The Folger Coffee Co.

THE FOLGER COFFEE CO. The Folger Coffee Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-3781 and 15-RC-4330 January 26, 1971 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On October 16, 1970, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that certain conduct of Respondent had not interfered with the election in Case 15-RC-4330 held on April 30, 1970, and recommended that the Union's Objections 8(d) and 19 be overruled, and that the results of the elec- tion set forth in the tally of ballots in that case be certified. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trail Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Respondent filed cross-exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief as well as a brief answering the General Counsel's exceptions.' 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 preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed? The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the cross-ex- ceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and rec- ommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. As all the objections have been overruled, and as the Petitioner in Case 15-RC-4330 has failed to se- cure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certi- fy the results of the election.4 CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION 141 It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast for Amalgamated Meat Cut- ters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL- CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, as amended. i On November 30, 1970, Respondent filed a motion to certify results of the election contending that because the General Counsel is a "nonadversary party" in Case 15-RC-4330, his exceptions to the Trial Examiner's rec- ommendation to overrule the objections and certify the results of the election are improper and should be stricken . Respondent asserts that since the Union did not file exceptions to the said recommendation of the Trial Examiner, the results of the election should be certified by the Board forthwith . In view of our disposition of the case, we need not pass upon Respondent's motion. 2 In view of our disposition of the case , we need not pass upon the proce- dural validity of the Regional birector's decision to add Objection 19 to the Union's objections on the basis of evidence obtained by him during the investigation of Case 15-CA-3781 3 The Trial Examiner found that Respondent had not violated Sec. 8(axl) and (3) of the Act, as alleged, but in that part of his Decision entitled "Conclusions of Law," he inadvertently concluded only that Respondent has not engaged in conduct violative of Sec. 8(axl) of the Act. We hereby correct Conclusion of Law No. 3 to read : "The Folger Coffee Company, the Respon- dent, has not engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act" 4 On January 18, 1971, the General Counsel filed a motion for special leave to file supplemental brief, contending that our recent Decision in Dynatron- ics, An Operation of the Electronics Division of the General Dynamics Corpora- tion, 186 NLRB No. 141, warrants reversal of the Trial Examiner's Decision herein Respondent filed its opposition to General Counsel 's motion for special leave to file supplemental brief thereafter, contending, inter aka, that because General Counsel failed to timely file a brief answering Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, the instant motion in the nature of an answering brief is untimely, the last date for filing said answering brief being December 7, 1970. The General Counsel's motion for special leave to file supplemental brief is hereby denied as the case cited therein in further support of the General Counsel's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision would not warrant reversal of the Trial Examiner 's Decision herein. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on August 4, 1970, at New Orleans, Louisiana. The charge and amended charge were filed on April I and June 17, 1970, respectively. The complaint in this matter was issued on June 17, 1970. The Union filed a representation petition with the NLRB concerning Respondent's employees on February 26, 1970. Thereafter, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election executed by the parties and approved by the Regional Director for Region I5 of the National Labor Relations Board on March 20, 1970, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceedin on April 30, 1970, under the direction and supervision of the said Regional Director. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally of ballots showed that there were approximately 141 eligible voters and that 139 ballots were cast, of which 63 were for the Petitioner and 76 were against the Petitioner. 188 NLRB No. 22 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On May 7, 1970, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct of the election and conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director caused an investigation of the objections to be made and thereafter , on June 12, 1970, issued and served on the parties his Report on Objec- tions. In his report the Regional Director recommended to the Board that the Petitioner's Objections 1 through 8(c) and 9 through 18, as designated in his report , be overruled in their entirety. The Regional Director assigned `Objection 19" to evidence with respect to certain allegations which, he stated, were developed during the course of the investiga- tion of the objections. Having found that Objection 8(d) and Objection 19 raise substantial and material issues which could best be resolved after a hearing, he ordered that a hearing be held to resolve such issues and provided for the consolidation of the case with Case 15-CA-3781 for hear- ing, ruling, and decision by a Trial Examiner. Thereafter, on June 25, 1970, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on Objections with respect to Objections 8(d) and 19 , urging the Board to overrule the Petitioner's objections in their entirety and to certif the results of the election. On the same date the Employer filed a Request for Special Permission to Appeal "from the Regional Director's rulings in which he first es- tablished, on his own, Objection 19 and then ordered that a hearing be held on it." T>ie Employer contended that both the Petitioner and the Regional Director were aware of the alleged unlawful conduct contained in Objection 19 prior to the election, that such evidence was not discovered or un- covered during the investigation of the objections, and that since the Petitioner failed to mention said conduct in its objections, it had waived its right to use this issue as grounds for setting aside the election and the Regional Director should not have considered Objection No. 19. The Board duly considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions and itsRec(uest for Special Permission to Appeal , and was of the opinion that issues had been raised with respect to Objection 8(d) which could best be resolved by a hearing. The Board found it unnecessary at that time to rule upon the merits of the Employer's appeal with respect to Objec- tion 19. The Board ordered that a hearing be directed on Objec- tions 8(d) and 19 and that a determination as to the validity of the latter objection should be held in abeyance pending further consideration by the Board.' The basic issues are whether the Respondent (Employer) (1) threatened employees with layoffs in slack seasons, (2) announced withholding of a previously promised general wage increase because of pendency of the election petition in 15-RC-4330, (3) withheld a wage increase (on February 26, 1970) because of the pendency of the election petition in 15-RC-4330, and (4) if so, whether such conduct violated Section 8(axl) of the Act and interfered with the April 30, 1970, representation election as to (1) and (2) above, and whether such conduct violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act and interfered with the April 30, 1970, representation elec- tion as to (3) above. All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate in the proceeding, and the Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs which have been considered. The General Counsel's motion to correct record, dated September 3, 1970, and the Respondent's motion to correct 1 The evidentiary findings and conclusions made with respect to Objection 19, as indicated later in this Decision, reveal such objection to be without ment. Accordingly , even if before me, I would find it unnecessary in this Decision to pass upon the procedural validity of Objection 19. record, dated September 2, 1970, have been marked re- spectively as Trial Examiner's Exhibits I and 2 and are hereby received into the record. No opposition has been filed to such motions. Upon consideration of the motions, the record in the case, and my recollection of such statements at the hearing, I hereby grant such motions and the record is accordingly corrected. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER 2 The Folger Coffee Company , the Respondent, is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organ- ized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio. Respondent is licensed to do business, and is doing business, in the State of Louisiana at its New Orleans, Loui- siana, plant where it is engaged in the manufacture of cof- fee. During a 12-month period, which period is representative of all times material herein, Respondent shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its New Orleans , Louisia- na, plant directly to points outside the State of Louisiana. During the same representative period, Respondent pur- chased and received at its New Orleans , Louisiana, plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly from sources located outside the State of Louisiana. As conceded by the Respondent , and based upon the foregoing, it is concluded and found that the Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 3 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, the Union, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is so concluded and found. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION A. Preliminary Issues Supervisory Status 4 The individuals named below are now, and have been at all times material herein, supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: Aubrey L. Crow Plant Manager Oscar A. Berger Shift Supervisor Pete Carruthers Instant Processing Foreman B. The Alleged Threat of Reprisal The General Counsel's complaint in paragraph 7 alleges that "Between February 26, 1970, and Apri130, 1970, at its New Orleans, Louisiana, plant, Respondent, by its supervi- 2 The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein. 3 The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein 4 The facts are based upon the pleadings , admissions therein, and stipula- tions by the parties THE FOLGER COFFEE CO. sor and agent, Oscar A. Berger, orally threatened certain employees by informing them while they were together that is the union came in there would probably be layoffs during slack seasons." The Charging Party's objections alleged in Objection 8(d) that "[t]hrough statements and other conduct of the Em- ployer, its agents, and others acting on behalf of the Em- ployer, employees were led to believe that if the union won the election . . . (d) [t]he employees would be laid off, in slack periods contrary to what they were doing now if the union won." The Regional Director's Report on Objections set forth as follows: During the course of the investigation, evidence was presented concerning statements allegedly made by su- pervisors of the Employer with respect to layoffs which, if made, would constitute activity in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act and activity which would war- rant setting the election aside. The supervisors who allegedly engaged in this conduct , that dates of such alleged misconduct , and the statements attributed to them will be the subject of a complaint to be issued at a later date in Case No. 15-CA-3781, alleging such conduct as violations under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The statements attributed to the various supervisors are contested by them. Accordingly, Objection 8(d) raises substantial and material factual issues which can best be resolved after a hearing. The facts are undisputed and may be summarized as follows : The background facts reveal that since 1965 the Respondent had not effectuated layoffs during slack sea- sons. Berger, Respondent's supervisor involved herein, had been employed by Respondent for 27 years . However, he had been at the Respondent's site involved herein for only 2-1/2 years. As indicated, during this time Respondent had not effectuated layoffs during slack seasons. Berger, during the pertinent time involved , was one of four shift supervisors. It appears that Respondent utilized four supervisors so as to be able to man three shifts through- out the week and to afford time off for the supervisors. Respondent's employee complement appears to have been around 140 employees with apparently 35 employees on each shift. Berger had supervisory authority to be in charge of his shift, to supervise operations of the machinery, to see that manufacturing standards were met , to see that quality was met with respect to products . Berger did not have au- thority to hire employees, did not have authority to de- termine the size of his work force, did not have authority to lay off employees because of lack of work, and did not have authority to decide with respect to enlargement of his work force or to decrease his work force with respect to layoffs. Berger, however, had authority to terminate an employee on his shift for cause. The incident in issue herein arose as follows . Two admit- tedly active union adherents approached Berger in the shift supervisor's office during the last part of March and during the "graveyard" shift.5 These employees appeared in the office on their own initiative and without request by Berger. What transpired then is best revealed by the following cred- ited excerpts from Berger's testimony. Q. Prior to that election, do you recall then discuss- ing possibility of layoffs if the union won the elec- tion with any Folger employees? 3 Apparently a shift scheduled to work around midnight or the early morn- ing hours. Berger was the only witness presented by the General Counsel as to this incident. 143 A. I was asked about that, yes, sir. Q. You were asked what? You were asked about it; could you specifically state what the question was that you were asked and by whom? A. I was asked was there a possibility of a layoff if the union came into the plant. My answer was yes, there probably would be, during the slack season, but that I didn't know. Q. How many employees were present when you were asked? A. Two. Q. Do you recall who it was? A. Eugene Quinlan and Oscar Slaton. Berger further credibly testified to the effect that these employees freely came to see him to ask questions during the election campaign and that they continued to do so after this incident. Berger further credibly testified to the effect that Quinlan was the employee who asked the question about layoff. Considering all of the foregoing, I am persuaded and conclude and find that such conduct did not constitute a threat of reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the conduct did not constitute objectionable con- duct which interfered with the employees' rights as pertains to the pending election on April30, 1970. As I see the facts, Berger conveyed to these employees that he did not know the answer to their question and'that it was merely his opinion that the results of the Union getting in at Folger might be layoffs during slack seasons. Under such circum- stances the facts do not reveal an intended threat, nor do the facts reveal'that the employees reasonably would construe that a threat of reprisal had been made. Accordingly, it is concluded and found that such conduct does not constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, nor does it consti- tute objectionable conduct of a nature to warrant setting the representative election of April 30, 1970, aside. It is so con- cluded and found.' C. Alleged Withholding of Wage Increases and Announcements Thereto The General Counsel's complaint sets forth as follows: 8. Between February 26f 1970, and April 30, 1970, at its New Orleans, Louisiana, plant, 'Respondent, by its su- pervisor and agent, Aubrey L. Crow, orally announced the withholding of a previously promised general raise by informing certain of its employees that the analysis the recent wage survey had been discontinued be- cause the granting of raises after an election petition had been filed might be an unfair labor practice. 9. Since on or about February 26, 1970, and continuing thereafter to date, Respondent withheld, and is with- holding, wage increases normally granted to its em- ployees. 10. Respondent withheld, and is continuing to withhold, wage increases normally granted to its employees, as described in paragraph! , above, because of their union and other protected concerted activities and/or be- cause of the representation proceedings in Case No. 15-RC-4330. The Regional Director's Report on Objections sets forth: 7 See Central Soya of Canton, Inc, 180 NLRB No. 86; William B. Patton Towing Co., 180 NLRB No. 16. 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Objection No. 191 During the course of the investigation, evidence was developed with respect to allegations that the Company had ceased consideration of a general wage increase and had withheld any such increase because of the pendency of the petition in Case No. 15-RC-4330 and the Union's organizational compaign. Evidence per- taining to this subject raises issues with respect to the validity of the election and, as is the case with Objec- tion 8(d), this conduct will be set forth in the complaint in 15-CA-3781 as alleged violations of Section S(axl) of the Act. Accordingly, objection 19 raises substantial and material issues which can best be resolved after a hearing. I This number was assigned to the objection by the undersigned [Regional Director] and is based upon evidence obtained during the course of the investigation with respect to the objections and the alleg- ed unfair labor practices in Case No 15-CA-3781. The facts are essentially without dispute.8 The Respon- dent in past years has given general wage increases, merit wage increases, and progression wage increases. It is undis- puted that during the pertinent time herein that Respondent continued its past practice of giving merit wage increases and progression wage increases . The only wage increase issue is with respect to general wage increases. The facts are clear that with respect to general wage in- creases Respondent had a practice as is revealed by the following credited excerpts of Crow's testimony. A. As I said this morning, I have from eight to ten people on our wage survey . It begins with a wage sur- vey. After you make the wage survey, and sometimes it takes me as long as from a month to two or three months to make the wage survey, and I get all of the information in from the companies on my wage survey, and then I make an analysis at this point, how do we compare with the other people on the wage survey, how long has it been since we gave the last increase, how much was their last increase? How does that compare with the other people on my wage survey. At that point, that is done completely with local companies, and at that point I analyze the wage survey completely, and I make a recommendation of what the wage increase should be. The first thing to determine is if there is going to be a wage increase at all , if there is going to be a wage increase, what amount do I recommend. And at that point I send my recommendations to our employee relation division department. Our employee relation department takes my analysis and they look at it as a broader picture . They look at it nationally, what has happened to the economy, and since the previous increase, and they get back with me and say that they agree with my amount or they think my amount is not enough or too much. -We converse back and forth until I have agreed that yes, this is the amount. Then after that we determine when will the time be. Q. Now was this same procedure followed in 1965, 1966, 1967 , 1968, and 1969? A. That is correct. During the years 1965 through 1969 the following data reveals the timing of certain Respondent action with respect to general wage increases and the amount of general wage increases. YEAR DATE WAGE SURVEY BEGAN DATE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED TO EMPLOYEE RELATIONS DEPARTMENT DATE OF INCREASE AMOUNT OF INCREASE 1965 4/5/65 5/28/65 6/14/65 7 cents 1966 5/8/66 5/23/66 6/13/66 8 cents 1967 1/16/67 3/15/67 6/5/67 15 cents 1968 3/14/68 4/30/68 5/27/68 15 cents 1969 2/ 14/69 3/7/69 3/31/69 6 cents Range 15 cents to 20 cents Plant Manager Crow commenced making a wage survey in January 1970. This survey was completed sometime prior to Feburary 26, 1970, and Crow at such time had com- menced analyzing his survey? On or about February 26, 1970, Crow received a letter from the Union setting forth its claim of representing the majority of his employees. The next day row received a copy of the representation peti- tion filed by the Union with the NLRB on February 26, 1970.10 Thereafter, on March 4, 1970, Crow conferred with his attorney about the situation . What occurred is revealed by the following credited exerpts from Crow's testimony. s The facts based upon a composite of the credited aspects of the testimony of Slaton, Hudson, and Crow, stipulations, and the logical consistency of all of the facts. A. After I received the letter and the petition, I was concerned about what I should do about continuing to analyze the wage survey, or whether I should make a recommendation at all. I checked with the company's attorney. 9 The facts are clear that during this time some of Respondent's employees were aware that a wage survey was being made . Crow credibly testified to such effect, that people talk freely about surveys and wage increases and that some of the other managers had said that they had been asked if a survey were going to be made that year. 10 It is officially noted that the representation petition in Case 15-RC-4330 was filed with the NLRB on February 26, 1970. THE FOLGER COFFEE CO. A. I described to him that we had given general wage increases in the past, how we make the survey, how we analyze the survey, how we made recommendations to the Employee Relations Department, and how we de- termined the amount and the time. I also told him where I stood at this point in the survey. He reviewed the data that I had given him, and it was determined from reviewing this data that in the past we did not have a past history of giving an increase at a certain time of any year. All the wage increases had been given at different times, and they had been, there had been I believe two of them the same amount, although the rest of them were different. So it was determined by our past history that we didn't have a practice of giving them a certain amount or at a certain time. He advised me that since we did not have this prac- tice or past history of giving an increase at a certain time, or a certain amount, that we would be laying ourselves open to possible charges by the union that we were trying to bribe our employees. After we had the meeting with the attorney and dis- cussion as to what should be done, I decided that it probably would be better, since we did not have a past history of giving an increase at a certain or a certain amount, I was concerned that if I did complete it, did make the recommendation, and it was approved, if it was earlier than any time before, or if the amount was more than any time before, that very possibly I would be opening myself to a charge. At that time I decided thatl would not complete my analysis, and I would not make a recommendation un- til later. Q. When did you make this decision? A. The next day following the meeting with the attor- ney, which would have been I guess March the 5th or the 6th. The meeting was the 4th. I'm pretty sure that it was the next day. Following the above-referred to decision to cease analyz- ing the wage data and to withhold forwarding of a rec- ommendation concerning general wages increases, Crow did not make a formal announcement, written or oral, to the employees about such decision. During the time between the filing of the representation petition in Case 15-RC-4330 on February 26, 1970, and the NLRB representation elec- tion on March 5, 1970, the Respondent held a number of meetings for discussions with employees. These meetings may be said to have been for employees on shifts or in departments. At one of these meetings in March, apparently around the first or second week thereof, an employee named Quinlan asked a question about the situation with respect to a general wage increase.11 Plant Manager Crow told the employees, in effect, that the wage survey had been com- pleted but that the analysis of the wage survey had been stopped after receiving (1) the Union s letter demanding recognition as employee representative, and (2) the repre- sentation petition in Case 15-RC-4330. Crow told the em- ployees the reason that he had stopped the analysis of the 11 The particular meeting involved occurred around shift-changing time about 7 a.m and there were in attendance employees of the graveyard shift and the day shift. 145 wage survey, as is revealed by the following credited ex- cerpts from his testimony.12 A. That I told him that I had completed a wage survey and was in the process of making an analysis of the survey when I received a letter from the union stating that they represented the majori ty of the em- ployees, and that immediately thereafter received a pe- tition for an election; since we did not have a past practice of giving a wage increase on a specific date or a specific amount, that we felt that it would be laying ourselves open to charges by trying to bribe the em- plo ees byy giving wage increases during this time. ( During which time, please? A. The time when we received the petition for an election, and the election. The NLRB representation election was held on April 30, 1970, with a majority of the ballots being cast against the Union. A day or two later Plant Manager Crow spoke to employees at a meeting as is best revealed by the following credited excerpts from his testimony-" A. I told them the outcome of the election, the vote for and against union representation. Q. Anything else? A. I told them that it would be approximately ten days that each side would have an opportunity to file objections, and it would be approximately ten days before the election would be certified. Q. You say anything else at these meetings? A. No. Q. Specifically did you mention the general wage increas- es at these meetings? A. The wage increase was not mentioned at the meeting or the wage survey was not mentioned. The Union filed objections to the April 30, 1970, NLRB representation election in Case 15-RC-4330 on May 7, 1970. Shortly thereafter, Plant Manager Crow spoke to em- ployees about these events as is best revealed by the follow- ing credited excerpts from Hudson's testimony.14 A. He said, that's when he had received the charges from the Labor Board, and evidently the secretary or somebody must have brought the mail in, and he siad that he was looking over the pay scales and the records, and said, they brought the mail in, or whoever brought it in, and said that he was looking over the pay scales, and they brought the charges in, and he dropped the pay scale and immediately began to look at the charges. During the period of time between April 30, 1970, and May 7, 1970, employee Quinlan asked Foreman Carruthers about wage increases. What occurred is revealed by the following credited excerpts from Quinlan's testimony. 12 Only Quinlan's testimony appears in real conflict with the facts found. Quinlan testified to the effect that Crow had said he was prepared to give a general wage increase. As indicated elsewhere, Quinlan appeared unsure as to some of his testimony and appeared to testify to a rationalized conclu- sion of facts. Considering this and the logical consistency of all of the facts, I discredit Quinlan's testimony inconsistent with the facts found. is Slaton and Hudson testified to this event in substantially the same terms as did Crow Quinlan's testimony was to the effect that Crow again referred to the postponement of general wage increases because of the pendency of the representation proceeding. Quinlan did not appear suns in his testimony, and I am convinced that his testimony constitutes a rationalized conclusion. I discredit his testimony to such effect because of its unsureness, its rational- ized appearance , and the logical consistency of all of the facts 14 Crow denied that he referred to general wage increases at this meeting. Otherwise, there is little conflict between Hudson's and Crow's testimony. Quinlan's testimony as to this event essentially corroborates Hudson 's testi- mony. Of the two witnesses, Hudson and Crow, Hudson's testimony had more of a ring of truthfulness and sureness Considering this and the logical consistency of all of the facts , I credit Hudson's version of the facts and discredit Crow's testimony inconsistent therewith. 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Well, somebody else, Mr. Carruthers, he asked me during the ten day period asked me if the union was going to press charges against the company . I said I don't know. I said, `How do you want me to know, I don't have nothing to do with it." He said because, I asked him for our raise , I said, "Do you know when we will be getting a cost of living raise?" And he said,"Well, probably not right now, we got to wait for the ten day trial period to find out whether the union is going to press charges or not." Sometime shortly after the April 30 NLRB representation election, Plant Manager Crow resumed his preparatory con- sideration of the general wage increase question. Knowing that some of the companies included in his original wage survey had in the past given wage increases around the time involved, Crow rechecked to see if there had been any changes in wage structures. There had been several changes in some of these companies' wage structures as a result of wage increases. Crow brought his data up to date, reana- Iyzed the same, and submitted the data and his recommen- dation to Folger's employee relations department. Afterward Crow had further discussion with such depart- ment resulting in agreement upon a general wage increase. On June 4, 11970, Respondent announced a general wage increase for employees to be effective on June 8, 1970. The general wage increase constituted, in effect, for each em- ployee an increase of 7 percent or 20 cents per hour, whichever amount was greater. Contentions and Conclusions The Respondent, in the prehearing stage of this proceed- ing, moved for a bill of particulars, the General Counsel responded thereto, and Trial Examiner Schneider ruled thereon . Therefore, the issues in this case were clearly shaped by the pleadings . Thus, the litigated issues con- cerned whether there was an announcement by the Respon- dent of the withholding of a previously promised general raise and the reasons therefor, and the withholding of wage in- creases normally granted to employees. Considering all of the facts and the foregoing , I conclude and find that the facts do not reveal that the Respondent had previously promised the employees a general raise. It follows that the remarks by Plant Manager Crow on or about the middle of March did not constitute an announce- ment of the withholding of a previously promised general raise. Further, the facts do not reveal that Respondent had followed a practice of giving general wage increases in Feb- ruary, March, or April of each year . It thus further follows that the facts do not reveal that the Respondent in Feb- ruary, March, or April, 1970, withheld general wage increas- es normally granted to employees. The General Counsel and the Respondent cite a number of cases which on their face appear to suprt their re- spective contentions relating to the question 61 illegal moti- vation or improper interference based upon the timing or circumstances of wage increases. Considering the facts of this case, I find it proper to state that th e facts reveal that the Respondent had not decided upon a general wage in- crease but had stopped preparatory consideration of the same prior to decision. Considering the Respondent's lack of a consistent past practice with respect to the granting of general wage increases at the time involved and the credited facts as to the reasons for cessation of preparatory consider- ation of a general wage increase, I am persuaded and con- clude and find that the Respondent was motivated by nondiscriminatory reasons in the decision to cease such preparatory consideration of a general wage increase. I am convinced, persuaded, and conclude and find that the Re- spondent was not motivated by a desire to (1) either encour- age or discourage union membership , (2) either encourage or discourage the utilization of Board's processes such as the filing or processing of an NLRB representation petition, or (3) make promises of benefit or threats of reprisals related to union activity or protected concerted activity. Thus I am persuaded, convinced, and conclude and find that Crow's motivation was purely one of attempting to avoid the ap- pearance of "bribery' or exertion of improper influence upon employees by the possible granting of a general wage increase during the pendency of the union campaign and the pendency of an NLRB representation election. Further, I am persuaded, conclude, and find that the statements made by Crow to the employees about the cessation of preparatory consideration of a general wage increase clearly revealed to the employees that such was not motivated by reasons of a desire to discriminate against them because of their union or protected concerted activity or because of the filin or processing of the NLRB representation petition. Thefacts clearly do not reveal elements of reprisal or prom- ises of benefit to employees designed to affect their union or concerted activity, or to affect utilization of the Board's processes. In making the foregoing determinations I have consid- ered the cases cited byboth the Respondent and the Gener- al Counsel. As indicated, the cases cited by each appear to support his contentions. Suffice it to say, however, the es- sential principles in the cases, upon which the facts or state- ments in such cases relate to, reveal that the questions for determination are (1) motivation by Respondent or (2) what the employees would reasonably infer the Respondent's motivation was. As indicated, the facts in this case do not reflect that the Respondent (Employer) was improperly mo- tivated in his actions, nor do they reveal that the employees would so infer. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the facts do not reveal that Respondent (Employer) has violated (1) Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged, or (2) Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as alleged. I further find that the Employer has not engaged in objectionable conduct as alleged in Ob- jection No. 19.15 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Folger Coffee Company, the Respondent, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Folger Coffee Company, the Respondent, has not engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(aXI) of the Act. 4. The Folger Coffee Company, the Employer, has not engaged in conduct which improperly affected the results of the April 30, 1970, election in Case 15-RC-4330, as alleged by the Petitioner in Objections 8(d) and 19. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law and the entire record, I hereby recommend: 15 Thurston Motor Lines, Inc, 180 NLRB No 140; Paradise Bowl-O-Mat, Inc, 180 NLRB No. 100. THE FOLGER COFFEE CO. 147 1. That the complaint in Case 15-CA-3781 be dismissed in its entirety. 2. That the Objections (8(d) and 19) in Case 15-RC-4330 be overruled and that a certification of the results of the election held on April 30, 1970, be issued.