight persons brought into the courtroom for him to view but, as he said, he had spent no time with the two workers On the other hand, he had spent time talking with Campbell and Ross, and accurately described them before pointing them out, in Ross' case describing him before he entered the courtroom Doyle conceded an eyesight difficulty at two distances, close to his face and at between 8 and 10 feet, but testified to no difficulty with longer distances or between close-up and 8 feet Respondent put him through a courtroom demonstration of his eyesight "The parts people were employees Crawford, Cudd, Logan, Purvis, and Tarkington, according to the testimony of Vice President Joe Williams "There was only a partial decline in Saturday overtime for mechanics helper, James Webster, discussed, infra. Other mechanics helpers, Monroe Johnson who was dropped in early May, and Howard Mosby who came on the payroll at the end of August, were not in the period long enough to be materially affected "Campbell fixed the period of elimination of the Saturday overtime as being in April or May and continuing in June and July 1967 More accurately, as reflected in the payroll records, Exhibit R-21, the period ran from the last week in May through the beginning of September, in which time the three union activists dropped from the payroll, Blaylock quitting in the week of August 18, Harrison by discharge in the week of August 23, and Long quitting in the week of September 13 "Nor did mechanic Stevenson have any Saturdays in that period On the five Saturdays thereafter, week ending September 20 through week ending Employee Blaylock testified that Superintendent Campbell told the mechanics in mid-May 1967 that they would not be getting the weekend overtime because of "this union mess" as a result of which the Company would not bring in the work.26 Employee Blaylock also testified that, in May, Superintendent Campbell told the crew that the company had lost a contract with the Southern Towing Company for building two boats, but that he, Blaylock, continued to work on two engines for these boats the whole of the time until he left Respondent's employment (in August). Employee Long testified that in early or mid-May, President Williamson told Long and employee Stevenson to grease down (store) an engine they were working on in the shop, intended for installation in a new boat then under construction, saying he had lost the contract on the boat. Nevertheless, said Long, he and others continued to work on the engine and it was not stored but installed in the boat.27 Superintendent Campbell denied making references to a union mess or mess and said he informed the shop crew in a meeting that because the company had lost a contract to build two more boats for Southern Towing Company it was going ahead to build the boats for speculation without a deadline, and there would be no need for overtime work by the mechanics and helpers.28 The cut was effectuated by eliminating the Saturday work said Superintendent Campbell, and he was quite clear in his testimony that loss of the boat contract was the reason for cutting the overtime He testified that there had been customer complaints about charges for overtime, as a result of which the billing system had been changed not to show regular time and overtime, but that this change was put into effect "after the first of the year, this year" (1967) Vice President Joe Williams was of a different view He testified that, as a result of complaints by Williamson Engine customers about overtime billing in January, February and later,29 it was decided on May 20, 1967 to change the method of billing by stating total hours without a breakdown between regular and overtime hours, to cut Saturday overtime by not rebuilding the engines for the new boats on overtime, and to work overtime only on customer request and in an emergency. As a result Williamson Engine employees (other than parts men) worked less overtime, said Williams. Williams did not offer any explanation for giving Saturday work to the junior mechanic Peets to the exclusion of senior mechanics, such as Blaylock, Harrison and Long, nor did he offer any explanation for the resumption at Williamson Engine of regular Saturday overtime in September after these seniors had left, nor did he or any other witness for October 18, 1967, mechanic Peets worked each Saturday for an average of 13 1/2 hours per Saturday and mechanic Stevenson resumed the 5-hour Saturdays "Employee Long testified to being told by Superintendent Campbell in the latter part of May that some overtime work had come up over the weekend that was lost "because of this mess", and, said Long, the only actions or unusual thing going on at the shop at the time was the union activities The Board hearing on the election petition in 26-RC-2914 was held in Greenville on May 26-27, 1967, see Exhibit GC-5 "Employee Milburn of Marine Welding testified to similar discouraging talk of no more work coming in and not knowing how things were going to go, by President Williamson in May 1967, while work continued to come in "Campbell said the overtime change occurred in April or May, but Foreman Ross, who attended the meeting, agreed with employee Blaylock that the meeting was in May, and the payroll records reflect that the cut in Saturday overtime work began in the last week of May, Exhibit R-2l. "Counsel for the General Counsel suggests, not without justification, MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 673 Respondent indicate that the alleged change in policy on overtime had extended beyond these several Williamson Engine mechanics. In connection with the alleged loss of contract with Southern Towing Company, told to the Williamson Engine mechanics by Superintendent Campbell in May 1967, it appeared from the combined testimony of President Williamson, Secretary-Treasurer Bilbo Williamson, Superinte,dents Ellis and Campbell, and Vice President Stegbauer of Southern Towing Company (Southern), that Respondent built four boats for Southern between February 1965 and January 1967. According to Stegbauer, these were built under contract, Southern had talked with Respondent about two additional boats, and Respondent had started building. However, in March 1967, said Stegbauer, Southern notified Respondent it was not taking the two new boats, there was no contract, and Respondent informed him it would complete the boats for speculation. According to President Williamson, building of the fifth boat intended for Southern was started in January or February, 1967 (8 or 9 months before October 25 when he testified) and completed in early October 1967, when it was leased to Temmco, a company in which Vice President Stegbauer of Southern is also an officer Also, the sixth boat intended for Southern was well along in construction, a completed hull, in October 1967, according to Superintendent Ellis. The six boats for Southern were all of similar design, and the Williamson Engine mechanics had the function principally of rebuilding and installing surplus engines which they had about completed on No. 5 but had not commenced on No. 6 in September 1967, according to Superintendent Campbell. Between start and completion of Southerrtz Boat No. 5, Respondent also built and delivered a seventh boat, named the William H. Craig, to Carroll Towing Company, according to Superintendent Ellis and others. The Craig was under construction at the time of the election (July 18, 1967), according to Ellis, and apparently moved out in August„ according to employee Harrison. The pattern and timing of the application of the Saturday overtime cuts, falling mainly on the three employee leaders for unionization, beginning in the week of the representation hearing, and contemporaneous with the union organizational drive, support the evidence that the cuts were inspired by the "union mess." The contradiction in the management explanations of why the cuts were imposed, in themselves weak reasons, suggests a fishing for justifications to hide the antiunion reason. Concerning Superintendent Campbell's explanation - loss of the Southern contract - there was in fact no contract with Southern, so that none was lost in mid-May 1967 when Campbell told the mechanics there would be no more Saturday overtime. Indeed Respondent had commenced building the fifth boat without a contract, in January or February 1967. Respondent knew by March that Southern was not going to enter into a contract for that this claim of customer complaints by Vice President Williams is unreliable hearsay because, in the instance when Respondent sought to substantiate a customer complaint alleged by President Williamson to be a cause of firing employee Layton (infra, heading D,3), the customer witness Charles Poe, called by Respondent, failed to substantitate Williamson's testimony. Hence, contends General Counsel , the inference is raised by failure of Respondent to call any customer witnesses regarding the overtime complaints that the witnesses , if called, would impeach Respondent, citing Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 US 379, 383 (1895), and United Mineral and Chemical Corp ., 155 NLRB 1390, 1392, fn. 4 (1965) I think there is force to the contention. the fifth and sixth boats, nevertheless went ahead anyway not only to complete the fifth boat but to lay the keel and nearly complete (by time of the hearing) the sixth boat, meantime building a seventh boat for Carroll Towing Company. The work on the boats continued withou. cessation notwithstanding the alleged disavowal of interest by Southern, and it is far from clear that there was a genuine disavowal when it is considered that the fifth boat was delivered to a Southern affiliate or company related to Southern through the common principal officer Stegbauer. Vice President William's contradictory explanation, that the change in style of billing at the end of May brought on the cut in the Williamson Engine mechanics' Saturday overtime, does not in fact explain, since there was no general elimination of overtime for the mechanics and the Saturday overtime for them was restored to the pre-May normal in September after the three unionists had left or been fired. Moreover the time of the billing change was in dispute, Superintendent Campbell asserting that the change in billing practice occurred at the beginning of 1967, nearly five months before the decision to eliminate Saturday overtime for the Williamson Engine mechanics 5. Conclusions re 8(a)(l) In my view, Respondent was guilty of flagrant violations of the self organizational rights of its employees. As described under the preceding headings, there were interrogations by President Williamson, Superintendent Ellis and Campbell, and Foreman Ross of employees individually, without any legitimate purpose of Respondent to be served and without any assurances against reprisal, concerning employees' signing of union pledge cards, joining the Union, attending union meetings, and how they were going to vote. There was importuning of employees, by President Williamson and Superintendents Ellis and Campbell, not to sign with the Union and (by Williamson and Ellis) to revoke union pledges amounting, in some of the described instances, to ordering employees to obtain return of signed union pledge cards and turn them over to Respondent, and, in other instances, giving employer assistance to achieve repudiation of the Union. There were threats, in connection with the interrogations, by President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis to close down if the Union came in, by Superintendent Campbell that the men would have to picket for a union contract, and by Superintendent Ellis to overwork an employee for supporting the Union. There was a demand by Superintendent Ellis that an employee inform him about union meetings. And, there was harassment inflicted, and the impression of surveillance conveyed, by President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis and Campbell, concerning attendance at union meetings and regarding other union activities of the employees. In all, there was a barrage of unlawful acts aimed at discouraging and preventing unionization of the employees.30 See, for among other things, N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 804-807 (C.A. 5, 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 926, and N.L.R.B v. Texas Electric Cooperatives, 398 F.2d 722 (C.A. 5, 1968), on coercive interrogation; N.L.R.B. v. Milco, 388 F.2d 133, 67 LRRM 2202, 220405 (C.A. 2, 1968), on threats of plant closure, and coercive interrogation; N.L.R.B. v. Plant City Steel Corp., 331 ""[B]reaking every rule in the now compendious book of 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD F.2d 511, 513 (C.A. 5, 1964), on threats of plant closure; N.L.R.B. v. Sunnyland Packing Co., 369 F.2d 787, 789 (C.A. 5, 1966) on solicitation of employees to withdraw from union, N.L.R.B. v. Movie Star, Inc., 361 F.2d 346, 348-349 (C.A. 5, 1966), on employer assistance to repudiate and withdraw from union; Southwire v. N.L.R.B., 393 F.2d 106, 107 (C.A. 5, 1968), on threat never to sign union contract, and asking employees to inform on other employees; Hendrix Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100, 105 (C.A. 5, 1963), and N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers , Inc., 396 F.2d 769 (C.A. 5, June 1968), on creating impression of surveillance. In addition, the Respondent's aborted scheme to find a quick and easy pretext to discharge employee Blaylock by using Engineer Doyle of the yacht Everlasting as a decoy, appears to have been part of the management effort to destroy whatever leadership for union organization there was among the employees. For the proposition that an employer's attempted engagement of an outsider, to find grounds for discharge of a union supporter, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, see N.L.R.B. v. Queen City Coach Company, 398 F.2d 231 (C.A. 4, 1968). Another phase of the effort to undermine the employee leadership was the discriminatory elimination of the Saturday overtime of mechanics Blaylock, Harrison, and Long, the three remaining employee leaders for unionization at the end of May 1967, almost immediately after the aborted attempt to discharge Blaylock." The prima facie evidence submitted by General Counsel, that Respondent's action was motivated by antiunion considerations, was confirmed beyond doubt by Respondent's two contradictory explanations for elimination of the overtime, the intrinsic weakness of both explanations, and the failure to explain why the cut was not uniformly applied among the mechanics and helpers and why the normal pre-May Saturday overtime was resumed in September after employee leaders Blaylock, Long and Harrison had quit or been fired.32 Lastly, the conduct of Respondent on the day of the NLRB election, July 18, 1967, was the culmination of the prior 8(a)(1) misconduct, directly aimed at unfairly affecting the outcome of the election. Contrary to previous practice, eight or more employees, including at least four who were clearly regarded by Respondent as union sympathizers, were selected and shipped out on the company boat without previous notice, for a routine gas freeing operation, just hours before the scheduled NLRB election, and were detained on the water miles from the boatyard without explanation after their work was completed and after working hours were over. In effect, how-not-to-combat-a-union-campaign." N L R B v Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Retread Plant, 394 F.2d 711, 712 (C A 5, 1968) "The fact that the impact of the overtime elimination fell also on one additional employee, Stevenson , who was not one of the employee leaders, does not exculpate the Respondent from the misconduct , compare N.L.R B v Nabors Co., 196 F.2d 272, 276 (C.A. 5, 1952), cert. denied 344 U .S. 865 More significantly, the record showed that the elimination of overtime was discriminatorily applied by continuing some Saturday overtime for the newest mechanic Peets and for mechanics helper Webster. 'The discriminatory elimination of Saturday overtime was also an unlawful change in condition of employment of the three men, and since the subject was fully litigated and General Counsel's motion to conform the pleadings to the proof was allowed, Respondent was guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(3) as well as of Section 8(a)(1). N.L R B v Guild Industries Mfg Corp., 321 F.2d 108, 111-112 (C.A. 5, 1963). The 8(a)(3) discharges of employee Harrison and employee Walker, the fourth of the employee leaders, discussed , infra, was still another phase in the destruction of the employee leadership the men were forcibly prevented from voting. Respondent's own testimony made clear that there was no explanation other than the intention to prevent these employees from voting. The forcible detention of the several employees away from the polls was supplemented with the unnecessary show of force at the polling place by Respondent's posting and use of special guards, mostly uniformed and armed. The presence of this force was, for all of the employees, a source of intimidation and apprehension of violence at the election; and the actions of the guards, under Respondent's direction, with respect to employee Walker, interfered with his access to the voting place and with his right to vote without employer hindrance. The deprivation of, and interference with, employee voting rights by Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). Together with the other 8(a)(1) and (3) misconduct occurring before the conclusion of the election, the aggregate of the wrongful acts interfered with the freedom of choice of the employees in voting for a collective bargaining agent and substantially and unfairly affected the outcome of the election. D. The 8(a)(3) Violations 1. Discharge of employee Walker Freddie Lee Walker was employed by Respondent at Marine Welding from March 1965 until May 1, 1967, when he was discharged. He was a helper and for a period before his discharge worked as a pipefitter's helper. Superintendent Ellis testified that Walker was a good employee when he first came to work, that he continued to have possibilities of being a good worker, but that he deteriorated in the last month of his employment and was a mediocre employee in the last week. Superintendent Ellis and employee Walker agreed that in 1966 Walker had been laid off for three days for taking a nap on the job on a Saturday night, and that he had been separated from the job a second time in August 1966 when his wages were garnisheed by a creditor. Walker testified that he took a job with the Greenville Shipbuilding Company for about 2 1/2-3 months, then received an invitation from President Bill Williamson and John Davis to come back to Respondent and, as Superintendent Ellis also said, was rehired in November 1966, and worked without interruption until May 1, 1967. According to employee Walker, on April 27, 1967, he was recruited by employee Blaylock to organize for the Union and signed a pledge card. On that night and the succeeding night, April 28, and during the day, Sunday, April 30, Walker, a Negro, accompanied on the first occasion by the three white employee organizers, Long, Blaylock, and Harrison, and by the Union's organizer Collieux on the next two occasions, solicited and obtained union card signatures from employees at their homes, on the street in front of a barber shop, and at a cafe. Walker testified that he was generally successful except for two refusals. Walker's testimony concerning his union organizing activity in these several days was corroborated by employees Long, Blaylock, and Harrison. Monday morning, May 1, on reporting to work, employee Walker was given a swing blade, a 24-inch blade for hand cutting grass, by Superintendent Ellis, and told to cut the tall grass (sometimes called Johnson grass, typical of marshy areas), starting at the air compresser, building No. 10 on map Exhibit R-l, and working north and west to the water's edge Walker testified he had MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 675 never hand cut the grass before nor seen it done, and he and employees Harrison and Blaylock testified that in past summers to control the tall grass Respondent used chemicals sprayed by hose from a gasoline powered rig that Respondent maintained for this purpose. The rig was in working order, according to employees Harrison and Blaylock, because a week or two earlier employees Robertson and Blaylock had worked on it, Harrison had helped Robertson crank it, and Blaylock had tested it. Superintendent Ellis said the use of chemicals was not faster than hand cutting but was more effective because it killed grass; however, that he did not have any chemical available. According to Superintendent Ellis this occasion was the first cutting of the year and there were several more later in the summer.33 Ten minutes after he started cutting, said employee Walker, President Bill Williamson came over to him and pointed out what he wanted cut, embracing a large part of the whole waterfror, ea, from the water's edge on the west back to the paved and building portions of the yard on the east, and from the adjoining city park property on the south to building No. 4 (on map R-1) on the north. This was about a two acre area said employee Walker (Superintendent Ellis' estimate was in accord), and according to Superintendent Ellis was covered with grass and weeds, knee high and better, in which materials were scattered in places, some clearly visible and some not. According to employee Walker, President Williamson said he wanted the area cut by 3 p.m. that day because he had a Garden Association coming over 36 Employee Walker testified that he worked throughout the morning and until almost 2 p.m.35 with several interruptions - for lunch, to sharpen the blade, and to seek a replacement for a screw holding the blade when it broke on an object obscured by the grass. Meantime, about 9:30 a.m., said Walker, President Williamson came by and told him there would be no help with the cutting because he didn't have men to spare and had no more blades. When Walker came in during the day to replace the broken screw, Superintendent Ellis handed him a fresh swing blade instead, said Walker. According to employee Walker he had cut all of area 5 (on map R-1)36 , and had started on the other side of the road leading to the dock, in area 9, having cut about two-thirds, he said, of what he had been told to cut by President Williamson, when Williamson stopped him, said he would never finish at the rate he was going and fired him. Walker said he clocked out at 1:50 p.m. He was paid off a few minutes later by President Williamson, who told him, said Walker, there would be more following him. There had been no previous warnings, or indications of dissatisfaction with Walker's work before May 1, 1967, since his rehiring in November 1966. "Employee Harrison said that on those occasions he saw hand cutting done by a group of three to six employees. 'Superintendent Ellis claimed he had started employee Walker cutting a lesser area and had set no time limit although the greater area would eventually have to be cut. However, Ellis and President Williamson did not contradict employee Walker's testimony that Williamson had taken over and given Walker the expanded and more precise instructions on space and time "Employee James Johnson said he observed Walker cutting about that time and then saw him some minutes later coming off the drydock when he told Johnson he had been fired. "Organizer Wilson of the Union testified that he took photographs GC-11 and GC-12 the next morning, May 2, that he was able to see all of area 5, and the grass was cut. President Williamson testified that he had been concerned about his lease of the waterfront property from the city because there was opposition to him from the garden clubs who, he said, complained he was not keeping the grounds clean, that about May 1 he told Superintendent Ellis to put somebody on cutting the grass, and that employee Walker's cutting the grass was part of meeting the garden club opposition."' However, other testimony put in by Respondent, including further testimony of President Williamson, indicated that Respondent had a five year lease, which had about two years to run, that the lease was not in jeopardy3s but that President Williamson and other lakefront owners had been pressing the city council to sell the lakefront property rather than continue to lease, that the Greenville Port Commission was recommending long term leases instead of sale (city council minutes of May 2, 1967, Exhibit R-20), and that the issue was economics not esthetics (news article, Democrat Times, May 3, 1967, Exhibit R- 15) President Williamson testified that he observed employee Walker several times during the grass cutting operation on May 1, that he was mostly idling on the docks or in the shop, that he had to tell Walker to go back and get the grass cut, and that "I fired him, because we couldn't get enough work done." However, Superintendent Ellis testified that no one was assigned to replace Walker to cut the grass for the balance of that day. President Williamson said it was his decision to fire Walker, and he did not consult Superintendent Ellis. When asked to state his reasons for the discharge of Walker, President Williamson said : "the performance of his work . . . that particular day. That and other things. He was bad about going to sleep on the job, and his garnishment, and a number of things . . . Failing to show up on Saturday. Going to sleep on the job. Hangover every Monday from drinking." Williamson later said the garnishment was not part of it on May 1, 1967, and, apart from merely making the claim, produced no evidence on the subjects of failure to show up on Saturday or hangover every Monday from drinking.35 Indeed, whether employee Walker's alleged delinquency on Mondays was as stated at trial by President Williamson or as stated in Respondent's pleading (fn. 39, supra ), were it true neither President Williamson nor Superintendent Ellis would have entrusted employee Walker alone, of all the employees, with the claimed critical job of protecting the status of Respondent's, city lease from the ire of the garden clubs on Monday, May 1. "Superintendent Ellis testified that late in April President Williamson told him his lease with the city was coming up for renewal, that the garden clubs had complained about them and other boat places, and to get the tall grass cut. Hence, said Ellis, he assigned employee Walker to the job on May 1 Ellis said that Williamson did not tell him when the cutting had to be done "Respondent' s witness Sam Valencino, a member of the City Beautification Committee that represented the garden clubs, testified that while the garden clubs were interested in cleanliness they were not opposed to the city leasing the lakefront property , but opposed only its outright sale. His Committee, he said, was on record before May 2 that it was staying out of the sale-versus-lease controversy "Nor was either subject pleaded as a reason for discharge of employee Walker in Respondent's affirmative defense, Exhibit GC-1 (iii), filed after the Board' s case was presented in this trial but before President Williamson testified. Respondent's pleading states that Walker was discharged because of "past unsatisfactory performance on Mondays and his failure to do his job as instructed on May 1, 1967 ." There was no evidence of past unsatisfactory performance on Mondays. 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Obviously, the alleged delinquency was no more true than the claim that Respondent's lease was in jeopardy on May 1, 1967, or that the garden clubs were threatening Respondent's continuation as a tenant of the city property. 40 Respecting employee Walker's performance on May 1, it was characterized by President Williamson as "mostly idling" and by Superintendent Ellis as "lackadaisical"; but Ellis conceded that he had observed before noon that Walker had cut the grass of area 10, that he had cut half of and was working in area 14, and may or may not have cut area 13, Ellis wasn't sure. Ellis said he did not discuss employee Walker's performance of the grass cutting with President Williamson and knew that Walker had stopped only after being told by Williamson that he had fired Walker. Employees Harrison, Long, and Johnson each saw Walker on several occasions during the day and testified that they observed him cutting the grass; and, as already stated, the testimony of Walker, corroborated by Organizer Wilson, indicated Walker had cut area 5, and was working in area 9 when stopped by Williamson." In my view, the evidence established that employee Walker was well on his way to accomplish substantially the grass cutting task assigned to him on Monday, May 1, and that stopping and firing him before the alloted time given him was part of the contrived means of effecting his discharge. Conclusion: Employee Walker was regarded as a desirable employee before the union campaign began. His recall after two previous separations, plus the direct appraisal of his capability by Superintendent Ellis, attests to this. Immediately after he engaged in soliciting fellow employees for union pledge cards, including solicitation on the public streets and at a cafe as well as employees' homes, employee Walker was taken from his regular job as a pipefitter's helper and given the seemingly impossible and discouraging job of cutting by hand with a 24-inch blade, and with no other assistance, two acres of tall swamp grass on Respondent's waterfront property by 3 p.m. of the day the work was assigned, Monday, May 1. The assignment was unusual, not only because Walker had never done this kind of work in his two years of employment, but also because Respondent usually controlled the grass with a chemical spray, the spray rig had been put in working order a short time before, and whenever cutting was done it was performed by a crew of men and not by a single individual. Walker was told the work had to be done in less than a day because a garden club inspection was to be made that afternoon. Notwithstanding he had cut a substantial amount of the designated area of grass, employee Walker was stopped and fired before the time he had been alloted and no one replaced him to complete the cutting that day. The reasons given for the timing and haste in doing the grass cutting job were false. There was no garden club inspection slated or held, the garden clubs were not opposing Respondent's continuance as a tenant of the city of Greenville, and Respondent's lease, which had two years to run, was not in jeopardy then or prospectively Respondent was pressing the city to sell the waterfront property to Respondent, but the issue was the economics "The long past 1966 delinquency of taking a nap on the job, and the incurring of a wage garnishment in 1966, had been the subjects, then, of layoffs and remstatements These defaults had not deterred Respondent from recalling employee Walker and had been condoned by Respondent. "As shown on Exhibit R-1, areas 5 and 10 are on the south side of the road leading to the Marine Welding docks , and overlap each other as do areas 9 , 13, and 14 which are on the north side of the same road of sale-versus-lease and not the maintenance or appearance of the property. The garden clubs, while said to be in favor of leasing and against selling the land, had renounced even taking a public position on the issue. The reasons given by Respondent for discharging employee Walker were shifting and false. In the case of the alleged "failure to do his job as instructed" on the day of discharge, employee Walker was performing, and had been prematurely stopped by Respondent from completing, the special task assigned, though it was new to him and obviously devised to discourage him. The other reasons stated by President Williamson, who took direct and sole responsibility for the discharge, were niether pleaded nor proved, and included reasons underlying previous separations (one of which - garnishment of wages - was said to be both in and out) that Respondent had condoned six months earlier in the recall of employee Walker. There was direct evidence that Respondent knew of employee Walker's role in organizing for the Union when President Williamson told Walker in connection with his discharge that there would be more following him; and Respondent later confirmed its awareness of Walker's leadership by preventing him from voting at the Board election with his former co-workers of Marine Welding and by detaining him out of sight until, and permitting him to vote only after, the others had voted. (See heading C, 2,supra.)42 The total circumstances of employee Walker's discharge, including its swift execution at the earliest possible moment in the inception of the union campaign, the absence of any warning, the rigged pretext upon which the discharge rested and the subsequent implausible shifting explanations, Respondent's knowledge of Walker's union activities and its answering barrage of unlawful antiunion activities (see heading C, supra ), left no doubt that it was Respondent's discriminatory purpose in discharging Walker to impress upon the employees the measure of retaliation Respondent would visit upon union sympathizers in order to discourage membership in the Union. In so eliminating Walker as an employee, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. See, Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. v. N.L.R.B., 354 F.2d 707, 709 (C.A. 5, 1966), holding that the employer's assigned ground for discharge need not, be accepted where there is reasonable cause for believing the ground is untrue and that employee's union activity was the real reason; N L.R B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307 F.2d 275, 278 (C.A. 5, 1962), where employer's explanation for discharge "failed to stand scrutiny"; N.L R.B. v. Georgia Rug Mill, 308 F.2d 89, 91 (C.A. 5, 1962), holding that employer's shifting explanations for discharge strengthen the conclusion that the true reason was employee's union activity; and, N L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, 346 F.2d 1003, 1006 (C. A. 5, 1965), upholding as discriminatory the discharge of a leading union advocate during the height of an organizing campaign. 2. Discharge of employee Harrison Employee Dewitt B. (Ben ) Harrison was a mechanic with Williamson Engine for about two years before he was discharged on August 23, 1967. He started at $1 50 per "Evidence of employer knowledge may be circumstantial as well as direct, N.L R.B v. Ambox, Inc, 357 F.2d 138, 142 (C.A. 5, 1966), and the events attendant on this discharge , apart from the direct evidence, reflect knowledge MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS hour and was earning $2.05 per hour when separated from his job. In late 1966, employee Harrison said, he told Superintendent Campbell he was going to leave, but Campbell urged against it saying, according to Harrison, he was "making them a good hand." Superintendent Campbell also testified that Harrison was a good worker, saying that, "Ben Harrison did a day's work, when I assigned him work."43 Employee Harrison testified that at the end of April 1967 he started on the union campaign, getting about twenty authorization cards signed on the streets and in employee's homes. Several cards were put in his pickup at work, he said. Accompanying him in the solicitation of union authorizations were employees Blaylock, Long, and Walker. Harrison also attended approximately four to six union meetings at the union hall on Main Street in Greenville, he said, the first held in May 1967. Beginning in May 1967, as set out above under headings C, 1 and C, 5, employee Harrison was involved in discussions, interrogations, and harassment concerning his union sympathies, in which acts President Williamson, Superintendent Campbell, Foreman Ross, and Purchasing Agent Lusk took part. Employee Harrison's advocacy of the Union was well known to the employer, and Harrison served as union observer at the representation election in July. On May 16, 196,7, employee Harrison was given a letter by President Williamson telling Harrison that he was not giving "a full day's work" and was doing "a lot of talking on the job" and warning him if he did not give a "full day's work without interruptions and stop the talking on the job" he would be subject to disciplinary action including suspension or discharge, Exhibit GC-3.44 Shortly thereafter at the end of May 1967, employee Harrison's Saturday overtime was discriminatorily eliminated, along with the like reduction visited on his fellow mechanics and union advocates Blaylock and Long (see headings C, 4and C, 5, supra). On August 23, 1967, employee Harrison was handed a second letter by President Williamson (Exhibit GC-4), telling him he was discharged because he had told a number of people at the shop he was going to hurt another employee. The testimony of employees Harrison and Long, and of Purchasing Agent Lusk and Foreman Ross, was in general agreement concerning the incident that allegedly triggered the discharge. The incident occurred on the previous day and involved mechanics helper Webster, who usually had done the steam cleaning of parts for the mechanics. On this occasion, mechanic Harrison, from inside the shop, called to helper Webster, outside the shop some 75 to 100 feet away, to do some steam cleaning for Harrison. Helper Webster called back that he was not steaming anymore. Mechanic Harrison did not talk further to helper Webster or go after him, but commented to mechanic Long, who was working with him, that he had a mind to straighten Webster out. Purchasing Agent Lusk testified he overheard Harrison talking to Long, asked Harrison what it was about, and was told by Harrison, who said he had a mind to take a lead pipe or rubber hose to Webster. Lusk testified that Webster was "See in. 44, infra "But see text at fn. 43, supra, quoting employee Harrison's more immediate supervisor Superintendent Campbell, who contrary to the accusation of the letter, testified that Harrison was an employee who did "a day's work" when he was assigned a job. There was no evidence regarding talking on the job, and Harrison testified that neither he nor any other employee had been told they could not talk on the job. 677 not present, and that he, Lusk, told Harrison to forget it or to cool off; but Lusk reported the matter to Foreman Ross and then to President Williamson. Foreman Ross had come by, meantime, according to mechanic Long, and mechanic Harrison asked Ross to have helper Webster steam the parts, but Ross said he had assigned Webster to help mechanic Peers. Foreman Ross testified he had not heard or observed mechanic Harrison make threats to, or have trouble with, helper Webster, in fact it was Ross' observation that they were ignoring each other; but Ross said he reported to President Williamson what had been told him of the alleged threat There was no evidence that helper Webster had heard or heard of mechanic Harrison's utterances or was even aware of Harrison's dissatisfaction .41 And, there was no evidence that President Williamson offered Harrison, an employee of two years' standing, any opportunity to explain what had happened with Webster on August 22, notwithstanding the fact that the letter of August 23 said "we have looked into the matter." There was evidence, supplied by employee Rush and Superintendent Ellis, that in March or April 1967, Rush got into a fight with two other employees and pulled a knife on them. On that occasion, President Williamson sent employee Rush home, but gave him no letter, and put Rush back to work one month later. President Williamson testified that he never offered the job back to employee Harrison. There was also testimony by Superintendent Campbell that at Williamson Engine the mechanics engage in cursing, and "nag" or "pick" on a man, or joke, about something done or something wrong. Conclusion: It can be aptly repeated here that the issue is " `not whether there existed a valid ground for discharge, but whether the stated ground was the real one.' J. P. Stevens and Co. v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 292, 300 (2d Car. 1967)." N.L.R.B, v. Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc., 393 F.2d 871, 872 (C.A. 2, 1968). The evidence is overwhelming that, from the time in May 1967 when Respondent became aware of Harrison's advocacy of the Union until his discharge in August, Respondent's actions toward him were motivated by its antiunion animus. Before May 1967, employee Harrison was a well paid mechanic, who had had wage increases and plenty of overtime work, and whom Respondent had sought to keep from leaving. In contrast, thereafter, he was falsely accused by Respondent of not giving a full day's work (contrary to his supervisor's appraisal) and of talking on the job (without evidence in support of the accusation and in deviation of Respondent's past practice). He was interrogated about his union sympathies, told in essence that he was being watched, harassed concerning his attendance at union meetings, and penalized by elimination of his Saturday overtime. When Respondent claimed in its letter of August 23 that it had "looked into" the incident relating to helper Webster on August 22, employee Harrison was not even accorded the courtesy or opportunity to be heard on what had happened,' but was discharged forthwith. In this background of anitunion hostility and conduct directed at employee Harrison, the triviality of the incident of August 22, and the rapidity with which it was seized upon to discharge Harrison, mark the incident as a pretext, rather than a cause, for discharge. There were no blows or hostile words exchanged between employees "Helper Webster, though still employed by Respondent at the time of the hearing, was not called as a witness. 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Harrison and Webster, indeed there was no exchange; and the evidence indicates that Harrison was momentarily blowing off steam in rough but idle talk to persons other than the object of his displeasure, in a mechanics' shop that was accustomed to rough talk.46 Moreover, the disparity in disciplinary treatment, after advent of the Union, that brought employee Harrison a discharge for use of words, in contrast, befpre advent of the Union, to the 1-month layoff for employee Rush for use of a knife, adds to the discriminatory overtone of the discharge In my view, Respondent's stated ground for the discharge of employee Harrison was a pretext for getting rid of a principal union advocate who had initiated the union campaign and served as a union observer at the Board election. The discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., 392 F.2d 559, 560-561 (C.A. 5, 1968), where the dischargees "had acted as observers for the union at a Board election," and their discharge was found to be "pretextual and in reprisal" for adherence to the union; and compare cases cited under heading D1 above. 3. Discharge of employee Layton Employee Isiah Layton worked for Marine Welding from September 8, 1966 to September 6, 1967, as a helper, principally as a welder's helper. Except for the period August 3-14, 1967, in which time he was receiving treatment for a job incurred injury to his eye, employee Layton had not missed work and had not been subject to any layoffs, until he was discharged on September 6, 1967. At 5 P.M that day, which was not the regular pay day, Superintendent Ellis told employee Layton to punch out and turn in his equipment. When he asked Superintendent Ellis, "What have I done", Ellis replied, "Nothing, I just don't need you anymore." Employee Layton testified, and there was no disagreement by Superintendent Ellis, that Layton had not been warned or told that he was doing poor work, or given any reason for his discharge. Employee Layton was not given a letter telling him why he was fired (as was given two weeks earlier in the case of employee Harrison), and he has received no offer to come back to his job. From the evidence recited under heading C,1 and C, 2 above, it appeared that employee Layton, who signed a union card on the street on April 30, but denied signing under questioning by President Williamson, was a target for cajoling and threats by President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis not to "fool" with the Union or sign with it, was reprimanded by Ellis for attending union meetings, and was among the union sympathizers who were detailed to the gas freeing expedition on the July election day and prevented from voting. On July 27, 1967, while he worked near some welders, employee Layton's eyes were burned by the "glittering" of a welding torch. According to Superintendent Ellis, welders and welders' helpers frequently suffered such burns, since a good deal of welding by more than one torch goes on simultaneously, and, notwithstanding the use of goggles and hoods, not infrequently men would get "The brief "moment of animal exuberance" was hardly misconduct of "so violent or of such serious character as to render the employee unfit for further service," N.L.R B v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F.2d 811, 815-816 (C.A. 7, 1946), N.L R B v. Thor Power Tool, Co., 351 F 2d 584, 587 (C.A. 7, 1965) Compare, N L R B. v. Baker Hotel, 311 F.2d 528 (C A. 5, 1963), where the triviality of the disturbance, upon which the discharge was allegedly grounded, was held to support the finding of a pretext to cover an 8(a)(3) discharge. burned when they lifted or moved their protective equipment. According to Ellis, Respondent kept a drug called poticane (in the form of eye drops) on an open shelf in the tool room for use of the men to soothe eye burns. Employee Layton did not report the burn immediately but used the poticane eye drops and continued working. Several days later, the pain had not subsided, and employee Layton talked to Superintendent Ellis, early in the morning of August 3. Layton said he needed a doctor. Employee Layton and Superintendent Ellis both testified that Ellis replied a doctor would not help an eye burn and told Layton to take the eye drops and use them at home. Ellis said he would get Layton a doctor the next day if he were not better. Layton went home but his wife sent him to Dr. L. S. Gamble, who removed a foreign body from the left eye and treated the eye on successive almost daily visits through August 11, see Exhibits GC-9 and 10. Layton returned to work on Monday, August 14, and continued to work until his discharge three weeks later on September 6. Employee Layton testified that while he had twice suffered eye burns early in his employment and prior to the July 1967 injury, he had not reported them or lost any work. According to employee Layton, when he came back to work on August 14, 1967, President Bill Williamson told him, "If you can't stand a little burning in your eye, you need to get 100 miles away." President Williamson testified that he didn't say anything to Layton but, when he was referred to this quoted testimony, changed his answer, saying he told Layton if his eyes were weak he should get away from welding. President Williamson claimed that employee Layton failed to show up for work a number of times because he had burned his eyes, but Williamson offered nothing to substantiate the claim, and there was no evidence of any absences from work by Layton other than the one period of treatment for his injury August 3-14, 1967.11 Superintendent Ellis testified he discharged employee Layton on September 6, 1967, because of customer complaints concerning Layton, because of his low production, and because Layton was accident prone; i.e., he had his eyes burned three or four times. The customer complaints arose, according to Superintendent Ellis, in July 1967, in connection with the repair of the barge Hutch 4 for Hines Inc., one of their best customers, said Ellis. This was a 3 to 4 day job in drydock to repair collision damage and required mostly welders, 10 to 12 each day, according to Superintendent Ellis. Ellis said he supervised the personnel on the job. Also present, about 50 percent of the time that the repairs were being made, was Charles Poe, manager of Hines Inc. Poe said he was present (and made it a practice to be present on most repairs) to see that the job was done according to his specifications and as efficiently and economically as possible. While the job was in progress, according to Superintendent Ellis, Poe complained about one of the helpers, pointing out employee Layton, said Ellis, saying Layton was "goldbricking" and Poe was not getting his money's worth since this was a cost plus job. Superintendent Ellis testified that Poe had never made such a complaint before and he told Poe he would see this corrected; but he did not talk to Layton, and did not tell ''Superintendent Ellis also claimed that employee Layton burned his eyes on three or four occasions, but made no claim that Layton lost working time, other than the August 3-14 period , or that there had been reports of these other occasions. Ellis conceded that he could not know of the employee burning his eyes if the man did not report it or miss work MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 679 him of Poe's complaint, and kept Layton on the job the balance of the day Ellis said he assigned Layton to another job the following day and that Layton was not on the Hutch 4 the last two days of the job. About a month later Hines Inc., sent in another job for drydock repairs, the motor vessel Larry Turner, and it spent one day, September 1, in drydock. President Williamson told him, said Superintendent Ellis, that customer Poe had complained about employee Layton on the previous Hines job, had given Williamson difficulty about the bill, and did not want Layton working on their equipment. Ellis testified that employee Layton had worked on a variety of jobs since the Hutch 4 and that he, Ellis, had observed Layton because of Poe's complaint, and was now embarrassed because he had put employee Layton to work on the motorboat Larry Turner. He did not pull Layton off the job, said Ellis, because he was told Poe would not be there. Ellis said nothing to Layton but observed him, testified Ellis, from then until September 6 and "realized we were not getting the production from this man that we should,. and due to the complaints of a customer . . . I terminated Isiah Layton's connections with the company." President Bill Williamson testified that in July 1967, when the Hutch 4 was in drydock, Poe of Hines Inc. pointed out employee Layton to him and identified him by his name "Layton," telling Williamson that he ought not charge for a man standing around doing nothing. This was before the bill was made out, said Williamson. When it came time to bill Hines Inc., President Williamson said, he showed Poe the draft of the bill, Exhibit R-14, on which the total charge was $3,323.45. Poe complained, said Williamson, and Williamson cut the bill to $2805, which was the amount Hines Inc. paid, see bill July 24, 1967, Exhibit R-10. Poe's "major complaint," said President Williamson, was "that we had some men on it that didn't work as he thought they should, and I was supposed to cut the bill " Recalling the conversation with Poe, Williamson testified: A Well, he made one complaint of one fellow that he didn't think that I should charge for his time, because he wasn't doing anything, was Isiah Layton. Q. And was that part of the basis of this compromise from $3,323.45 to $2805? A. That's right. 41 In connection with the next job for Hines Inc., President Williamson testified, Poe called him when the motor vessel Larry Turner was on the Marine Welding dock. Poe said, according to Williamson, he wanted the boat out as quickly and cheaply as possible. The boat was in drydock for one day for a change of propellors and, according to Williamson, Poe called him a second time and said, there were certain men who failed to do the job on the Hutch 4 and he did not want them on the job and he identified one man, saying, "I don't want Layton on the job." As a result, said Williamson, he told "Although there was testimony on this negotiating session by both President Williamson and customer Poe, there was no mention of any other employee than Layton and no mention of the other bases for the reduction of $518 However, it would be difficult to attribute as much as 5 percent of the reduction to the cost of employee Layton's labor. The records show he was paid $1 .40 per hour, and, if Superintendent Ellis did as he said, he took Layton off for the last 2 days of the 3-or 4-day job. Assuming the maximum for Layton of 2 full 8-hour days (there was no overtime, this was a job with insurance involved, and the insurance adjuster was on hand, according to Poe), at $11.20 per day, Layton's labor was $22.40 or about 4 percent of the $518 reduction. Even a full 4 days' labor by Layton would have been only $44.80 or about 8 percent of the reduction. Superintendent Ellis to take employee Layton off the Larry Turner, where Williamson said he knew Layton was working. Williamson testified he told Ellis "the customer wasn't satisfied with that particular man working on the boat, and to take him off and rush the boat out as fast as possible to satisfy him." President Williamson went on to testify that Superintendent Ellis discharged employee Layton, without discussing the matter with Williamson, that he learned Layton was fired when he signed the final paycheck, but did not know the reasons and did not learn of them until the matter came up in this trial, although he conceded he had not heard Superintendent Ellis testify and that Ellis had not told him the reasons Williamson then added the further contradiction, that he did know the reasons because he had had customer Poe's complaints about Layton, and "we thought it was for the safety of him to not be around the welding." By "we" he meant Ellis, said Williamson. Witness Poe, for the Respondent, put a large hole in the testimony of President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis by denying that he made any reference by name, in any conversation with them, as to whom he did not want working on the Hines boats. In connection with the repair of the Hutch 4 in July, he said, on possibly the second day he mentioned to Superintendent Ellis that Ellis had some personnel "apparently loafing on the job," and since this was a time and material job there might be discussions as to the amount of the invoice. (At a later point in his testimony Poe said his reference in this conversation was "to certain people that were not, in my opinion performing work that was assigned to them.") Poe was quite clear that what he said to Ellis was "not by name," that "there was no reference by name," and that he did not name anybody because he did not know the names of the men on the job. He said he pointed out one man to Ellis but did not know who he was. When the bill for the Hutch 4 was figured with President Williamson, customer Poe said he told Williamson his figure was too high and he objected to some of the charges, though he could not recall which. On labor costs, he said, he may possibly have told Williamson "you don't expect me to pay for gold bricking, or some such remark." Poe testified that getting invoice figures pared down was a usual practice with him, at other ship yards as well as at this yard. He agreed that the $518 reduction, as shown by the exhibits, was correct. On the next job, the boat Larry Turner, customer Poe said he called President Williamson either several days in advance of or on September 1, the day the repairs were made (but contrary to Williamson, he said, there was only the one conversation concerning the Larry Turner, see fn. 49, infra), and discussed the necessary repairs, the approximate cost, and the time needed, and said something to Williamson about getting the boat out in a hurry and to watch "his labor costs" and "hold the invoice down" so that "it wouldn't be necessary to negotiate any further reductions in his invoices." Poe testified that there was no reference to persons he did or did not want working on his boat, by name or otherwise, in this conversation, and the only reference to people not performing work occurred in the previous (and first) conversation, the conversation with Ellis when Hutch 4 was in drydock. °1 "Witness Poe was clear that there were, in all, only three conversations that he had with President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis in this period the first, in July, with Ellis when the Hutch 4 was being repaired in 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Conclusion: Accepting as more reliable and credible the testimony of the disinterested customer Poe over the conflicting, and at times intrinsically incredible, testimony of President Williamson and Superintendent Ellis relating to employee Layton, it is obvious that President Williamson concocted a false claim of a customer complaint about Layton that the customer has denied making. It is also obvious that Superintendent Ellis had no real problem with employee Layton as a worker, and that Ellis and President Williamson had to invent nonexistent problems to cover the true reason for Layton's discharge. Thus, in July, when customer Poe, an admittedly important customer, pointed out to Superintendent Ellis an unidentified employee whom Poe thought was not performing work assigned on his barge job, the conduct of Ellis (contrary to his words) suggests that it was not Layton, because Ellis concededly never said anything to Layton and cor_,inued to use him without a word of complaint for approximately the next two months, as Ellis testified, in all sorts of assignments, including working on customer Poe's next boat that came in. However, even under the unlikely assumption that Layton was the employee identified by customer Poe in - July, as Superintendent Ellis claims, it would appear from Ellis' further testimony that he did not believe that Layton was loafing or deficient in production. Not only did Ellis say nothing to Layton but he kept him on Poe's job for the balance of the day of the complaint, assigned him to other work, allegedly kept him under close observation in the ensuing weeks (because of Poe's complaint), put him on Poe's next job in September, and did not remove him from that job even though he was allegedly told to do so by President Williamson on account of Poe's supposed request. In this state of the evidence, Superintendent Ellis' claim of customer complaints against, and low production by, employee Layton is sheer myth. Likewise, Respondent's claim that employee Layton was accident prone is contradicted by the evidence. There was only the one accident that occurred in July 1967 (for which the injury to Layton's eye, was treated in early August) almost a year after employee Layton commenced his employment, which was by its nature hazardous. Indeed, employee Layton exhibited considerable fortitude by continuing to work (whether wisely or not) for almost a week before indicating that he had been hurt and seeking medical aid. The brief period of time lost for treatment on this occasion was the only time lost by employee Layton because of an accident, in the span of a year's employment. On employee Layton's return to work August 14, 1967, after medical treatment, other than the caustic comment of President Williamson that Layton needed to get 100 miles away if he could not stand a little burning in his eye, the subject of the accident was not mentioned to Layton by Respondent until the trial of this case. Similarly, there was no mention by Respondent to employee Layton of complaints regarding the quality of his work or production, until the trial of this case. When employee Layton was peremptorily discharged on September 6, 1967, and inquired about the reason, he was told there was none. In the context of Respondent's extensive coercive activity to root out employee adherence to the Union, some of which activity was earlier directly aimed at employee Layton as a known union sympathizer, the discharge of Layton, without warning, notice, and opportunity to overcome claimed deficiencies, N.L.R.B v. Great Dane Trailers Inc., supra, 396 F.2d 769 (C.A. 5, 1968), accompanied by a refusal to give him any reason for his peremptory discharge, N.L.R.B. v. Plant City Steel Corp., 331 F.2d 511, 514-515 (C.A. 5, 1964), followed by an invented discredited explanation, Martin Sprocket and Gear Co. v. N.L R.B., 329 F.2d 417, 419, 420 (C.A. 5, 1964),5° was a discharge motivated by Respondent's intention to discourage and eliminate union support among its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. E. Objections to the Results of the Election The trial of the consolidated unfair labor practice cases and the Union's eighteen unresolved objections to the results of the Board election of July 18, 1967, was conducted on the agreement of the parties that the allegations of the objections paralleled various allegations of the unfair labor practice complaints and raised no additional issues of fact, except as to Objections Nos. 10 and 21. See fn. 2 and 3, supra Concerning Objections Nos. 10 and 21, no evidence was presented in support, and I granted Respondent's motion to dismiss both of these objections, at trial. In addition, from my examination of the record, I find that no evidence was presented to support Objection No. 8 (charging President Williamson with personal surveillance of the union hall on July 17, 1967), or Objection No. 9 (charging Respondent with scheduling overtime on the afternoon of Saturday July 9, 1967, to prevent employees from attending a union meeting), or Objection No. 12 (charging Superintendent Campbell and Foreman Ross with offering employees money and other items to inform on employees who had signed pledge cards and supported the Union) Therefore Objections Nos. 8, 9, and 12 should also be dismissed. The remainder of the objections were proven, substantially, by the evidence recited and evaluated under headings II, C and D, supra. Conclusion: As set forth in the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Order of August 22, 1967, there were 23 objections to the results of the election of July 18, 1967, filed by the Union. The Regional Director overruled Objections Nos. 4, 7, 11, 22 and 23, and referred the remainder for trial. Of the remainder, Objections Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, and 21 have failed at trial for lack of evidence. The allegations of the 13 other Objections - Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 - have been established in the form and to the extent that they have also been found to be unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The misconduct involved, together with the other violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) that occurred before the conclusion of the election of July 18, 1967, interfered with the free choice of the employees and affected substantially and unfairly the outcome of the election. It is therefore necessary that the drydock, the second, also in July, with Williamson in negotiating the reduced invoice for repairing the Hutch 4; and the third, either a few days before or on September 1, with Williamson regarding the repair of the Larry Turner "In Martin Sprocket, the alleged reasons found to be pretext for the discharge were about the same as here, namely, that the employee was not giving a day's work, that his work was not up to par, and that he was accident prone. MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 681 results of the election be set aside, and that a new election be ordered upon request of the Union, following certain remedial action which I discuss below. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing the free flow thereof. IV THE REMEDY For the immediate violations: In Cases 26-CA-2756, 2843, 2861, and 2875, having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Because Respondent discriminatorily discharged employees Freddie Lee Walker, Dewitt B. Harrison, and Isiah Layton, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges. It will be recommended that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he not malty would have earned as wages (including normal overtime) from the date of discharge, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if any, during this period. The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis as prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), approved in N L R B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company, 344 U.S. 344 (1953), and shall include interest at 6 percent per annum as provided by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), approved in Philip Carey Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 888, and cases cited. Because Respondent discriminatorily deprived employees M. L. Blaylock, Dewitt B. Harrison, and Charles L Long of Saturday overtime wages for the pay period ending May 31, 1967, through the pay period ending September 6, 1967, it will be recommended that Respondent make them whole for the loss of the Saturday overtime earnings in that period by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as Saturday overtime wages in the period. The sums due shall be computed on a quarterly basis with interest at 6 percent, as in the case of the backpay computation above. Because the Respondent by its conduct violated fundamental employee rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and because there appears from the manner of the commission of this conduct an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act and a proclivity to commit other unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. N L.R.B. v. Bama Company, 353 F.2d 320, 323-324 (C.A. 5, 1965); N L R.B v. Moore Dry Kiln Co., 320 F.2d 30, 34-35 (C.A. 5, 1963); Southwire Company v. N.L.R.B., supra, 393 F.2d 106, 107 (C.A. 5, 1968). Concerning Case 26-RC-2914, the representation proceeding, which by the Regional Director's order was consolidated with the unfair labor practice cases for trial and decision on the objections to the results of the election, because 13 of the objections have been sustained as part of the total 8(a)(1) and (3) violations found, and because all the violations that occurred before the conclusion of the election prevented the employees from freely exercising their choice and affected substantially and unfairly the results of the election, it will be recommended that the Board set aside the results of the election of July 18, 1967, and, upon the Unions request, direct the holding of a new election, after severance of Case 26-RC-2914 from the consolidated proceeding. For restoring plant equilibrium: In my ' view, Respondent's long and virulent antiunion campaign (of interrogation and intimidation, inportuning or forcing union repudiation, threats, firings, forcible detention and scare tactics in connection with the election) has been designed to instill in the employees a sense of futility if they were to select the Union to represent them, and has undoubtedly destroyed any belief that the employees had a freedom of choice on the representation question. To assist in relieving this atmosphere of fear and futility in Respondent's plant, and to help restore to the employees the opportunity to hear all viewpoints, it is necessary, and it will be recommended, that the Respondent take the following measures: 1. Post the notice, Appendix B of this decision, in each of the four shops comprising Respondent's total plant. J. P. Stevens and Co. v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 292, 304 (C.A. 2, 1967), cert denied 389 U.S. 1005, known as Stevens I; J. P. Stevens and Co. v. N.L.R.B, 388 F.2d 896, 903 (C.A 2, 1967), known as Stevens H. 2. Mail a copy of the notice, Appendix B, to each of Respondent's employees (so that each may have an opportunity to absorb its meaning and understand his legal rights in more leisurely fashion than by hurried scanning at the bulletin board). Stevens I, supra, at 304; Stevens II, supra, at 903; N.L.R.B. v. H. W. Elson Bottling Co., 379 F.2d 223, 226 (C.A. 6, 1967). 3. Read the notice, Appendix B, to the employees assembled for the purpose, in each shop separately or at joint assemblages of two or more shops as convenient, with a representative of the Board present. The testimony indicated that among some of the employees there was variously illiteracy or a low level of literacy. N L R B. v. Texas Electric Cooperatives, 398 F.2d 722 (C.A. 5, 1968); Stevens II, supra, 904-905. A. Grant the Union and its representatives, upon their request, reasonable access for a three month period to Respondent's bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted in the four shops. N.L.R.B. v. H. W. Elson Bottling Co., supra, 379 F.2d at 226; Stevens II, supra, 905. 5. Make available to the Union and its representatives, upon request of the Union and at a mutually agreeable time, suitable facilities, such as are customarily used for employee meetings, for a one hour meeting on company time with Respondent's employees, at each shop separately or at joint assemblages of two or more shops as convenient. Crystal Lake Broom Works, 159 NLRB 429, 430-431 (1966). Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following. 682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OFLAW 1. The Respondent comprising the four named corporations is a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and by discriminatorily discharging three of the employees because of union activities, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Thirteen of the Union's 23 objections to the results of the July 18, 1967 representation election have been sustained as part of the unfair labor practices found. The misconduct proven together with the other violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act that occurred before the conclusion of the election, prevented the employees from exercising their free choice and affected substantially and unfairly the results of the election, and requires that the results be set aside and a new election ordered upon request of the Union. 4. Paragraphs 17 and 25 of the consolidated complaints (compendium, Exhibit GC-2) are dismissed on the ground that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to support the claim that Respondent, through President Williamson, promised a white employee that white employees would get raises and Negro employees would not if he helped keep the Union out (paragraph 17); or the claim that Respondent, through Superintendent Ellis, threatened an employee to discharge one-by-one the employees who had supported or assisted the Union (paragraph 25). Paragraph 21 of the consolidated complaints (compendium, Exhibit GC-2), charging that Respondent required overtime at its Greenville locations on July 15, 1967, to prevent employees from attending a union meeting, is dismissed for lack of evidence. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively questioning its employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies; engaging in surveillance or creating the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities; discharging, or threatening discharge, or reducing overtime, of employees for joining or favoring a union; obtaining customer help for firing union sympathizers; threatening employees that work will be refused, or the plant closed, or no contract ever signed, if the Union becomes employees' bargaining representative; requiring or importuning employees to obtain return of union authorization cards or to otherwise repudiate the Union; informing employees that their voting at a representation election will not be secret, preventing or delaying employees from voting, or intimidating employees by the presence of armed or other guards about the voting place; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. (b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees, or reducing their overtime, or otherwise discriminating against them as to their tenure and conditions of employment 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to employees Freddie Lee Walker, Dewitt B. Harrison, and Isiah Layton full reinstatement to their former positions or to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole, in the manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. Notify any of them who may be serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces. (b) Make employees M. L. Blaylock, Dewitt B. Harrison, and Charles L. Long whole, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," for the loss of Saturday overtime wages each would normally have earned for the pay period ending May 31, 1967 through the pay period ending September 6, 1967. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain the backpay or Saturday overtime pay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post in each of the Respondent's four shops in Greenville, Mississippi, and mail to each of its employees, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."51 Immediately upon receipt of the copies of,said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26 (Memphis, Tennessee), the Respondent shall cause the copies to be signed by one of its authorized representatives and mailed and posted, the posted copies to be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Read the notice, Appendix B, to the employees, assembled for that purpose, with a representative of the Board present. The reading may be at an assemblage for each shop separately, or at joint assemblages of two or more shops, as convenient. (f) Grant the Union and its representatives, upon their request, reasonable access for a three month period to Respondent's bulletin boards and other places where notices are customarily posted in the four shops. (g) Make available to the Union and its representatives, upon request of the Union and at a time mutually agreeable to the Union and Respondent, suitable facilities, such as are customarily used for employee meetings, for a 1-hour meeting on company time with Respondent's employees. The meeting may be at an assemblage for each shop separately or at joint assemblages of two or more "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced in a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision And Order." MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS 683 shops, as mutually agreed by Respondent and the Union, but each assemblage shall be convened for one hour. (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.52 I FURTHER RECOMMEND, in Case 26-RC-2914, that the Board set aside the results of the election of July 18, 1967; and, upon request of the Union following compliance by Respondent with the Recommended Order, that the Board direct the holding of a new election, after severance of Case 26-RC-2914 from the consolidated proceeding. "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith." APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Recommended Order of a Trial Examinerof the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: After a trial, in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the Act, and has told us to post and mail this notice and to keep our word about what we say in this notice. WE WILL NOT fire you because you join a union or favor a union. Since the Board found that we violated the law when we fired Freddie Lee Walker, Dewitt B. Harrison, and Isiah Layton over the Union, WE WILL OFFER them their old jobs back and give them backpay. If any of them is in the Armed Forces of the United States, we will notify him of his right to full reinstatement upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL NOT ask our customers to help us fire employees who are for the Union. WE WILL NOT ask you to get your union cards back or ask you if you are for the Union. WE WILL NOT spy on union meetings or act so that employees think we are spying on them. WE WILL NOT tell you that we know how you are voting or that your vote will not be a secret. WE WILL NOT stop giving you overtime because you favor the Union. WE WILL pay M. L. Blaylock, Dewitt B. Harrison, and Charles L. Long for the Saturday overtime they lost from May 1967 to September 1967. WE WILL NOT tell you that we are refusing work because of the Union. WE WILL NOT tell you that we will close down if the Union gets in or tell you that we will never sign a contract with the Union if you vote for it. WE WILL NOT threaten to fire you if you talk about the Union on the job. WE WILL NOT try to scare you over voting at an election for the Union by placing armed or unarmed guards at or near the voting place. WE WILL NOT prevent or delay you from voting in any election over the Union. You are all free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees Division of the National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor union. Dated By MARINE WELDING & REPAIR WORKS, INC.; WILLIAMSON ENGINE & SUPPLY INC.; GREENVILLE MANUFACTURING & MACHINE WORKS, INC.; GREENVILLE PROPELLER WORKS, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161.