Dent Poultry Co., Inc.

426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dent Poultry Co., Inc., and Retail, Wholesale and De- partment Store Union Council of Georgia, AFL- CIO. Cases 10-CA-7987, 10-CA-8061, and 10- RC-7952 February 5, 1971 DECISION, ORDER AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On August 27, 1970, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his Decision and Recommendation on Objections in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices. The Trial Examiner also recommended that certain objections to conduct affecting the results of the elec- tion be overruled. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to portions of the Trial Examiner's Decision together with a supporting brief; the Res- pondent-Employer filed cross-exceptions to portions of the Trial Examiner's Decision together with a sup- porting brief. The General Counsel also filed a brief in answer to certain parts of the brief filed by the Respondent-Employer. 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 these cases to a three-member pan- el. 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 and Recommendation on Ob- jections, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire re- cord in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer. 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 Respondent, Dent Poultry Company, Inc., Buena Vista, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order? CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Council of Georgia, 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended. ' We disavow the alternative finding of the Trial Examiner that, assuming Vice President Pete Dent expressed the assumption to employee K. B. Thom- ton that he was a union supporter, this was a casual conversation. In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the Trial Examiner's dismissal of certain 8(axl) allegations in the complaint. 2 In footnote I I of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION FREDERICK U. REEL, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, consolidated by order of the Regional Director , and heard at Buena Vista, Georgia, on May 11 through 13, 1970,' raises questions as to whether the Respondent-Em loyer, herein called the Company , engaged in various acts of inter- ference, restraint, and coercion, discharged an employee for union activity, and unlawfully refused to bargain with the Char 'ngg Party-Petitioner, herein called the Union, al- though file latter had obtained authorization cards (here challenged as invalid) from a majority of the employees. The unfair labor practice cases arose on charges filed Octo- ber 10 and November 28, and complaints issued December 2, 1969, and March 19, 1970 , and amended at the hearing. The representation case orginated in a petition filed Sep- tember 16, followed by an election on November 7 (which the Union lost, 68 to 58), and objections filed 1 week there- after, raising substantially the same issues as to interference, restraint, coercion, and discriminatory discharge which are raised in the unfair labor practice cases. Upon the entire record,Zincluding my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the Company and by General Counsel, I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Company, a Georgia corporation engaged at Buena Vista in the processing and sale of poultry, annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the M r ate, and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a i Except as otherwise indicated, all other dates herein refer to the year 1969. 2 The record is hereby corrected to note the admission into evidence of G. C. Exhs. 2-38 188 NLRB No. 112 DENT POULTRY CO. labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. The allegations and the evidence Late in August the Umon commenced an organizing campaign among the Company's employees. The Union conducted several meetings and also solicited employees individually. On September 16, following a bargaining de- mand, the Union filed its petition for certification. Meanwhile the Company heard of the organizing drive al- most at its ince tion. The Company, admittedly opposed to the advent of the Union, attempted to counter the organiz- ing drive; whether in the course of so doing it overstepped legal bounds is one of the chief issues in this case. We shall discuss the various individual episodes relied on by General Counsel in chronological order. Employee Willie Holloman testified that on the morning of September 8, Company President James Dent passed by his work station, and the following conversation ensued: He come down there where I was. He say, "Willie," he said, "you won't be using that shovel if the union passes." And he asked me, he said, "Did you sign one of those cards?" And I said, "I sure did." He said, "You better take your name off the card because Chester 3 is leading you astray." I said, "Well, just like I put my name on, I can take it off, just like that." He walked around and said-I told him, "Mr. Dent, I want to borrow a hundred dollars." He said, "You better take your name off that card then ifpu want it." He walked on off and I said, "Mr. Dent, I m not 'ooing about that hundred dollars." He said, he looked back and said, "I'm not joking either." Holloman testified to a second conversation with Dent, which Holloman placed as a week or two after the first (either just before or a few days after the filing of the peti- tion). Holloman testified as follows: ... he said, "Willie, you all about got the union straight- ened out over there?" I said, "I don't know, sir." He says, "They tell me you is a big wheel over there." I says, "Whoever told you that told you a lie." And he looked back and smiled and walked on off. President Dent denied making the statements which Hollo- man attributed to him. He recalled telling Holloman some time the previous summer that changes in equipment might lighten his tasks by relieving him of shoveling ice. He also recalled that he refused on one occasion to lend money to Holloman, who at that time volunteered, "I'm not having anything to do with that Union." According to Dent, he replied, "Willie, that dosen't make any difference either way. This is not concerning the Union whatsoever." Dent also recalled that Holloman later said, "I wasn't kidding about that loan," and that he replied, "Well, I wasn't kid- ding about what I said." Another episode urged as establishing unlawful interfer- ence involved employee K. B. Thornton, whose second cousin, Andy Thornton, not a company employee, was the leading union organizer. According to K. B. Thornton, one day early in October he was at work when Vice President Pete Dent approached him, laughing, and accused Thom- 3 The reference was presumably to Chester Hartage, an employee and an active union supporter. 4 According to Thornton , "messed" was a euphemisn for the off-color 427 ton of having "messed 4 [Dent] up." Thornton inquired how he had done so, and Dent replied (to quote Thornton): "Well, you done let your cousin get next to me." I said, "No, sir, I don't even fool with that union ." I spoke to him like that. He said, "Oh, yes, you is, K. B." I said, "No, sir, I don't fool with it." So after he said that, he turned and walked away. He says, "Well, that's all right. Go on but you can't fool me.' Pete Dent's version of the episode differs substantially from that of Thornton . According to Pete Dent, he learned one day of the relationship between the Thornton . The next morning, according to Dent, he had the following conversa- tion with Thornton: I said, "Ain't you km folks up there?" And he says, "Yah." He said, "He's cousin or something, some kin to me." And I said, "Well, you know he's gom to be trying to get next to you during this election and work- mg you on, you know, signing everybody up and all." And I said, you want you to listen to what we've got to say too as well as, you know, him. I don't want ^+ou to listen to everythinAl he says and not what we say. 'And K. B. say, "Well, tell you the truth ; I'm not fooling with that mess no how.' And I said, "I don't know about that ; I've not nothing to do with that." And I turned about and walked off. Dent denied making the other remarks Thornton attributed to him, pointing out that he had been warned by counsel "not to insinuate we knew any of their union activities." Employee Willie James Walker , whose alleged discrim- inatory discharge is discussed infra, testified that while he was at work one day in September Dorothy Dent Cooper, the niece of Company President Dent , and either a supervi- sor or a "lead girl' in Walker's department , asked him how he was going to vote in the union election, and told him the employees would have a better chance of getting more mon- ey if they rejected the Union . Employee Bobby Davis testi- fied that one day when "we was all talking about it," Mrs. Cooper asked how he was going to vote , and he asked how she was going to vote. Davis could not remember which of them asked first. Mrs. Cooper, whose alleged supervisory status is at issue here , denied asking either Walker or Davis how they were going to vote, although she recalled that one employee put that question to her . Walker also testified that upon his release from jail one day in October (a matter more fully developed below in connection with his discharge) one of the supervisors, Elliot Miller, asked him how he got out, and when Walker replied that it was no concern of Miller, the latter continued : "If you hadn't been messing with that stuff, that union stuff, in the first placefyou wouldn't even have got back in" (referring to Walker s previous time in jail). Miller, who was no longer in the Company's employ at the time of the hearing , denied ever speaking to Walker. General Counsel alleged that certain literature distrib- uted by the Company during the preelection campaign ov- erstepped legal limits. To quote the complaint, the leaflets threatened the employees ` that it was futile to vote for the Umon in the forthcoming Board election because Respon- dent would grant no greater benefits or wages than the employees would receive without the union representation." I see no need to expand this Decision by quoting the leaflets, which are in evidence as G. C. Exh. 3a-e. Inm judgment, although on occasion they approach the b ' , they stay within the scope permitted by Section 8(c).5 Finally, the complaint alleges that the Company violated the Act by granting paid holidays on Thanksgiving and word Dent used 5 General Counsel makes no reference in his brief to the leaflets , and may have abandoned his allegations with respect thereto 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Christmas 1969 and by increasing the Christmas bonus .6 These matters occurred after the election and the filing of the objections thereto. Under all the circumstances I credit the testimony of Company President Dent that these bene- fits reflected the Company's economic health and a growing general concern in the indus try to improve the fringe bene- fits of employees. It may well'be that underlying any grant of benefits to unorganized employees is an apprehension that union organization may be averted by such largesse. Certainly in this case the company was aware that the Union had come close to winning the election and that the representation issue was still alive because of the objections. Nevertheless I feel that on this record the proof objections. to establish an improper motive . See and compare Champion Pneumatic Machinery Co., 152 NLRB 300, 306-307, and Divco-Wayne Industries, Inc., 154 NLRB 974, 977, with Ow- ens-Corning Fibreglas Corp., 172 NLRB No. 20, enfd. 407 F.2d 1357, 1359-63 (C.A. 4, 1969), and McCormick Long- meadow Stone Co., 158 NLRB 1237, 1241-43. 2. Credibility resolutions and conclusions with respect to the contradicted 8(a)(1) allegations I am inclined to credit the testimony of Holloman that in the course of his conversation with Company President Dent on September 8 the latter suggested that Holloman should withdraw from the Union if he wanted Dent to lend him some money . Holloman testified that Supervisor Charles Dent was also present during that conversation, but Charles was not called as a witness. (The Company con- tended that another supervisor, Miller, was present, and his version of the episode corroborated Dent's.) Although the credibility issue is a close one , I also credit Holloman's further testimony that on the same occasion President Dent asked if Holloman had signed a union card, told him to "take [his] name off the card," and threatened Hollo- man with loss or diminution of employment "if the union passes." Further, I credit Holloman that a week or two later, President Dent asked Holloman if he had the Union "straightened out" and added, "They tell me you is a big wheel over there." Apart from whatever weight attaches to the Company's failure to call Charles Dent , and giving due regard to President Dent's testimony that Holloman har- bors some hostility to him, I find Holloman's account of the conversations to carry the hallmark of truth. I therefore find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) by Dent's con- versation with Holloman on September 8, including interro- gation as to Holloman's union membership, a threat that a union victory would jeopardize Holloman s income, and a "suggestion' that union membership would destroy Hofoman's chances of borrowing money. The conversation a week or two later stands on weaker footing, is not the subject of any allegation of the complaint, and, although it carries a faint aroma of surveillance , is not found to be an unfair labor practice. I find no violation in the conversation between Pete Dent and K. B. Thornton . Dent admitted making a reference to Thornton's family relationship with the union organizer, but even assuming that Dent expressed the assumption that Thornton was a union supporter, this under the circum- stances appears to be casual conversation rather than un- lawful interrogation. I credit former Supervisor Miller's denial that he told 6 The bonus had been $35 in 1967 and $50 in 1968 . In 1969 it was again increased to I week's pay, about $72, for employees who had worked over 1 year, and 20 hours' pay for the newer employees. Walker the latter would not have returned to jail if he "hadn't been messing with that union stuff." As discussed more fully below in connection with Walker's discharge, his return to jail was not connected with the Union, and there is nothing in the record to show that it was, or that Miller or anyone else thought it was. Also I credit Mrs. Cooper's denial that she asked Walker and Davis how they were going to vote in the election. However, Mrs. Cooper did not directly deny Walker's testimony that she told him the em- ployees would have a better chance for a wage increase if they rejected the Union than if they selected it to represent them.' Mrs. Cooper's statement to Walker that the Company would be more apt to give a raise without a union than with one is sufficient of a "promise of benefit" (as well as a veiled warning that the Company would not bargain in good faith if the Union prevaile(l) to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(1), since, as I find, the Company is legally responsible for her statements . Even assuming, arguendo, that she was not a supervisor, she was plainly a conduit for messages between the Company and the employees, and was a close relative of the three leading management officials, with whom she had frequent contact. Under these circumstances the employees could be expected to regard any statements she made as reflecting coany policy. N.L.R.B. v. Des Moines Foods, Inc., 296 F.928 , 286-288 (C.A. 8, 1961); N.L.R.B. v. Fiore Bros. Oil Co., 317 F.2d 710, 712 (C.A. 2, 1963). B. The Discharge of Willie James Walker 1. The facts and the contentions of the parties Walker, who worked for the Company for over a year prior to his discharge on October 9, signed a union card on August 29 and attended several union meetings. Some time before the advent of the Union, Walker had been arrested and jailed for drunken driving, but was released together with his companion, Bobby Davis, when Company Presi- dent Dent posted bond for them. Apparently through some misunderstanding Walker and Davis did not realize that they were required to appear in court or pay their fines by a certain date, and when they failed to do so they were rearrested early in October and again committed to jail. There is some suggestion by General Counsel that but for their union activity Dent would have made arrangements to continue their bond or pay their fines, but the evidence establishes at the most that Dent would do this on some occasions on request. Early in October when Walker and Davis were returned to jail, Davis obtained his release when a relative posted bond for him. As he left the 'ail, he saw one J. T. McBride entering it. McBride, a local funeral director, often posts bonds for people in jail. On this occasion McBride, accord- ing to his testimony, was at the jail to see another prisoner. Davis testified that when he returned to work that day Vice President Pete Dent said he had "told McBride to go down there and see what he could do for the both of us." referring to Davis and Walker. Both McBride and Pete Dent denied 7 Mrs Cooper testified that the employees frequently came to her to ask her opinion about matters raised in the Company's antiunion literature. I have no doubt that she intended to confine her statements to the position stated in the literature , but I credit Walker that she made the statement referred to in the text above . This is simply another example of an employer who, guided by counsel, comes to the brink of violation, and then makes (through an agent, we infra) a slight misstep. See N.LR.B. v. Gissell Packing Co, 395 U S 575, 620, quoting the Wausau Steel case there cited. DENT POULTRY CO. having made any such arrangement, and the latter also denied so stating to Davis , although he did recall asking Davis that day whether McBride had posted bond for him. Walker testified as follows concerning McBride's visit to the jail: What did McBride say to you? The Witness : Well, he said he came up to see about gettin - Q. (By Mr. Bowman) Did he know who you were? A. He asked which one of us worked for Mr. Dent. Q. All ri ght, continue from there. A. And f spoke up and said that I did and he said I came up to get you out and I jumped up and I was ready. Q. All right. A. But he said, "Ain't you with that union stuff' and I told him yes and he said, "What you think that un- ion-" let me see. Q. Just take your time and remember as much of what he said as you can and the way he told it. He asked you, "Weren't you with that union stuff." A. Yes. Q. You said yes? Trial Examiner : Then what did he say? The Witness : He said something about, I can't re- member word for word. Trial Examiner : No, but as best you can. The Witness : Well, he said something about that union can't help you or something like that. Went to telling us how good Mr. Dent had been to us. Q. (By Mr. Bowman) How good what? A. How good Mr. Dent-that Mr. Dent had been good to us. Q. He started to tell you about that? A. Yes. Q. Well, tell us what he said. How did he tell you about that. A. He said something about Mr. Dent had paid the fine, had paid fines, hospital bills on us and all that, our bonds. He said, "All they had done was try to hurt the man." Q. All you were trying to do was hurt- A. Mr. Dent. Q. Mr. Dent? A. Yes. Q. Right. Continue now. A. And, he said that if I would vote against the union, vote against the union, that Mr. Dent would probably get me out. He would talk to somebody. 11 Q. (By Mr. Bowman) Continue, Mr. Walker, What else, if anything, did Mr. McBride continue to talk to you about and say. A. Oh, he said something about if we hadn't started messing with this union stuff I wouldn't have been there in the first place. Q. Been where? A. In 'ail. Q. What did you say to that, if anything? A. Let's see. I can't remember. Q. Did you answer him? A. I think so, I can't remember what. Q. What else do you recall Mr. McBride saying? A. He said something about if I changed my mind, he said something about if I changed my mid, treat Mr. 429 Dent right or something like that- Trial Examiner: If you changed your mind or what? The Witness : Treat Mr. Dent right. He would see about getting me out of 'ail. Q. (By Mr. Bowman) Who is he? A. Mr. McBride. Q. Mr. McBride would see about that; all right, how long did ^ou and Mr. McBride talk? How long did Mr. McBride s visit last to you would you say? A. I wouldn't really know . Probably ten, fifteen. Q. Minutes? A. That's right, sir. Q. Do you think you have recalled everything he told you or was there more? A. Well, when he got ready to leave he told me that if I changed my mind to call the jailer that he would get in touch, the jailer would get in touch, with Mr. McBride. Trial Examiner : If you changed your mind about what? The Witness : About the union. Trial Examiner : All right. Q. (By Mr. Bowman) And what did you say to that? A. I told him I didn't think I was going to change my mind. McBride denied having any such conversation with Walker. McBride's testimony, corroborated by that of the jailer, Jack Simmons, is that McBride was at the jail to see another prisoner, that Walker called to McBride and asked McBride to post bond for him, and that McBride declined, saying he had about all he could stand. Walker's relatives posted bond for him the next day (a Thursday). According to his testimony, he returned to work during the day, and that evening Pete Dent told him "I don't think we're going to need you any more because we're going to get rid of three saws." Dent's version of the matter is that he made the remark attributed to him when Walker r eport- ed to the plant in the afternoon following his release from jail. Dent added that he retained Davis at that time because of his superior skill as a cutter. The record is clear that Pete Dent knew Davis was a union supporter ; Dent denied hav- mg knowledge of Walker's union activities. Company counsel originally explained Walker's termina- tion in the following terms: Trial Examiner : In general, what's the ground for the discharge of Mr. Walker? Mr. Blanchard : There was a general slow down anyway and certain people were laid off. Some people had quit which kept us from having to lay people off. These two men got in jail. We didn't think they had any excuse to be back in jail . They had had plent of time to settle up. They had never come to us to ask us any questions about it and then all of a sudden they are in jail and we don't know when they are getting back and Willie James Walker shows up three days later and we don't have a place for him. That's basically our contention and Bobby Davis came back the next day. We put him on thejob and one of the reasons frankly, he's the best cutter we have. If we were going to lay somebody off, it's going to be somebody other than Bobby Davis. Trial Examiner: O.K. Mr. Blanchard: So that's basically our position on the discharge. Later during the hearing the Company adduced testimony for the purpose of establishing that Walker was let go as part of a reduction in force in the cutting room , and also because he had a body odor which was highly offensive to his co- 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD workers. At this point counsel stated that the jailing "played another small part in our decision." 2. Conclusions with respect to Walker For reasons which will be self-evident in the light of the credibility findings made below, I find the decision in Walker's case to be unusually troublesome and difficult. As I noted several times during the hearing, General Counsel's problem is that Walker was not prominent or particularly active in the Union, and there is little if any evidence that the Company believed him to be even a supporter, let alone a leader of the Union. In general the Company was careful to keep its opposition to the Union within legal limits, and other employees who were active in soliciting card signers or who otherwise were known to be in the Union were not the object of discriminatory treatment or of any interference by the Company. This is not conclusive in Walker's case, but it does present a serious hurdle for General Counsel, who bears the burden of proof. On the reverse side of the coin , the grounds put forward by the Company fall far short of establishing that Walker's discharge was for some reason other than union activity. The Company's defense in this case was carefully prepared and presented, as counsel went to the extent of interviewing most of the employees the week before trial. The legality of Walker's discharge had been at issue at least since the com- plaint was filed over 6 months before the hearing . Yet at the hearing counsel had only vague generalizations to offer as to e ground for the discharge, and never mentioned the allegedly offensive body odor which seemed to weigh very heavily in the minds of Walker's immediate supervisors. Moreover the "economic" defense was completely undocu- mented, as no records were introduced showing the amount of time worked in the cutting room , or its production, or the rise and fall in sales or orders. Of course, as already noted, General Counsel bears the burden of proof, but when an explanation for a discharge fails to withstand scrutiny, or when shifting and insubstantial reasons are urged as a de- fense, these are factors which tell in General Counsel's fa- vor. With these preliminary generalizations we come next to the scene in the jail between McBride and Walker. As to what transpired there I completely credit Walker's version, and I discredit the testimony of McBride. Of necessity, therefore, I also discredit the testimony of jailer Simmons, who corroborated McBride, and this in turn gives rise to another issue as to why Simmons did so. Turning first to the main event, I found Walker's version credible and indeed I do not regard it as within his capabilities to invent or even learn such a tale and tell it as lie did in the convincing manner, with some detail and with apparent honest effort to recall the conversation . As to McBride, apart from his demeanor (on which I dislike to place reliance but which in his case I found singularly unconvincing), I note that his zeal to testify in support of the Company, and to clear his (and its) skirts of the unpleasantness into which (as I find) he had thrust himself, led him to deny that he had ever put up bond for any Company em loyee. The Company is by far the leading employer of Negro labor in the area, and McBride is the leading, if not the only, bondsman for the Negroes in the community . Pete Dent, who had not heard McBride's testimony , testified that McBride "goes on everybody's bond," that McBride had been on the bond of several employees of the Compan, and that "half of them probably been locked up that he s been on their bond." In crediting Walker and discrediting McBride, I also dis- credit the jailer, Simmons , whose total recall of the episode 7 months later was indeed remarkable, for he recalled the name of the person McBride went to see that day, and also the conversation between McBride and Walker , although McBride was a frequent visitor . The main question I have over Simmons' corroboration of McBride's falsehoods is whether McBride alone "refreshed" Simmons' recollection or whether others were involved. Crediting Walker establishes McBride's knowledge of Walker's adherence to the Union, but falls somewhat short of ascribing this knowledge to the Company and even far- ther short of attributing antiunion motivation to the dis- charge. Even assuming that the Company suggested to McBride that he post bond for Walker , this does not bind the Company to McBride's antiunion interrogation, threats, and promises-all of which would seem to be in excess of any authority the Company may have vested in him as its agent. As I see the situation, McBride viewed the possible advent of the Union with as much distaste, if not more, than did the Company itself. In a sense the Union to the extent that it contributed to the independence and well being of the Negro community was a threat to McBride , and at the least bade fair to displace him as a source of outside counsel and support. So far as the record shows , the procompany, am- tunion sentiments McBride expressed to Walker were Mc- Bride's own, and were not placed in his mouth by the Company. It is, of course, possible that McBride reported back to the Company that Walker was an obstinate union supporter, and it is, of course, possible that the Company, having thus acquired knowledge of Walker's stand, decided to discharge him therefor, but these speculations fall some- what short of attaining the status of "evidence" which might support a finding. As to the "economic" defense, although the Company did not document its position with records and statistics, there is some testimony that layoffs from the cutting room where Walker was employed were not uncommon in the fall. The Company's business declines after Labor Day, and al- though the low point may have been passed by the time Walker was let go, there is some evidence that a few more layoffs were in order. Walker's selection appears to have been somewhat accidental. He was an average employee, but had missed several weeks because of an injury and then, shortly after his return to work , was sent back to ail, as related above. These circumstances, coupled with the per- sonal objection to his cleanliness (the subject of an official complaint by the government inspector several months be- fore, but also of continuing objection by his coworkers) rendered him a likely candidate for the layoff which took place coincident with his second sojourn in jail. There is no evidence that a replacement was hired for him. The foregoing explanation of Walker's case is essentially that offered by the Company. On this record, while I have grave doubts and rms vmgs as to its accuracy and consider- able suspicion that McBride may have furnished informa- tion which contributed to the discharge , I cannot find that General Counsel has sustained his burden of proof. I there- fore recommend dismissal of the complaint as to Walker. C. The Rufusal To Bargain When Union Representatives Hullum and Thornton called on Company President Dent in mid-September, they held authorization cards signed by a majority of the Company's employees. At that time the Company refused to bargain, and the issue went to an election, which the Union lost. In my judgment the unfair labor practices in which the Company engaged between the filing of the repre- sentation petition and the holding of the election (see DENT POULTRY CO. 431 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 138 NLRB 453), were not suffi- cient to warrant imposing a bargaining order . See W. T. Grant Co., 177 NLRB No. 61; S'chrementi Bros., Inc., 179 NLRB No. 147, Arco Corp., 180 NLRB No. 5; Blade- Tribune Publishing Co., 180 NLRB No. 56 ; Central Soya of Canton, Inc., 180 NLRB No. 86 ; J. A. Conley Co., 181 NLRB No. 20. Indeed the only unfair labor practice I have found during the critical period is Mrs. Cooper's statement to Walker that the employees would have a better chance for a wage increase if they rejected the Union . This isolated violation does not, in my judgment, warrant setting aside the election, let alone issuing a bargaining order. Assuming, however, that some of the foregoing deter- minations are overturned on review, and that the question of the Union's card majority is reached, I find that the Union had a valid "card majority." Of the 143 or 144 em- ployees in the unit, well over half signed valid authorization cards at or immediately after union meetings and prior to the demand for recognition. I credit the testimony of Hul- lum and Thornton that they gave at the meetings a full and proper explanation of the unambiguous authorization cards and of the uses to which they might be put, including serving as the basis of a request for recognition . To be sure, at the hearing many months later company counsel adduced from many employees testimony that they had been told the cards were only for an election. I do not credit that testimo- ny. Many of these employees were illiterate and many of the rest had minimal ability to read and write . They were exam- ined as witnesses many months after the event , and indeed after an election had been held. They had all been examined on this same subject by company counsel in the Company's office a few days before and the term "brainwashing" may accurately describe the scene .8 Moreover , with people of this little sophistication in this area the concept of "elec- tion" is more common, and more apt to survive, than that of "voluntary recognition." Under all the circumstances, and in the light of the corroborative testimony of Alberta Hartage, Johnny Dixon , Edith Kelly, Johnnie Mae James, Clarence Minter, Milton Minter, and Chester Hartage, I credit the testimony of Hullum and Thornton that the em- ployees were advised of the use to which the cards would be put, beginning with a request for voluntary recognition, and (if the issue were to be reached) I would find the Union held a majority of valid authorization cards. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company, by interrogating an employee as to whether he signed a union card, threatening reprisals if the Union became the bargaining representative, suggesting that renunciation of the Union would help an employee obtain a loan, and stating that the employees would be more apt to receive a wage increase if they rejected the Union than if they selected it, engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Company has not engaged in the other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following: ORDERS Respondent Dent Poultry Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating any employee as to whether he signed a union card. (b) Threatening employees with loss or diminution of employment if a union becomes their bargaining represent- ative. (c) Telling employees that the Company or its officers will not lend them money unless they withdraw their support of a union. (d)Telling employees that they will be more apt to receive a wage increase if they reject a union than if they select it. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Buena Vista, Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.) I 8 See for a few examples, the testimony of Alberta Hartage, Annie Pearl Harrell, Emma Kate Hartage, Clarence Minter, Johnnie Mae James, Ancalia E. Sales, Milton Minter, Irene Porter, and Rosa Lee Ramsey. 9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 10 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES THE REMEDY I shall recommend that the Company cease and desist from any acts of interference, restraint, and coercion, and that it post appropriate notices. I further recommend that the Board overrule the objections and certify the result of the election. Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings and conclu- sions, and upon the entire record, f recommend, pursuant POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agnecy of the United States Government All our employees have the right to loin or assist Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Council of Geor- gia, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT question our employees as to whether they have signed union cards. 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits if they re ect a union or threaten them with reprisals if they select a union to represent them. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce any employees in the exercise of their right to join or assist Retail, Wholesale and Depart- ment Store Union Council of Georgia, AFL-CIO, or any other union. DENT POULTRY Co. INC (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office , Peach- tree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlan- ta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760.