C & G Electric, Inc.

C & G ELECTRIC, INC. C & G Electric, Inc. and Local Union 35 , Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO . Case 1-CA-6135 June 28, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On April 17, 1968, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and Charging Party filed briefs in support of the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case,2 and hereby adopts the findings,3 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein. 1. The Trial Examiner finds that remarks made by Respondent's agents to employees Albers, Sou- kup, and Puzzo "constituted the creation of impres- sion of surveillance." We do not agree. Each of these employees was approached by an officer of the Respondent who stated that he was aware that there had been a meeting the night before or, in the case of Puzzo, that Respondent understood that ' As the Trial Examiner notes, the Respondent claims that it was denied due process of law and a fair hearing because it was not furnished certain specific information concerning the allegations of the complaint We agree with the Trial Examiner that the complaint meets the requirements of Sec- tion 102 15 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , Series 8, as amended , and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts I Respondent had filed a motion to supplement the record with excerpts from the "Agreement between Local Union No 35 International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers and the Hartford Division , Central Connecticut Chapter Electrical Contractors Association ," (attached to the motion) Although counsel for Respondent had a copy of this agreement marked for identification at the hearing he did not offer it in evidence ( even though )ust prior to the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner reminded him that he had not done so) Because of this, and because the matters con- tained in the requested documents are not relevant to the issues in this proceeding , Respondent's motion to supplement the record is hereby de- nted 771 Puzzo had attended a meeting at the union hall the night before. Both Respondent's President Cecere (as noted by the Trial Examiner), and Respondent's Treasurer Garofalo testified, without contradiction, that on October 3, 1967, prior to Respondent ap- proaching any of its employees, Union Business Manager Murray told Respondent that he had had a meeting with the employees the night before. At that meeting Murray had told the employees that he was going to the Respondent the next day and would indicate to Respondent that he represented a majority of the Respondent's employees. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the employees assumed that Respondent acquired its information about the meeting from Murray. Under the circumstances, we do not believe that the statements by Respondent's officers created an impression of surveillance. Therefore, we shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint. 2. The Trial Examiner finds that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by unilaterally granting wage increases to its employees.' We agree. How- ever, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner' s finding that Cecere offered to increase Albers wages from $3.50 to $4 if Albers would forget about the Union. The Trial Examiner erroneously states that Cecere was not questioned specifically about this alleged offer. Actually Cecere was asked specifically about it and testified that he had never talked to Albers. We do not find it necessary to resolve the credibili- ty issue thereby presented as we find that the other evidence, discussed by the Trial Examiner, establishes that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by unilaterally granting wage increases to its employees. 3. The Trial Examiner finds that Respondent's whole course of action after the Union requested recognition is adverse to any contention that it withheld and refused recognition because of a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority. We agree. Respondent's granting of wage increases and The General Counsel's motions to strike Respondent 's exception 10, to physically strike point V , pp 13-16, of Respondent's brief, and to strike Respondent 's reply to the motion to strike are hereby denied ' These findings and conclusions are based, in part , upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has ex- cepted After careful review of the record , we conclude that the Trial Ex- aminer's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) ' We note that the Trial Examiner finds that Codere received a $ 75 raise in October when the exhibit listing the raises granted by Respondent , stipu- lated by the parties as correct , shows that he received an $ 85 raise at that time Similarly, the Trial Examiner finds that McCarthy received a $ 15 raise in November when this same exhibit shows that he actually received a $ 25 raise at that time The Decision is hereby corrected in these respects 172 NLRB No. 91 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD its coercive interrogation of employees5 appear to have been calculated to undermine the Union's majority status. Therefore, we adopt the Trial Ex- aminer's finding that the Respondent's refusal to bargain was not motivated by a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority and thus violative of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1). AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Delete from Conclusion of Law 4 the date "October 4, 1967" and substitute the date "Oc- tober 2, 1967." 2. Delete from Conclusion of Law 6 the words "and by giving the impression of surveillance of their union activities and interest of the employees in the Union," and insert the word "and" before the phrase reading "by interrogation ...." described above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree- ment." 4. Delete from the second indented paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision that part thereof which reads "threaten reprisals for such activities or create the impression of surveillance thereof." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the complaint as to which no violations have been found are hereby dismissed. ' In adopting the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent engaged in coercive interrogation we note additionally that Garofalo acknowledges that in response to Garofalo's questioning , employee Codere , a card signer, told Garofalo how he (Codere ) felt about the Union ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, C & G Electric, Inc., Hartford , Connecticut , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified. 1. Delete paragraph 1(a) and substitute the fol- lowing: "(a) Refusing to bargain concerning rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, or other condi- tions of employment with Local Union 35, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees in the following appropriate unit : All jour- neymen electricians, electricians' helpers and ap- prentices of the Respondent employed at its Hart- ford, Connecticut, facility , exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 1) of the Act, a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act." 2. Delete from paragraph 1(b) that part which reads "or engaging in or giving the impression of engaging in surveillance of the activities of such employees in respect to their interest in or activities on behalf of," 3. Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the fol- lowing: "(a) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith , with Local Union 35, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, as the ex- clusive representative of all employees in the unit TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ARTHUR E. REYMAN, Trial Examiner: Local Union 35, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called the Union or Local 35, on November 8, 1967, filed a charge and on December 6, 1967, filed an amended charge asserting that C & G Electric, Inc., herein sometimes called the Company or the Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce as set forth and defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (hereinafter called the Act). Thereafter, on December 21, 1967, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Re- gional Director for Region 1, issued a complaint and notice of hearing pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act, and Section 101.15 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , the com- plaint setting forth certain facts in support of al- legations contained therein that the Respondent did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.' The Respondent filed timely answer to the complaint, effectively denying that it had engaged in any conduct in violation of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and specifically denying the allegations of the complaint pertaining to the violations alleged therein. Pur- suant to notice, this case came on to be heard be- fore me at Hartford, Connecticut, on February 7, 1968, and was closed on the following day. At the, ' These provisions of the Act are as follows Sec 8 ( a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (I) to interfere with , restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7, (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees , subject to the nrovlsions of section 9(a) C & G ELECTRIC, INC. 773 hearing, each party was represented by counsel, was afforded full opportunity to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence relative to the issues herein, to argue orally after each party had presented its case, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed on behalf of each of the parties and have been carefully considered. Upon the whole record of the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut. At all material times Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business at 14 Weston Street, Hartford, Connecticut, and is now and continuously has been engaged at said place of business in the providing of and perform- ing of electrical subcontracting services and related services. The Respondent in the course and con- duct of its business causes, and continuously has caused at all times material herein, large quantities of wire, electrical conduits, and related items used by it in its business to be purchased and transported in interstate commerce from and through various States of the United States other than the State of Connecticut, receiving materials having an annual value in excess of $50,000 at its Hartford place of business directly from points outside the State of Connecticut, and performing electrical subcon- tracting services, the gross value of which exceeds $500,000 annually. The Respondent is and has been engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union 35, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO , is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES By stipulation entered into by each of counsel at the hearing, it is agreed that Nicholas J. Cecere is president, that Sarino Garofalo is treasurer and Frank [Francis E.] Gronbach is a supervisor of the Respondent Company. It further is stipulated and agreed that all journeymen electricians, electri- cians ' helpers and apprentices of the Company em- ployed at its Hartford, Connecticut, facility, exclud- ing all other employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 1) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the collective-bargaining pur- poses within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.2 Robert William Murray, business manager of Local 35, a position he had held for approximately 3 years, testified that at a time early in October 1967,3 on a Sunday, he walked into the Company's building, and met some men working there includ- ing employees Albers, McCarthy, and one or two others whose names he did not recall. He said he was quite surprised to find that they were working on a Sunday, told them that he represented the Union, and asked if they ever had considered be- longing to a union and for them to give it some con- sideration. He left his telephone number with them; thereafter, about 2 o'clock that afternoon he received a call from McCarthy who indicated that "the men wanted to speak with me"; that he told them that he would be very happy to speak with him or any other employees of C & G Electric and set up a tentative meeting for the following day, Monday, October 2. A meeting did take place on that day at the union hall when William Steinmiller, president of Local 35, Walter Radsworth, vice pre- sident of the Union, and its instructor of the ap- prenticeship training program, Robert Le Doux, met with approximately 10 employees of the Com- pany. This meeting was held about 8 o'clock in the evening. At that meeting, a moving picture was dis- played showing the progress of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers over the years; pensions, and health and welfare were subjects which were mentioned; and a discussion ensued as to how the employees "would fit into the Union," Murray assuring the employees that if they wanted the Union to represent them it would be happy to do that. The union representatives made available to the employees a typewritten form of union authoriza- tion placed on a desk occupied by Murray and at another desk occupied by the president of the Union. At the conclusion of the meeting Murray asked if any of the individuals cared to indicate if they wanted the Union to represent them and if so they could sign an authorization form.' Ten cards were signed in the presence of the union officials by individuals LeMay, Lussier, Metcoh, Corsini, Puz- zo, Albers, Codere, Soukup, McCarthy, and Moli- toris. After the forms were signed and delivered to Murray, the latter informed the men that it was his intention to go to the Company the next day and in- 2 Thirteen employees employed in the appropriate unit on October 1 through 6, 1967, are stipulated to be the following men , by name Reinhold Albers. Edward Codere , Peter Corsmi , Richard LeMay , Robert Lussier, John McCarthy , Richard L Moran , Russel Molitons, Andrew Metcoh, Concetto Puzzo, John Soukup , Richard Stannard , and Marino Vallera s Unless otherwise specifically noted, all dates hereinafter mentioned are for the year 1967 1 The authorization form provided read as follows INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS I B E W LOCAL UNION NO 35 Affiliated with the A F L -C 10 I do hereby authorize Local 35 IBEW , in my behalf to negotiate and conclude agreements as to hours of labor, wages and other employ- ment conditions 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dicate that the Union represented the employees of the Company. Murray said that on the following morning, Oc- tober 3, at approximately 9:30, he together with one Siegel, business agent of the Plumbers Union who he had asked to accompany him, called at the Company's office and met with the Company Trea- surer Garofalo, told the latter "that I came here this morning to ask him if he would recognize the Union and that we did represent a majority of the employees," to which Garofalo replied that he could not discuss the matter because there were other people involved in the Company. Garofalo suggested that they meet again after he had spoken with others of management and he would attempt to arrange a further meeting. That afternoon, through a telephone call the parties arranged to meet at the offices of the Union on October 4. On October 4 a meeting was held at the office of Local 35, with President Cecere, Treasurer Garofalo, and Supervisor Frank Gronbach representing the Company. Murray testified that he told the company representatives that the Union did represent a majority of the employees and asked them if they would recognize the Union. The question was not answered, representatives of the Company advising him that "there was a silent partner and they would have to discuss this." The Company asked for a copy of "the labor agree- ment" and, according to Murray, "a meeting was set up for 10 o'clock the following morning at which they never showed up." A meeting was set for the following Monday, October 9, for 10 a.m. On October 4 Murray did furnish a copy of a labor agreement. He said that no one of the three com- pany representatives stated that they doubted that the Union represented a majority of the employees. Since the meeting of October 4, Murray testified, neither Murray nor any other representative of the Union have met with any representative of the Company for the purposes of collective bargaining. On October 5 a petition for certification of representative was filed with the Regional Director for Region 1 by the Union, seeking an election among the employees in the appropriate unit, and was docketed as Case 1-RC-9769. As required by rule, a copy of the petition was served upon Respondent. According to the testimony of Respondent's pre- sident, Cecere, he attended one meeting on Tuesday afternoon when Murray walked in and in- formed Cecere that he was "going to bury us." He denied that Murray had shown him any of the au- thorizations; "he just kept banging something ... . What it was' l don't know. He wouldn't show us nothing." Cere said: The only thing we talked about, he says he had a meeting with our men last night, which was surprising to me because I didn't know nothing about it; and before I know it, he had started to get up in the air, started to get hot, and he's going to bury us if we don't join. And so I says, "What brought all this on?" and he says, I'm fed up with you guys. I have been after you guys for a long time, and I have had it up to here." Cecere said that he could have gotten a copy of a contract handed to his partner at that meeting or it could have been the next meeting, indicating that he met with Murray three times in October and claiming that he and Garofalo met with Murray on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; that at the third meeting "he [Murray] started getting a little vulgar; and we said we wanted to think it over, and we have other things. We are not prepared for anything like that, and we wanted to ask him what he's got to offer, but he couldn't show us or tell us or give us anything." Gronbach said he attended the first meeting at the union hall and that: Well, [as] near as I can remember that we was asked-I know it was asked if we could see these papers, and the answer we got was that he had them; and even to this present time, I don't even know what these papers look like. And then he went on to tell us about different contractors that was here, there and that were in the Union and not in the Union; and that was the end of the meeting. Gronback said there was supposed to have been another meeting and that he had attended two meetings. I am not clear as to whether one, two, or three meetings were held since Garofalo remem- bered three such meetings which he said occurred on October 3, 4, and 5. At any rate, either on Tuesday, Wednesdook, forget all this stuff I told you about I was going to write-put in writing. I am fed up with this baloney, and we have no meeting Monday" and he hung up. Murray, called as a rebuttal witness by the General Counsel testified: That is absolutely wrong . We met on Wed- nesday which was the fourth. I have had no conversations with either Mr. Garofalo or Mr. Cecere ever since the day they walked out of my office and scheduled a meeting which would have been held on Monday, October 9. They never kept that appointment, and we had no conversations from the day you walked out of that office, and you know it. I credit Murray when he said that there was only one meeting held, although as a practical matter it does not make any difference whether one, two, or three meetings were held. The fact remains that the Union through Murray did request recognition and asserted a majority and immediately thereafter did submit a petition for certification of representative to the Regional Director's office. Cecere was called by counsel for the Respondent as a witness, the first one to testify on behalf of the Respondent and later in the day he was called to testify concerning his al- leged receiving of the telephone call from Murray. In resolving credibility questions, it is of course common and natural to assess the value of the testimony of any witness in part, at least, by his C & G ELECTRIC, INC. 775 behavior and demeanor on the witness stand. Apart from such considerations, inconsistencies in con- flicting evidence must be considered.5 I conclude that Cecere's report of the telephone call sup- posedly made by Murray was reported by him because of failure of memory or lack of recollec- tion. I credit Murray's denial of having made any such call. Murray was a forthright witness; Cecere was not. In my resolution of this question of credi- bility, I have considered other facts which I shall now approach. Reinhold Albers, a journeymen electrician was employed during the first part of September until the latter part of October. He testified that he was hired in by Cecere and Garofalo to receive an hourly rate of pay of $3.50 for the first 3 months and then to be paid at the rate of $3.80 after the first 3 months. He signed a union authorization card at the request of Murray; his testimony con- firms that of Murray concerning what Murray told the employees of the Company who were present at the Monday evening meeting at the union hall. Al- bers testified that on the Monday after the Sunday discussion at the plant, Cecere asked him if anything had occurred on the job on Sunday-"He didn't exactly say what he meant, so I didn't answer the question." He testified that on the following day, Tuesday, Garofalo told him that he (Garofalo) was aware that there had been a meeting the night before with the Union and asked Albers how he felt about the Union; Albers replied he felt very good about unions, that organization always was good "the same as contractors and business men have or- ganization, like the Contractor's Association and such"; and he was always in favor of organizations because "you have more opportunities to do things for yourself." In answer to a question as to whether that ended the conversation, Albers testified: Well, he said "Well, where does this leave us? The people we are in competition with are not union contractors, and they are not paying union's scale; it's pretty hard to get these jobs as it is." So I didn 't answer to that because I didn't figure it was my problem, and that is about all I remember right now. He testified further that on the following Thursday he was approached by Cecere, who, he said, told him that he had been contacted by Murray, men- tioned a meeting, and remarked they can't make us go Union because we are contractors. The only thing we can do and [sic] sign it so you can go into the Union; and he said, "how about it, how about if you got $4 an hour, you forget about Union." to which Albers said he replied that he figured it was worth more than that to him. At the time Al- bers was receiving $3.50 per hour. On cross-ex- amination, answering a question as to whether Cecere had just asked him if he had attended the meeting , Albers testified: No, he told me that there had been a meeting or something the night before; and he said they can't be forced to go Union because they are contractors and don't listen to some of these other guys or something like that; and in the conversation, he offered me $4 if I'd forget about the Union. I don't know the exact con- versation all total any more. It has been a few months now. As a witness called by counsel for the Respon- dent, Cecere was not questioned specifically con- cerning the conversation testified to by Albers; on direct examination Respondent's counsel stated "The Government has also complained that you have promised and granted wage increases if your employees would refrain from becoming or remain- ing members of the Union or giving any assistance or support to the Union" and asked "is that true?" to which Cecere replied "No, Sir." Concetto Puzzo was first employed by the Com- pany in the year 1962 and terminated his employ- ment on October 12, 1967. He worked as an elec- trician and on about October 1 was receiving an hourly rate of pay of $3.34. Puzzo testified that he attended the meeting at the union hall on October 2 and signed an authorization card at that time together with all the other employees of the Com- pany who were present at the meeting; he said that employee Vallera was not present at that meeting, that he spoke to him 2 or 3 days later, explained to him "what it was all about," accompanied Vallera to the union hall, and Vallera signed an authoriza- tion card. According to his testimony, on October 3, while he was working at a job in Farmington, Gronbach talked to him and said: Well, he said, "I understand you had a meeting at the union hall last night"; and I said , "yes." Then he said, "If you weren't satisfied with anything, why couldn't you say something?" I said, "It is just that I wanted to go on to the Union; because I got out of trade school, and now that I have a chance, I wanted to stick with it." Gronbach confirmed the substance of the conversa- tion as reported by Puzzo, but denied any intention of surveillance. John E. Soukup, subpenaed as a witness by the General Counsel, testified that he first was em- ployed by the Company in February 1966, worked as an electrician's helper, and was still employed at the time he testified. He recalled attending the union meeting at which he signed an authorization form and subsequently, a day or two later, was en- gaged in conversation by Cecere, who approached him while he was on a jobsite at Suffield; that Cecere told him that he had learned that there was a meeting the night before and asked him if he was one of the members who had "signed the paper" to which he replied, "yes," and that was about all there was to that conversation. At that time he was ' See Bishop and Malco, Inc , 159 NLRB 115 9, 1161. 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD being paid at the rate of either $2.90 or $3 per hour. Cecere, when asked by Respondent's counsel whether he had offered John Soukup a raise if he disregarded his affiliation with the Union, replied that he had not. The complaint alleges in part that the Respon- dent, by its supervisors and agents, Cecere, Garofalo, and Gronbach, at the Respondent's Hart- ford facility during October or November 1967 promised and granted wage increases to its em- ployees if they refrained from ecoming or remain- ing members of the Union, or giving any assistance or support to it. Regarding the Company's general policy on granting wage increases, President Cecere testified: We usually pay a man what he's worth and what he progresses, not what they would nor- mally get, like the procedures of others are. A man earns what he gets with us. He isn't handed it; you know, just because he's an elec- trician or because he's a plumber and entitled to so much. He earns what he gets. Under questioning as to individual employees, in- cluding Codere, Corsini, LeMay, McCarthy, Miller, Molitoris, Soukup, and Vallera, Cecere mentioned the regard held by the Company toward each of these men and commented briefly on their respec- tive performances, mentioning nothing which could be considered derogatory toward an individual's work performance. There is in evidence herein by stipulation of counsel (G.C. Exh. 3) what purports to be an accu- rate abstract of the Respondent's payroll records reflecting the wage history for employees in the stipulated bargaining unit who were employed by the Respondent during the week beginning October 1, showing the date of hire for each such employee who received a wage increase on October 5. This exhibit shows on its face that 7 out of 10 employees received a wage increase effective (I assume) on October 5.6 I find that the unit contained 13 em- ployees on October 3 and held 10 authorization cards on that date. As noted, Vallera's card was ob- tained 2 or 3 days later and returned to Murray. The form of mimeograph authorization used by the Union and signed by the employees is clear and unambiguous on its face and serves the purpose of authorizing the Union to represent the employees who executed the form. In the absence of any sub- stantial proof of misrepresentation to the em- ployees by any union representative as to the pur- pose of the signed authorizations, they stand as prima facie evidence of what they show the form to mean on its very face. It is not disputed by any direct evidence or any substantial indirect evidence that misrepresentations were made to induce em- ployees to sign the form; there is no proof that the signatories were informed that the authorization was anything but what it is shown to be on its face or that any representation was made to the em- ployees that the authorizations would be used solely for the purpose of obtaining an election. Cf. Cum- berland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268; Peter- son Brothers Inc., 144 NLRB 679; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. et al., 143 NLRB 848. There is no question about Murray having emphasized that he needed the signatures of em- ployees in order to obtain representation rights for the Union. It is clear that no misrepresentation can be found to have been made when signatures to authorization forms were solicited; and that Murray stated that such signatures were necessary to obtain representation by the Union. See Furr's, Inc., 157 NLRB 387, 398. Employees Albers, Puzzo, and Soukup indicated during the course of their testimony that Murray had implied that, if they signed the authorization form, they would be enti- tled to union membership, but nowhere in this record can be found anything to support the con- tention that any mention of the possibility of union membership or the possibility of a Board election would be the sole purpose for the signing of an authorization by any employee. Aside from the fact that the majority status of the Union was made abundantly clear at the hearing, the Respondent did not at any time indicate that it doubted the Union's claim of a majority of em- ployees within the unit. It cannot be assumed that the Respondent, in the absence of affirmative ac- tion or expression, is or ever was in a position after October 3 to claim a doubt of majority. The reason why Garofalo requested a sample collective-bar- gaining agreement from Murray could indicate one of two things-either the Respondent was curious and interested or that the furnishing of the agree- ments afforded a pretext for the Company to refuse to discuss a like contract between it and the Union. It seems to me that the whole course of action on the part of the Respondent after the Union had requested recognition is adverse to any contention that it withheld and refused recognition because of a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority. I agree with the assertion made in the brief filed on behalf of the General Counsel that the interrogation of employees by Cecere, Garofalo, and Gronbach, the creation of impressions of surveillance and the promises of and actual granting of wage increases, all following immediately after the October 2 union meeting, can leave no room to argue that such steps were taken for any reason other than to undermine the Union's majority status. As asserted in the General Counsel's brief, such activity has long been 'General Counsel 's Exhibit 3 on its face shows a patent difference between the number of employees stipulated to be on the payroll who were employed during the period October 1 through 6, the count of names showing 13 See fn 2, above The copy of General Counsel 's Exhibit 3 furnished to me shows 10 names, including that of Donald Miller , but ex- cluding the names of Albers , Moran , and Stannard Whatever this may mean , the fact remains that the overwhelming proof shows that the Union held a majority of the employees within the appropriate unit at the time the request for recognition by the Company of the Union was made C & G ELECTRIC, INC. 777 proscribed under the doctrine of Joy Silk Mills v. N.L.R.B., 121 F.2d 954, 956 (C.A. 2). A long line of cases supports the Joy Silk Mills doctrine.7 I have noted above that the abstract of the Respondent's payroll records reflected increases unilaterally granted on October 5. The General Counsel contends that the record demonstrates that 10 of the 13 bargaining unit employees were granted wage increases "effective within the week in which the Union requested recognition." General Counsel is correct in stating that eight employees received increases effective October 5 and that two em- ployees received increases "shortly thereafter." However that may be, the Respondent admitted that such increases were granted, contending that they were based upon meritorious service and were unrelated to the union activity of its employees. Company representatives emphasized that an in- dividual employee had to earn his increase by con- sistently good work performance or for improved performance in order to support wage increases. This may or may not be so, because the payroll records available reveal several common dates when virtually each employee with substantially similar length of service had received an increase. The testimony of company officials is suspect in more substantial respect in that it appears that Codere had never received in his total of 6 years of employment a wage increase in excess of 25 cents per hour, whereas he was granted a wage increase of 75 cents in October; that Corsini received a wage increase of 50 cents per hour in October, an amount not given to any of the older employees with only 4 months' service; LeMay received a total of 75 cents increase after union activity-60 cents on October 5 and 15 cents additional on December 4, when previously he had not received an increase in excess of 25 cents; McCarthy received a 55-cent- per-hour total increase, 40 cents on October 12 and 15 cents on November 30, a striking variation of pattern upon comparison with increases previously given to older employees when they had compara- ble length of service; Miller received a 75-cent-per- hour increase on October 5 after a comparatively short term of service after July; Lussier received a 65-cent-per-hour increase in October compared with prior increases for the preceding 4 years averaging 20 cents per hour and none greater than 35 cents; Molitoris, who had received increases in the preceding 7 years, two for 40 cents per hour, seven for 10 cents, three for 15 cents, one for 25 cents, and one for 20 cents received an 85-cent- per-hour increase on October 5; Metcoh received a 75-cent-per-hour increase on October 5 resulting in a disparity similar to that of Corsini and Miller when compared with increases granted to older em- ployees who had, at the times previous increases were granted, short-term service; and Vallera re- ceived a 65-cent increase on October 5 compared to earlier increases of 10 cents, 15 cents, and 25 cents per hour. In these circumstances, an in- ference, if not an unrebuttal presumption, may be drawn that the wage increases granted immediately after beginning of the union activity were granted for an unlawful purpose and in an effort to discourage union activity. Further, in connection with the timing and the amounts of the increases granted after the beginning of union activity, the testimony of Cecere and Garofalo must be weighed. Cecere testified that Respondent's board of directors approved the decision to grant the wage increases but could not remember the date the decision was made, while Garofalo could only re- call that the decision had been made "probably around the first of the month" and later stated that the increases were discussed on the Friday before the Monday, October 2, union meeting but were actually agreed to on a different day and not ap- proved by the full board of directors. In short, I find the unilateral granting of the wage increases in Oc- tober and shortly thereafter not to have been in the course of a regular program of wage increases granted to employees in the past. Adverted to above is the interrogation of em- ployees by representatives of management. While interrogation of employees by employer representa- tives about the union matters is not per se a viola- tion of the Act, such interrogation may tend to in- terfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in their organizational rights. The Board in Cannon Electric Company, 151 NLRB 1465, 1470, held: The factors formulated by the Second Circuit in the Bourne case [Bourne Co. v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (C.A. 2)] for determining the legality of interrogation have recently received the approval of the Fifth Circuit in the Camco case [N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 805 (C.A. 5)]. With a caveat that we consider these factors tentative only and not of general applicability, we shall apply the Bourne factors in the present case. The Bourne factors are: (1) the background, particularly as it relates to the employer's hostility, if any; (2) the nature of the information sought, especially where it ap- pears designed to permit ascertainment of the identity of employees and their support of the union; (3) the identity of the questioner; (4) the place and method of interrogation; and (5) the truthfulness of the reply. It is too well settled to require citation of authori- ty that in a small, integrated bargaining unit such as is shown to exist in the instant case, interrogation of one or two or three employees may rapidly be re- 'The filing of the petition for certification of representative by the Union not of itself suspend an employer's bargaining duty unless there is other on October 5 (Case 1-RC-9769 ) would not in itself relieve the Respon- evidence of a good-faith doubt The filing of such petition does not con- dent of the obligation to bargain with the Union As held in Irving Air Chute stitute a withdrawal of a request to bargain. Laabs, Inc , 128 NLRB 374, Company Inc , 149 NLRB 627, the filing of a representation petition does United Butchers Abottoir , 123 NLRB 946 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ported to other employees within the unit. Applying the factors as noticed by the Board in Cannon Elec- tric Company, it becomes almost imperative to con- clude that the interrogations reflected by the testimony in this case were coercive in nature. The times picked for the questioning of employees by the highest officials of the Company, who had demonstrated an unwillingness to deal with the Union, would seem to indicate that the interroga- tions were not casual, so that it reasonably may be inferred that company management did desire to know who among its employees were in favor of the Union. In the circumstances of this case I believe and find that the granting of unilateral wage increases were violative of the Act as independent violations of Section 8(a)(1), especially in the case of Albers, who was promised a wage increase conditioned upon his renunciation of union adherence. Further- more, I find that the Respondent, through its agents , was fully aware that the employees had at- tended a union meeting and that remarks made to Albers, Soukup, and Puzzo constituted the creation of impression of surveillance, proscribed by the Act. See Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 146 NLRB 420, wherein the Board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner (p. 433) in his conclusion as to restraint, coercion, and interference. Cf. National Shirt Shops of Delaware Inc., 123 NLRB 1213, 1214. The unilateral granting of wage increases to employees at a time when their collective-bargain- ing representative enjoyed majority status con- stitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act has long been settled. See, e.g., Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 337 U.S. 217, 218. Unilateral wage in- creases, under these circumstances, have,long been held to constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(I). Concluding Findings On the basis of the facts set forth above I find that at all times since October 2, 1967, the Union has been the representative for the purposes of col- lective bargaining of a mjaority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit ; that since on or about October 4, 1967, the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment or other conditions of employment with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the em- ployees of the Respondent in an appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I further find and conclude that by the granting of unilateral wage increases to its employees in the ap- propriate bargaining unit, the Employer engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; and that by interrogating cer- tain of its employees and giving the impression of surveillance of its employees, the Respondent en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is found that by the acts described above the Respondent has inter- fered with, and is interfering with, the rights of its employees established by Section 7.8 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, my Recommended Order will direct the Respondent to cease and de- sist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. C & G Electric, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Local Union 35, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All journeymen electricians, electricians' help- ers and apprentices of the Respondent employed at its Hartford, Connecticut, facility, exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. The above-named Union is, and at all times since October 4, 1967, has been, the collective-bar- gaining representative of the employees in the above-described unit. 5. Since on or about October 4, 1967, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent did refuse and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. 6. By the granting of unilateral increases in the 8 The Respondent , relying on Walsh-Lumpkin Wholesale Drug Company, 129 NLRB 294 (1960), claims it was denied due process of law and a fair hearing because it was not furnished certain specific information concern- ing the allegations of the complaint That case on its facts is not apposite here In the instant case, the complaint sufficiently meets the requirements of Section 102 15 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Rela- tions Board , Series 8, as amended , and Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for the United States District Courts C & G ELECTRIC, INC. 779 wages of its employees in the above-mentioned bar- gaining unit , by interrogation of its employees con- cerning their union interest and activities, and by giving the impression of surveillance of their union activities and interest of the employees in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and in violation of the rights against in- terference, restraint, and coercion guaranteed its employees by Section 7 of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER C & G Electric, Inc., its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain concerning rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, with Local Union 35, United Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the ex- clusive representative of all employees at the Respondent's Hartford, Connecticut, facility, in- cluding all journeymen electricians, electricians' helpers and apprentices, exclusive of all other em- ployees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. (b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union activities or engaging in or giving the impression of engaging in surveillance of the activi- ties of such employees in respect to their interest in or activities on behalf of, or membership in, the Union. (c) Granting unilateral increases in the wages of the employees employed within the above- described collective-bargaining unit for the purpose of discouraging union activities, membership, or support of the Union by its employees. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, and to engage in other con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, except to the extent that such right may be affected by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith with Local Union 35, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the ex- clusive representative of all employees of the Respondent in its Hartford, Connecticut, facility, including all journeymen electricians , electricians' helpers and apprentices, exclusive of all other em- ployees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its facility in Hartford, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain in good faith, upon request, with Local Union 35, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below in respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of em- ployment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody it in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All journeymen electricians , electricians' helpers and apprentices employed at our Hartford , Connecticut , plant , exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees about their union activities, threaten reprisals for such activities , or create the im- pression of surveillance thereof ; nor grant 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wage increases to our employees in the bar- gaining unit , or make other changes in their rates of pay without consultation with and the agreement of their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-or- ganization , to form , join, or assist Local Union 35, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, or any other labor or- ganization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu- tual aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by the proviso of Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act. C & G ELECTRIC, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 20th Floor , John F . Kennedy Federal Build- ing, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203 , Telephone 223-3353.