Brake Parts Co.

BRAKE PARTS CO. Brake Parts Company and United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Cases 38-CA-506, 38-RC-516, and 38-R M-41 August 28, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On April 18, 1969, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. Additionally, the Trial Examiner recommended that objections to the election held on June 21, 1968, be overruled, and that the results thereof be certified.' Thereafter, General Counsel, Respondent, and the Petitioner-Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. General Counsel and the Respondent also filed briefs in support of certain portions of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Subsequently, Respondent filed a brief in reply to the General Counsel's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith. For reasons set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating employees about their union sympathies, threatening employees, and creating the impression that employee union activities were under surveillance. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent's refusal to consider an employee for reemployment because an unfair labor practice charge was being processed in 'None of the violations found by the Trial Examiner occurred during the critical period preceding the election 247 her behalf constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. For reasons set forth below, however, we find merit in the General Counsel's and Charging Party's exceptions to the failure of the Trial Examiner to find that Respondent discharged employee Butcher in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The facts show that Butcher began working for Respondent in June 1967.1 At that time Respondent had a procedure requiring the quarterly review and evaluation of the work performance of first year employees. At about the time Butcher completed his first 3 months with the Company, he was granted a wage increase despite the opinion of his superiors that Butcher's performance was not satisfactory. During the following 3 months Butcher was not able to learn to operate the number of machines expected of him and this was stated to him as the reason for his exclusion from the normal wage increase at the end of his first 6 months with the Company. Nevertheless, Respondent gave Butcher another opportunity to try to learn to operate more machines. By the time Butcher's 9-month review approached, Butcher was able to operate the "4 Kingsberry" machine, although he had not mastered certain other equipment. Meanwhile, after receiving inquiries from other employees concerning possibilities of unionization, Butcher, around the first of March, contacted the Union and obtained 50 authorization cards which he promptly distributed at the plant. Shortly thereafter he passed out a substantial number of additional cards. On or about March 13 Personnel Manager Caruk approached employee Carol Erickson and asked if she was passing out the Union cards. Erickson denied engaging in any such activity, whereupon Caruk then asked if she knew who was passing out the cards. She replied it was Willis Butcher. On March 14, 1 day before the end of the workweek and shortly before Butcher was due for his third quarterly review and evaluation, he was discharged.' Respondent contends that at about this point, it had concluded Butcher was not going to develop into a satisfactory employee and should be terminated. In our opinion, Respondent's explanation that Butcher was discharged because of incompetence is not reflective of the true motivation underlying Butcher's discharge. The background evidence clearly establishes that Respondent early learned of the organizational attempts of its employees and immediately displayed hostility toward unionization. Thus, as the Trial Examiner found, Respondent, 'All dates, unless indicated otherwise , are 1968 'Respondent has in some instances transferred employees to less demanding jobs when they have appeared incapable of mastering more demanding ones . Respondent contends it nevertheless declined to offer Butcher an opportunity to transfer in light of the fact that throughout his employment , Butcher's conduct toward female employees had been subject of numerous complaints Additionally, Respondent contends any transfer would have involved a substantial reduction in pay for Butcher 178 NLRB No 43 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during the period considered, unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their union activities and the identity of union adherents, created the impression that employee organizational activities were under surveillance, and threatened to discover who was working for the Union. By its unlawful interrogation of employee Erickson, Respondent, on the day prior to his discharge, discovered that Butcher was spearheading the union drive. And, after Butcher's discharge, group leader Wardell told an employee that Butcher was discharged because authorization cards had been found in his toolbox. While Respondent contends Butcher was fired because of substandard work performance in general , it nevertheless terminated Butcher precipitously before the expiration of the workweek and shortly before Butcher was due his third quarterly review and evaluation. As the record reveals Butcher had engaged in no specific indiscretions which might reasonably have justified his discharge prior to the expiration of the workweek and without the hiring of a replacement, and as the only intervening event prior to the discharge was Respondent's discovery of Butcher's union activities, we are convinced that Respondent seized upon Butcher's poor work record as an opportunity to rid itself of an active prounion employee. Accordingly, we find that Butcher's union activities were a substantial motivating factor for his discharge, and that by so discharging Butcher, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.' THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As we have found that Respondent engaged in an additional unfair labor practice by discharging Willis Butcher, we shall order that Respondent offer to Butcher immediate reinstatement to his same or substantially equivalent position, with full restoration of seniority and/or other benefits he would have enjoyed had he not been discriminated against.' Accordingly, we shall also order that Respondent make Butcher and Hosch whole for any wages lost because of the discrimination with backpay computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, plus interest at 6 percent per annum as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 'Member Zagoria agrees with the Trial Examiner that the General Counsel has not established Respondent' s discriminatory motivation in discharging employee Butcher Member Zagoria would , therefore, affirm the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the 8(a)(3) allegation regarding Butcher 'As we adopted the Trial Examiner' s finding that Respondent refused to consider Sharon Hosch for reemployment in violation of Sec 8(aXi), (3), ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Brake Parts Company, McHenry, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the following action: 1 Cease and desist from: (a) Discriminating against any employees or applicants for employment because such employees or applicants have filed charges or have given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or because charges were filed on behalf of such persons. (b) Discouraging membership in United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating against applicants for employment or against its employees in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment or discharging employees because of their union activities. (c) Threatening to, or conveying the impression that it will, spy upon or otherwise engage in the surveillance of the union activities of its employees. (d) Coercively interrogating its employees regarding their, or other employees', union membership or activities and implying that employees involved with the Union will be fired. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Sharon Hosch immediate employment without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges she might have acquired, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination against her, subject to the limitations set by the Trial Examiner and in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Offer to Willis Butcher immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and/or other privileges and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the and (4) of the Act, we accordingly adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation that she be offered employment and be made whole in accordance with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner BRAKE PARTS CO. Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all records relevant to a determination of the amount of backpay due to Sharon Hosch and Willis Butcher. (e) Post at its plant in McHenry, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Subregion 38, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Subregion 38, in writing, within 10 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case 38-CA-506, be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Brake Parts Company has engaged in any unfair labor practices other than the conduct specifically found to have constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots have not been cast for United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America in Cases 38-RC-516 and 38-RM-41, and that said organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit herein involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. `In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the worsts "a Decision and Order" the words "a decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES THIS NOTICE IS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we, Brake Parts Company, violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and ordered us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we say in this notice The law gives you the right. To form, join or help unions 249 To choose a union to represent you in bargaining with us To act together for your common interest or protection To refuse to participate in any or all of these things The Board has ordered us to promise you that: WE WILL NOT interfere with your rights. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or any other labor organization, by refusing to hire applicants for employment or by discharging or otherwise discriminating against any of our employees in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant has filed charges or has given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or because charges were filed on behalf of such person. WE WILL NOT threaten to, or convey the impression that we will, spy upon or otherwise engage in the surveillance of the union activities of our employees. WE WILL NOT question any of our employees about their union membership, sympathies, attitudes, or activities or about the union sympathies, attitudes, or activities of other employees, or convey the impression that employees will be fired for union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL offer Sharon Hosch employment in our machine shop, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and we will make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of our unlawful discrimination against her. WE WILL offer Willis Butcher full and immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority and other rights he previously enjoyed and we will also make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of our unlawful discrimination against him. WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces Dated By BRAKE PARTS COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to the Board's Subregional Office, Fourth Floor, Citizens Building, 225 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Telephone 309-673-9282 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO OBJECTIONS TO AN ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner These consolidated proceedings were heard at Waukegan, Illinois, on various days between September 18 and December 11, 1968 All parties were represented at the hearing by counsel, who thereafter filed briefs, which have been carefully considered The Pleadings The complaint, in Case 38-CA-506, dated July 31, 1968, is based upon a charge filed on June 20, 1968, by United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called the Union As amended, the complaint alleges that Brake Parts Company, herein sometimes called the Company or the Respondent, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In substance, the averments of the amended complaint are that (a) On March 14, 1968, the Company discriminatorily discharged Willis Butcher because he joined or assisted the Union, (b) for the same reason, on April 26, 1968, the Company constructively discharged Sharon Hosch by refusing her request for transfer to an available job after the third shift, to which she had been assigned, was eliminated; (c) the Company further discriminated against Sharon Hosch on and since September 16, 1968, by refusing to reinstate her in her former or in a substantially equivalent position because the Union filed a charge on her behalf in the instant case and because she gave testimony in support thereof; and (d) by reason of the foregoing and other conduct therein set forth, the Company has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. Respondent's answer generally denies the allegations of the complaint With respect to the representation proceedings, Cases 38-RC-5 16 and 38-RM-41 Petitions having been filed on May 8 and 10, 1968, and a stipulation for certification upon consent election having been approved by the Regional Director on May 24, 1968, an election was conducted under the supervision of the Board on June 21, 1968, in the following unit All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's McHenry Illinois Plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The tally of ballots shows that, of approximately 189 eligible voters, 60 votes were cast for the Union, 100 votes were cast against the Union, and 10 ballots were challenged On June 26, 1968, the Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election After an investigation of the objections the Regional Director, on August 7, 1968, issued his report thereon. The report shows that there are substantial and material credibility issues raised by the objections and that the objections include allegations which are encompassed by the charges filed in Case 38-CA-506. The Regional Director, therefore, issued an order directing a hearing with respect to the objections, authorizing consolidation of said hearing with the hearing in Case 38-CA-506, and directing the Trial Examiner designated to hear said cases to prepare and to cause to be served on the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the issues in the representation proceedings, and further directing that Cases 38-RC-516 and 38-R M-41 be transferred to and continued before the Board An order consolidating said cases was issued on August 8, 1968 Upon the entire record in the cases and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1 THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Brake Parts Company, an Illinois corporation, manufactures automotive replacement parts at its plant located in McHenry, Illinois During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of the Company's business activities, the Company sold and shipped from said plant finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Illinois and purchased and caused to be transferred to its said plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from States other than the State of Illinois Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT A. Introduction These cases have their roots in an organizational effort which began March 1968, and which the Company vigorously opposed An early leader in the campaign was Willis Butcher, who was discharged on March 14, 1968 The complaint alleges that he was fired because of his union activities. On April 27, 1968, the employment of Sharon Hosch was terminated. She also had been in the forefront of the organizational drive and the complaint alleges that she was constructively discharged because of her union activities The defenses to the discharges are that Butcher was terminated because he was an unsatisfactory employee and that Hosch, who worked on the third shift, rejected a transfer to another shift when the third shift was discontinued and, therefore, quit her employment The complaint also alleges that since September 16, 1968, the Company has further discriminated against Mrs Hosch because the Union had filed unfair labor practice charges on her behalf. Representation petitions were filed on May 8 and 10, 1968, by the Union and the Company, respectively Thereafter, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, pursuant to which an election was held on June 21, 1968 The Union lost the election by a decisive margin It then filed objections to BRAKE PARTS CO. conduct affecting the results of the election and the Regional Director, following an investigation and the issuance of a report , directed that the issues raised by the objections be tried at the instant hearing . In accordance with established policy only conduct on the part of the Company occurring between May 8, when the first petition was filed, and June 21, when the election was held, may be considered as a basis for sustaining the objections ' As none of the conduct which I find was objectionable took place during this period, I shall recommend that the objections to the election be overruled. During the times material hereto the Company operated three shifts. On April 27, 1968, the third shift was virtually eliminated and the employees then working on that shift were offered jobs on the first and second shifts. The elimination of the third shift is not alleged to have been discriminatory although in connection therewith the complaint alleges that Sharon Hosch was unlawfully terminated. Respondent is a subsidiary of Echlin Manufacturing Company The following persons, who appeared as witnesses or are referred to in the record, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and agents of the Respondent- Frederick Mancheski -- President , Echlin Manufacturing Company Donald P.Miller--Vice President, Echlin Manufacturing Company, in charge of personnel and industrial relations William Knoth -- Plant Manager at McHenry plant which is the only facility involved in this case Kenneth Heinbuck- Production Manager Frank Caruk--- Division Person nel'Manager at McHenry plant Martin Olliges -- Assistant Personnel Manager Milton McHale- Machinery Supervisor Wayne Moore Second Shift General Foreman Samuel Neely -- Foreman Joseph W. Adelt--Division Manager at McHenry plant Donald Eugene Henderlong -- Superintendent of rubber area. There is an issue as to whether Harold Wardell is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and whether conduct on his part, alleged to have been unlawful, may be attributed to the Respondent. During the times material hereto Harold Wardell was the group leader and setup man on the first shift in the rubber trim department, which is composed of 20 women and Wardell This department and the rubber mold department are supervised by Donald Eugene Henderlong, superintendent of the rubber departments. Approximately 100 employees work under Henderlong's direction Henderlong testified that no supervisor is assigned to the rubber trim department other than himself, but two foremen, Ed Murphy and George Loesser, are supervisors in the rubber mold department These foremen, who are paid on a salary basis, supervise the first and second shifts, respectively, and divide between themselves the supervision of the third shift Unlike Foremen Murphy and Loesser, Harold Wardell is paid on an hourly basis, punches a timeclock, and wears dungarees and a work shirt at work. According to 'Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co . 138 NLRB 453, Green Bay Aviation, Inc. 165 NLRB No 137 251 Henderlong, Wardell spends 75 percent of his time either setting up machines or operating machines , and does not attend supervisors' meetings On the other hand, the character of Wardell's work differs from that of the women in the rubber trim department. Although Wardell does manual work, he also uses a desk which is located in the department. Admittedly, Wardell superintends the women in the department. But the question is whether his authority is merely of a routine nature or is sufficiently responsible to meet the statutory definition of "supervisor." Wardell regularly assigns the women to machines other than the particular ones which they normally operate He usually makes such assignments when employees ' machines are broken or when the production schedule does not call for the use of the particular machines. Wardell also directs employees regarding the parts they are to fabricate in order to meet production schedules.' In addition, Wardell excuses employees from work. Thus, Dorothy Hanson testified that on one occasion when she felt ill Wardell gave her permission to leave. Jeanne Hocin testified that she considers Wardell her immediate supervisor, and on a very hot day she and two other employees were given permission by Wardell to leave work at midday.' Wardell is also responsible for preparing various reports. He fills out production reports by transcribing production information from the job cards which are filled out by the machine operators to other forms which are turned in to the production control department Henderlong testified that Wardell may also keep attendance records with respect to the employees in the rubber trim department although there is no specific requirement that he do so. More importantly, Wardell grades aspects of the employees' performance, which grades are used in establishing the employees' production bonus In doing this, Wardell fills out forms containing a number of questions. With respect to each question, Wardell indicates whether the employee's performance is normal, above normal, or below normal. Jeanne Hocin testified that on two separate occasions Wardell called her to his desk and showed her the scores which he gave her on the performance questionnaires. Dorothy Hanson testified that on one occasion Wardell told her not to look for a raise because she would not get one. After Wardell completes each performance grading sheet he turns it over to Henderlong. The latter testified that he then evaluates each employee himself. However, Henderlong did not testify as to how frequently he changes Wardell's ratings and was unable to remember when he last made any such change. Respondent contends that Wardell is not a supervisor. It argues that those supervisory tasks which Wardell performs are merely routine, clerical, perfunctory, or are sporadically exercised and do not require the use of independent judgment. This characterization cannot apply to the employees' performance ratings which Wardell prepares. His evaluations are usually adopted by Henderlong and Wardell is sufficiently confident that they will be accepted that, from time to time, he discusses with 'Sharon Hosch testified that Harold Wardell, on two different occasions, informed her that her requests for overtime work had been turned down As it is not clear from her testimony that the decisions had been made by Wardell, I find that Hosch's testimony does not establish that Wardell has authority to "assign" overtime work or to make effective recommendations in regard thereto 'Hocm gave testimony purporting to show that Wardell exercises authority to hire and to discharge employees I find that her testimony does not demonstrate that Wardell has such authority 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the employees the ratings he has given them. Thus, despite Henderlong's testimony that the latter personally evaluates each employee, I find that Wardell has authority to make effective recommendations with regard to the employees' performance ratings. As such ratings have a direct influence upon the production bonuses which the employees earn, I further find that Wardell has authority effectively to recommend the reward of other employees, as such term is used in Section 2(1 1) of the Act. Furthermore, Wardell's authority to transfer employees from machine to machine, to direct them to do specific work, and to release them from their work, while not requiring managerial skill of an high order, in the circumstances here, is not a routine function The direction of the rubber trim department is only one of several facets of Henderlong's responsibilities Significantly, Henderlong did not testify as to how accessible he is to the employees in the department. If Wardell is not a supervisor then Henderlong is indeed a very busy man. In addition to the overall supervision and direction of both the rubber mold and the rubber trim departments on all shifts, Henderlong then also exercises detailed supervision over the first shift of the rubber trim department. It is improbable that he has the time to do that. Similarly improbable is that a department of 20 employees would be permitted to function without effective day-to-day supervision As there is no intermediate supervisor between Henderlong and Wardell the responsibility for the direction of the daily work activities of the employees in the rubber trim department must be lodged with Wardell. Although Harold Wardell voted without challenge in the June 21, 1968, election, I, nevertheless, find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. B. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion I By Harold Wardell In mid-March, within a week after the discharge of Willis Butcher, Dorothy Hanson, an operator of a femco machine in the rubber trim department, was approached by Wardell who said that he would like to find out who was going to be the union steward or stewardess.' Hanson responded that there was no union . Wardell then said, "[D]idn't you know that Butcher was fired because .. . they found these union cards in his tool box?" Hanson further testified that on another occasion in mid-April, Wardell "told me that if he finds out who was involved with the union , or has anything to do with the union, he said they would get nothing but scrap, and they would be fired "' 'Respondent argues that "the statement by Wardell does not assume the form of a question and, therefore, cannot constitute unlawful interrogation Wardell has merely stated that he would like to find out who the steward would be He has not asked what employees are for the Union or what employees are helping to organize the Union " I find no merit to this argument However phrased , Wardell's remark to Hanson sought to elicit from her the name of the union steward See King Chrysler-Plymouth. Inc, 174 NLRB No 80 'On cross-examination , Hanson acknowledged that in the pretrial affidavit she gave to a representative of the National Labor Relations Board she did not use the word "scrap" but the word "boots " A boot is a part that is cut on the femco machine . I find that Hanson was not a completely reliable witness Nevertheless , particularly in the absence of any contradiction , I credit her testimony concerning her conversations with Wardell Edward Schultz, who does machine maintenance work, testified without contradiction that about March 14, while he was checking a femco machine, Wardell came to him and "just asked me do I know anybody who belongs to the union who has been giving [out] cards " Schultz answered, "Don't ask me." Also, in mid-March, Wardell, who had joined a group of female employees at a table in the cafeteria during a break period, "said that he had heard the union was trying to get in, and that he was going to have to try and find out who was working for it, because he wanted to get on the good side of whoever it was so he wouldn't get into any trouble with the union steward." Wardell's threat directed to Hanson that anyone involved with the Union would be fired and his statement to Hanson that Butcher had been fired because union cards had been found in his toolbox were coercive. Also, the interrogation of employees by Wardell was unlawfully coercive. Questioning Hanson as to who was going to be the union steward in the context of a conversation in which she is advised that another employee had been fired because union cards had been discovered in his toolbox would tend to cause her to apprehend that the Company was seeking to identify the employees who support the Union in order to discharge them or otherwise subject them to its resentful reprisals. Furthermore, the speech by Donald Miller, the Company's labor relations director, made to the employees on May 2, hereinafter discussed, reveals the Company's implacable opposition towards the Union. Although the speech was made after the interrogation of Hanson the implications which attach to Wardell's conduct become significantly more sinister when the Company's hostility to the Union is later dramatized to the employees by an important management representative. Also, in the circumstances described, the inquiry made of Schultz and the threat of surveillance made to the group of female employees in the cafeteria were coercive. "The fact that such interrogation [and threat may have been] made in a casual manner during a friendly conversation does not lessen its unlawful effect." Abex Corporation - Engineered Products Division, 162 NLRB 328, 329. I find that the above-described threats made by Wardell to Hanson and Wardell's questioning Hanson and Schultz as to the identity of the union steward, who was working for the Union and who had been giving out union cards, and his threat to a group of employees that he was going to find out who was working for the Union, constituted interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 2. By Frank Caruk Employee Carol Erickson testified that on March 13 or 14 Personnel Manager Frank Caruk came to her and inquired whether she was passing out union cards. She denied that she was engaged in such activity and Caruk asked her whether she knew who was passing out the cards. She replied that it was Willis Butcher. This conversation occurred the day before Butcher was discharged." I find that this incident constituted a violation 'I credit the above testimony by Carol Erickson despite Caruk 's denial Barbara Erickson testified that the day before Willis Butcher was fired she received a union authorization card from him She further testified that Jerry Doyle, whom she identified as an industrial engineer for the Company, observed her in possession of the card and told her he would not tell Caruk As there is no proof that Doyle was a supervisor, or had transmitted his knowledge about Erickson's possession of the union card to BRAKE PARTS CO. of Section 8(a)(1) Such interrogation by the personnel manager who is charged with implementing the Company's employee relations policies, which subsequently were advertised as hostile to the Union, would tend to intimidate employees and to place them in fear that Caruk's purpose was to identify the union supporters in order to limit by discharge or other means their organizational opportunities The fact that the interrogation may have preceded the Company's pronouncements of opposition to the Union does not attenuate the unlawful effect of the interrogation At most, it merely delayed the time when the impact of the interrogation made itself fully felt 3 By Donald P Miller Considerable testimony was adduced regarding a speech which Donald P Miller, vice president of Echlin Manufacturing Company, the parent corporation of the Respondent, in charge of personnel and industrial relations, made to the employees' Miller testified that he delivered the speech on May 2 from a written text which he had prepared in advance and that he did not deviate from the text of the speech A copy of the text of the speech is attached hereto as Appendix A. Miller's testimony that he read the speech to the employees exactly as written was corroborated by several witnesses called by Respondent On the other hand, witnesses for the General Counsel testified that during the speech Miller made statements which do not appear in the prepared text and some of General Counsel's witnesses testified that the speech took place later than May 2 1 credit Miller and find that the text of the speech which was introduced in evidence by Respondent was delivered by him verbatim to groups of Respondent's employees on May 2, 1968 The speech is a clear undisguised expression of opposition to the Union More than that it reflects Respondent's unmistakable hostility to the Union. For instance, in the opening paragraph Miller says. "Unfortunately, this visit is not for a pleasant purpose . [Y]ou will remember us discussing this ugly subject before . I have come up here to talk to you about a very serious matter -the future well being of this plant and your jobs " The balance of the speech continues the same theme of emphasizing Respondent's indignation because of the Union's organizing campaign and of prognosticating the dire consequences which would likely follow the Union's success As an example, for following appears in his speech, "our shareholders will send us a big padlock and we're out of business " As Miller testified, the speech was carefully prepared and rehearsed The text reflects an obvious intention to discourage and frighten the employees from supporting the Union. Miller and those who may have assisted him, if any, in preparing the speech were seeking to skirt the line of legality without overstepping the bounds of permissible campaign propaganda It is not surprising that employees may have misinterpreted precisely what Miller said and understood him to have made the direct threat that the Company would go out of business if the Union were to be successful in its organizing campaign However, absent latent or patent ambiguities the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the speech must be judged not upon the interpretation placed upon it by the audience who heard it but upon the language that any member of management , t find no significance in the foregoing testimony of Barbara Erickson 'Miller delivered the speech to three different groups of employees on the same day 253 was used. I am of the opinion that the speech does not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act' General Counsel in his brief does not contend that the written speech Miller claims to have delivered was unlawful but argues that statements attributed to him by General Counsel's witnesses and denied by Miller were unlawful I have resolved this conflict in favor of Miller Charging Party argues that two portions of the speech as Miller claims to have delivered it were unlawful. First, Charging Party refers to the following Another way they may have lied to you about those [authorization] cards is by saying no one will ever know if you signed one Many times employees have to get on the witness stand in open court and swear under oath that you signed a card. According to Charging Party, "[t]he statement is offensive because it is a threat. The secrecy of an employee signature which is basic to the purposes of the Act is being undermined The Company is threatening the employees and telling them that their secrecy will be invaded The Company is saying, ` if you sign this card we may find out about it ' This is intimidation and a big-brother-is-watching-you attitude which is inimical to the purposes of the Act " I do not agree with this argument While the quoted statement may cause employees to become apprehensive about signing an authorization card, Miller did no more than describe what in fact has happened in other situations' Second, Charging Party refers to the following Furthermore, if you did sign one [union authorization card] without knowing all the facts, you have a legal right to get it back by asking for it We intend to protect your legal right, so if you ask for your card and it is not immediately returned to you, we want to know If they refuse to give back a card, we can have it invalidated legally for you [Emphasis supplied ] Charging Party argues that "[t]he Company is thus volunteering legal services for its employees The Company is also interjecting itself into the employee-union dialogue Having informed the employees earlier that their signature on the union card might be disclosed to the Company, the Company now says, `We want to know ' This goes beyond making arguments in an election campaign. The Company is seeking information about who is against (and who is for) the Union And the Company is offering aid to those who support its position. The Company is saying that it can get the card back, and is offering to assist the employee in doing so Suppose the shoe was on the other foot and the Company were assisting the Union in signing the cards Surely this would be illegal. By the same token, this offer to undermine the Union's accumulated strength, particularly when coupled with the other practices of the Company, was a violation of the Act. Furthermore, it is a particularly reprehensive form of interrogation." While I am not unsympathetic with the Charging Party's argument and believe that this portion of Miller's speech, as well as other portions, is dust a hairline away from infringing upon employees' protected rights, nevertheless, I find that the quoted three sentences do not violate the Act. Essentially Charging Party's contention is As the speech was delivered before the representation petitions were filed, it is unnecessary to consider whether it contains sufficient distortions of law and of facts to have influenced unfairly the results of the election, or whether it was cleverly phrased to mislead inattentive listeners 'Cf R J Reynolds Foods. Inc . 168 NLRB No 47 , Forenta , Inc, 165 NLRB No 74, Safeway Cabs, Inc, 146 NLRB 1334 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the quoted language is a subtle form of unlawful interrogation and in addition is an unlawful attempt to involve itself in employee-union dealings As the speech was made to relatively large groups of employees, no individual employee was under any compulsion to respond either then or later and there is no evidence that any employee did respond or that the Company at any later date sought to obtain information from any employee about requests for the return of authorization cards Even if the phrase, "we want to know," is interpreted not as a rhetorical expression, but as a request to the employees, the Company was not asking for information which would identify the union adherents (only those-which necessarily would not be many-who (I) voluntarily tell the Company that, (2) they had asked for the return of their authorization cards, and (3) had been refused would be identified) so there was no sound basis for employees to believe that the Company was seeking the requested information in order that it might engage in reprisals against those who were supporting the Union.'° Charging Party cites no case in support of its argument that by the quoted language the Company was unlawfully interjecting itself into the "employee-union dialogue " Perhaps an employer who takes action to compel a union to return an employee's authorization card, even if the employer takes the action at the employee's request, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because by so doing the employer infringes upon the right of the employee to join or assist a labor organization or to refrain from joining or assisting a labor organization without interference, well meaning or otherwise, from his employer " However, in this case, there is no evidence that the Company took any such action Miller merely advised the employee that the Company was ready to act for them if asked Not having been asked the Company did not act and therefore did not engage in the potentially unlawful conduct." 4 By Frederick Mancheski On the day before the election Frederick Mancheski, president of Respondent's parent corporation, who earlier had made a speech to the employees, greeted Dorothy Hanson as he walked by her machine She took advantage of the opportunity to engage him in a conversation about the employees' production bonus According to Hanson, "And I wanted to find out whether or not if they were going to change back to the weekly bonus, and wanted to find out if it could be done, and I spoke to him, and I asked him, I said, 'Mr Mancheski, is there anything you could do about it') Did you know that is why the people are against the company and more for the union, was because on account of it took their weekly bonus away and gave the three months ""' According to Hanson's further testimony, "He said, yes, there was something he could do about it, and I asked him what could be done He said he could change it at any time he wanted to, and I said, any time, and he said yes And I says, 'Even before the election)' He said, 'Yes, it could be changed right now, if it would . please the people and bring them, the people, for the company instead of the union "' "I do not believe that the clause in the speech , " if you ask for your card and it is not immediately returned to you, we want to know," can be interpreted as a device for indirectly polling the employees as to whether or not they support the Union "But see Leeds and Northrup Company. 155 NLRB 1292 "1 credit Miller's denial of testimony by Patricia Strong that in April , in the presence of other employees , Miller interrogated her about the Union and who was supporting the Union Hanson had raised the same subject with Donald P Miller on two earlier occasions 1d The first time she spoke with Miller was on May 2, after his speech to the employees, and the second time was on the same day or the day before she spoke with Mancheski On both occasions Miller refused to talk to her about the subject explaining that his remarks might be construed to be an unfair labor practice " According to Hanson's further testimony, there has been no change in bonus either before or after the election 16 This incident is relied upon to support the allegation that the Respondent promised its employees economic benefits to induce them to reject the Union. Respondent, however, argues that even accepting Hanson's version of the event, Mancheski did not make any promise of benefit According to Respondent, "When asked by Hanson if he could do anything about the bonus system, he responded, in effect, that he, being president of the corporation, could, if he desired to, change the bonus system. He did not make any statements which indicated in any way that he had any desire or plans to change the bonus system."" Respondent argues further, "Mancheski, being president of the corporation, could obviously change the bonus system if he wanted to, and it would have been inaccurate and unconvincing for him to tell Hanson that he could do nothing about it." A second argument advanced by Respondent is that Hanson's further question to Mancheski, namely, whether the bonus could be changed prior to the election, "clearly indicates that Hanson's purpose in asking the question was to attempt to entrap Mancheski into committing an unfair labor practice." Hanson had twice been advised by Miller, the last time only shortly before her conversation with Mancheski, that he could not discuss the bonus question with her because his remarks might be construed to be an unfair labor practice Nevertheless, Hanson addressed the same questions to Mancheski While these facts may not spell out a conscious purpose to entrap the Company into committing an unfair labor practice, they reflect the fact that, despite earlier failures, Hanson persisted in her attempt to elicit a favorable promise from some responsible representative of the Company. If as a result an official finally makes an unguarded remark, it would be exaggerating the effect of such remark to characterize it, as General Counsel and Charging Party seek to do, as unlawful interference with employees' protected rights Mancheski did not promise that he would change the frequency of the bonus payments In the circumstances described, there is no warrant to stretch the remark attributed to Mancheski by Hanson as a veiled promise that the change in bonus payments would be "Her reference is to a change in the frequency of payment of the production bonus from a weekly basis to a quarterly basis "Neither General Counsel nor Charging Party in their briefs contend that the Act was violated by reason of anything Miller said to Hanson in these two conversations "To the extent that the testimony of Hanson and Miller conflict , I credit Miller's version "Mancheski was not a witness at the hearing Therefore, Hanson's testimony concerning her conversation with Mancheski is uncontradicted Hanson also testified that Edward Schultz was present during her conversation with Mancheski Although Schultz was a witness at the hearing, he did not corroborate Hanson with respect to her conversation with Mancheski "General Counsel argues "While one may quibble over Mancheski's use of the word could, set in context Mancheski promised to change the bonus system if the employees refrained from voting for the union and only the filing of charges and objections to the conduct of the election stopped him from instituting those changes after the election " BRAKE PARTS CO. 255 made if the Union should lose the election 18 Accordingly, I find that Hanson's testimony concerning her conversation with Mancheski proves neither a violation of Section 8(a)(I) nor establishes grounds for upsetting the results of the June 21 election "° 5 By other alleged conduct General Counsel and Charging Party point to a vituperative letter which the Company sent to the employees on June 7, 1968, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix B, as being unlawfully coercive Although the letter disparages the Union, states that the Union's purpose is to get "their hands into [the employees'] pocketbooks," stresses the possibility of strikes arising from union representation, and emphasizes "the miseries and hardships that come from a UAW strike to try to force acceptance of their demands," only the following paragraph of the letter is alleged to be unlawful 4 The Company has the right to permanently replace strikers the minute they walk out of the door! This means that when the strike is over the replaced strikers have no jobs' The contention is made that the quoted statement is false and misleading. The argument is that the quoted paragraph does not distinguish between an economic strike and an unfair labor practice strike and does not describe the employees' rights to reinstatement In the case of an economic strike the paragraph is claimed to be misleading because strikers, even if permanently replaced, remain employees and, if they unconditionally apply for reinstatement, they are entitled to reinstatement upon the departure of the replacements 2° It is further argued that the false and misleading nature of the statement is aggravated in the case of an unfair labor practice strike because then the employees are entitled to their jobs back upon making an unconditional request for reinstatement even if it requires dismissal of the replacements Insofar as it goes the Company's statement is correct It is true, as General Counsel properly points out, that the paragraph does not contain a complete delineation of all the possibilities that might occur However, the letter in question was circulated 2 weeks before the election. In the normal course of events, undoubtedly, the Union obtained a copy of the letter and had ample opportunity, if it chose to exercise such opportunity, to respond to the statement in question and to discuss the rights striking employees have to reinstatement As the Respondent was careful in its letter to disclaim any intention of provoking a strike, and as the letter contains no unlawful threat, I find that the paragraph quoted above neither violates Section 8(a)(I) of the Act nor constitutes a ground for setting aside the election herein 2i General Counsel relies on a pretrial affidavit of Leonard Lawton to support certain allegations of the complaint Lawton was a reluctant witness who appeared at the hearing only after the General Counsel sought and obtained enforcement of a subpena by a District Court of the United States At the hearing Lawton repudiated his pretrial statement He testified that he was intoxicated at the time he gave the statement to a Board agent Lawton did not impress me as being a truthful witness Apart from other technical considerations, I neither accept as truthful and reliable Lawton's testimony at the hearing nor the statements made in his pretrial aff idavit. Accordingly, as the alleged incriminatory matters found in Lawton's affidavit were substantially repudiated by witnesses called by Respondent, I find that no unfair labor practices may be based thereon C. The Discharge of Willis Butcher Willis Butcher was hired by the Company on June 1, 1967, as a setup man In his employment interview Butcher represented that he was qualified and experienced to do setup work At the time he was hired and during the period he worked for Respondent, the Company was having difficulty securing qualified setup men for employment Butcher was discharged approximately 9 months later on March 14, 1968 During the 2 weeks preceding his termination he actively distributed and solicited signatures to union authorization cards General Counsel contends that he was terminated because of the fear, "that Butcher's protected activity would bear fruit" Respondent's defense is that Butcher was discharged for cause According to Respondent, Butcher's work was substandard and, in addition, he behaved offensively towards the female employees in the plant Respondent follows a policy whereunder the performance of all employees is reviewed and evaluated at the end of their 3d, 6th, 9th, and 12th months of employment during their first year with the Company and semiannually thereafter during the next 4 years of their employment Before Butcher had completed his first 3 months with the Company, Plant Manager William Knoth informed Butcher that his work was not satisfactory Nevertheless, Butcher's wage rate was advanced to the base or "quota" rate for the setup man classification.32 At this time Knoth and Foreman Samuel Neely, who was Butcher's immediate supervisor, decided to restrict Butcher's work activities primarily to the No. 4 Kingsberry and the porthole machines Prior thereto Butcher had been "floating the line," that is, attempting to set up a variety of machines, as do the other setup men in the department?l Upon the completion of 6 months of employment, Plant Manager Knoth informed Butcher that he would not "There is no evidence in the record that anyone other than Hanson was dissatisfied with the bonus arrangement There is no evidence that Hanson was a spokeswoman for the employees or that Mancheski thought she was It is improbable that Mancheski , on the basis of the single conversation with Hanson , intended to promise that he would change Respondent's method of paying production bonuses "Colecraft Manufacturing Co v N L R B, 385 F 2d 998, 1003 (C A 2) "Laidlaw Corporation . 171 NLRB No 175 "The Board will not lightly set aside an election "[A]bsolute precision of statement and complete honesty are not always attainable in an election campaign nor are they expected by the employees We believe that an election should be set aside only where there has been a misrepresentation or other similar campaign trickery , which involves a substantial departure from the truth, at a time which prevents the other party or parties from making an effective reply, so that the misrepresentation , whether deliberate or not, may reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the election " Hollywood Ceramics Company, 140 NLRB 221, 223-224 See also Texas Boot Manufacturing Company , Inc. 143 NLRB 264 "The Company' s personnel transaction form contains the following remarks "Completion of 90 day probationary period Quota rate effective 9-5-67 " As of said date Butcher received an increase of 18 cents representing an advance from the starting rate to the quota rate for his job and an additional 8 cents representing a general across -the-board increase given to all employees "The other setup men in the department normally setup and repair about 12 different machines 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be recommended for the normal increase in wage rate because he could not set up a sufficient variety of machines However, Butcher again was assigned to "float the line" in order to give him an opportunity to learn how to set up the other machines in the department During the period of his employment, many complaints were made by female employees that Butcher was putting his hands on them, pinching them, and using offensive language in their presence On more than one occasion Plant Manager Knoth warned Butcher about such conduct When the time approached for Butcher's 9-month review, Neely recommended his termination According to Neely, Butcher could do an adequate job in setting up the 4 Kingsberry, but never mastered how to set up the other machines " Based upon Neely's recommendation and his own observations, Knoth decided to terminate Butcher Knoth testified that he decided against transferring Butcher to another job because any transfer would involve a substantial cut in pay and also because of the complaints that had been received regarding Butcher's behavior Knoth notified Butcher of his termination on Thursday, March 14, just before the end of his shift " Butcher was the leader of the organizational effort at Respondent's plant Butcher testified that, after he had received several inquiries from employees concerning the possibilities of unionization, he contacted the Union on March 2, 1968 He obtained 50 authorization cards which he began distributing the next day On March 10 he received a substantial number of additional cards and distributed them to employees on March 11, 12, 13, and 14 According to Butcher's further testimony, he did not try to conceal the fact that he was passing out union authorization cards and he passed out cards in the cafeteria, in work areas, and in the washrooms, and collected about 48 signed cards t" Respondent denies that it had knowledge of Butcher's union activities at the time that he was discharged However, I have found that on March 13, Carol Erickson informed Personnel Manager Caruk, in response to the latter's unlawful interrogation, that Butcher had been distributing authorization cards In spite of Respondent's knowledge of Butcher's union activities and its strong opposition to the organization of its employees, it committed no violation of the Act by discharging Butcher unless Butcher's union activities was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate him The record establishes the existence of adequate cause for Butcher's discharge His performance as a setup man was unsatisfactory and he was informed of such fact at the end of each of his two review periods In addition, he was warned on several occasions about his offensive behavior towards the female employees in the plant Respondent's witnesses testified that there was no improvement on Butcher's part during the last 3 months of his employment "Butcher acknowledged that the only machine he was able to set up competently was the 4 Kingsberry "Butcher testified that following his exit conversation with Knoth he returned to the machine shop and informed Neely that he had been fired Neely asked why and he said it was because his performance was not up to par According to Butcher , Neely replied , "Well, I can't understand that, because I gave you a good report " Neely' s version of the conversation, which I credit , is entirely different According to Neely , he asked Butcher why he had been discharged and Butcher stated it was because he was a union organizer "Butcher testified that he kept the blank cards in his toolbox He further testified that employees who signed cards either gave the signed cards to him in person or deposited them in his toolbox and even Butcher did not attempt any serious contradiction of such testimony Charging Party poses the question, why was not Butcher discharged much sooner if his performance was as unsatisfactory as it is represented to have been by the Company As the question was not asked at the hearing the answer is a matter of speculation One possible answer may lie in the fact that the Company was finding difficulty in hiring setup men General Counsel advances some finely spun arguments to support his thesis that Butcher's union activities were a significant influencing factor in the Company's decision to discharge him First, General Counsel asks why Butcher was not transferred to another job, if he was an unsatisfactory setup man, in accordance with the Company's practice of transferring men who do not satisfactorily perform the jobs to which they are originally assigned Knoth answered the question by testifying that Butcher's conduct in relation to the female employees made him unsatisfactory in any job and also any job to which he could be transferred would involve a substantial reduction in pay General Counsel next asks, "Why then did the Respondent fire Butcher before a difficult to find replacement was secured, and why did Respondent fire Butcher on Thursday when his normal work week ended on Friday " The answers to these questions are not necessarily unfavorable to Respondent's defense. First, although Respondent had not made advance arrangements to hire a replacement for Butcher, there is no evidence that its production suffered because of Butcher's termination Second, there is no evidence in the record that it was unusual for the Company to terminate employees before the end of their workweek Thus, the answer which General Counsel gives, namely that "Respondent found it necessary to fire Butcher with such unseemly haste because they feared that Butcher's protected activity would bear fruit" is not the necessary answer to the questions posed Next, General Counsel argues, "It was mere coincidence that Butcher was fired approximately the same time he was due for the 9 months review This timing was due to the discovery of Butcher's union activity " The argument can just as readily be turned around namely, that it was mere coincidence that Butcher had begun his union activities at or about the time he was due for the 9 months' review " General Counsel further argues, "Butcher may not have been the most satisfactory employee, but his standard of performance was adequate Butcher had been retained at the three months review and even given a raise when Knoth stated that a month after Butcher was hired, he knew Butcher could not make it At the 6 months review, Butcher was again retained During the interval between the 3 months and the 9 months reviews Neely and Knoth spoke to Butcher on several occasions about his work, but they never warned him once that his job was in jeopardy until he was unlawfully discharged on March 14, 1968 The reasonable employer would warn an employee that his work was not satisfactory and that he will be terminated unless his work improves It is only fair to assume that Butcher was not told his job was in jeopardy because he was not in danger of losing his job until he engaged in protected activity " I find this argument unconvincing When an employee is informed as many times as Butcher was informed during "If one were to speculate, a plausible hypothesis would be that Butcher, anticipating that he might be discharged upon the completion of his 9 month's review , attempted to forestall the discharge by obtaining union backing BRAKE PARTS CO. 257 his 9 months of employment that his work was unsatisfactory and that his conduct in the plant had been the subject of complaint by other employees, it is entirely unnecessary and superfluous for the employer to add that unless there is improvement he will be discharged Contrary to General Counsel, it is my opinion that the reasonable employer would expect the employee to understand that if there is no improvement he might be discharged and I further believe that the normal, reasonable employee would understand in such circumstances that his job was in jeopardy. Finally, General Counsel argues that because Knoth did not give Butcher a written warning regarding his deportment towards the female employees that such misconduct was not considered serious According to Knoth, Butcher was discharged because his work was unsatisfactory Thus, his behavior towards the female employees was not the assigned reason for his discharge. However, he was not given the opportunity to transfer to another position for two different reasons, namely, that it would involve a substantial cut in pay which probably would cause him to become disgruntled, and that his behavior towards the female employees made him a generally undesirable employee The absence of a written warning does not mean that Respondent condoned Butcher's behavior The fact that Butcher was discharged on the day after the Company's personnel manager learned of his union activities raises a suspicion that the Company discharged Butcher for such reason This suspicion is strengthened by the further fact that the Company was vehemently hostile to the organization of its employees However, despite such suspicions, I find that General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Butcher's union activities were a motivating factor in Respondent's decision to discharge him, and to the contrary, I find that Respondent discharged Butcher for a cause 28 Sharon Hosch began working for the Company in February 1968 as an operator of a femco machine on the third shift.29 At the time she was hired Hosch advised the Company that she could work only on the third shift. Hosch continued to work on the third shift until the shift was eliminated on April 27, 1968. Hosch became active in the Union's organizational campaign when, on March 19, 1968, at the request of employee Ed Schultz, she signed a union authorization card and received from him about 50 cards for distribution. She passed out approximately 13 cards to the 18 employees on the third shift and distributed the D The Alleged Discrimination Against Sharon Hosch "In making this finding I have not overlooked the testimony of Dorothy Hanson that group leader Wardell, whom I find to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, told her that Butcher had been discharged because the Company found union cards in his toolbox Although Wardell is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, he was not generally treated as a part of management He was paid on an hourly basis, unlike the foremen and other recognized supervisors , and did not attend the meetings of the supervisors There is no evidence indicating how Wardell gained access to the information he imparted to Hanson Furthermore , it does not appear from the record that he and Butcher worked in the same department or that he exercised any supervisory function with respect to Butcher Accordingly, there is no reason to infer that in the normal course of events Wardell would have been informed by the Company' s management as to the reason Butcher was discharged 31Hosch previously had been employed by the Company from February 9 until March 9, 1967, as an operator in the machine shop remaining cards to employees on other shifts. Also, Hosch was the only representative of the third shift on the in-plant organizing committee She testified to an incident that occurred about April 17, 1968, from which it is claimed that the Company acquired direct knowledge of her union activities Sharon Hosch was sitting at a table with her brother-in-law Al Hosch and three other employees, including Paul Winston and Wally Chalewa 30 Also present and sitting nearby was Milton McHale, machinery supervisor According to Hosch's further testimony, within the hearing of McHale, Chalewa said loudly, "Sharon, get out a union card and sign up Paul " Sharon Hosch did nothing, but Al Hosch took out a union card and gave it to Paul Winston Contrary to Respondent, I infer that the Company acquired knowledge of Hosch's union activities In addition to the fact that Hosch's testimony regarding the cafeteria incident, overheard by Supervisor Milt McHale, is undenied, it is highly improbable that after she had distributed 13 authorization cards to employees on the third shift when the aggregate number of employees on the shift was about 18, that the supervisory personnel would not have learned about her activities Hosch's employment terminated on April 27, 1968, with the elimination of the third shift Hosch was then earning $1.83 per hour presumably computed on the basis of $1 68 base rate plus 15-cent shift differential On Wednesday, April 25, General Foreman Wayne Moore notified the third-shift employees individually that the shift was being discontinued and that the Company intended to absorb the employees on the other two shifts. Moore asked each employee for his shift preference. According to Moore, at that time, he did not offer a specific job to any employee, but informed the employees that their assignments on the first and second shifts would be discussed on Friday. Moore testified that Hosch informed him that she would have a problem working on the first or second shift because then she would have to get a babysitter. On Friday Hosch told Moore she would not be able to work on either the first or the second shift and would be looking for other employment 3i "Donald Henderlong, supervisor of the rubber area, testified that in April 1968 Chalewa was a foreman on the third shift "I credit Moore's versions of his conversations with Hosch According to Hosch, on April 25 Moore told her that the Company was discontinuing the third shift as of April 27 and that she could be put on a sorting job on the first or second shift The base rate for a sorter was $1 60 Hosch did not testify that she knew what the rate for a sorter was Hosch asked Moore whether there were any openings in the machine shop to which he replied that he did not know of any but would check upon the matter Hosch explained to Moore that she couldn ' t afford the reduction in wages which a change to the sorting job on the first or second shift would involve because she would have to hire a babysitter plus drive herself to and from work She told him she would check with her husband The next evening she spoke with Moore again and told him that she could not accept any job other than in the machine shop and Moore replied that he was sorry but there wasn ' t any opening at that time , "that he would let me know . And that I would have to take a layoff until then " While Hosch testified that the consideration which impelled her to refuse the job as sorter was that she "couldn 't take the cut in the wages that would have been on that particular job," her further testimony reveals that she was uncertain as to the rate of pay for an operator in the machine shop When on cross-examination she was asked whether she knew the difference in rates of pay for a first-shift machine operator and a second -shift sorter (with the 10-cent shift differential the base rate for a second -shift sorter was more than the base rate for a First-shift machine operator ) Hosch answered, "I didn't know the exact amount, but I knew that I could make any incentive on the machine , running the machine job I was positive " She also stated she did not believe there was an incentive on sorting but did not make any inquiry about the matter If Hosch ' s prime consideration was how much 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A week after her termination Hosch had a conversation with Personnel Manager Frank Caruk in his office 32 According to Hosch, she asked Caruk whether there was an opening in the machine shop He replied that there was none She said that she would take a job in the machine shop on either first or second shift Caruk agreed to let her know Caruk denied Hosch's version of their conversation and testified that on the occasion to which she referred she had come into the plant to pick up her last check She remarked that she regarded herself as having been laid off and he responded that the Company considered that she had quit because she had been offered another job I credit Caruk's version of the described conversation, rather than Hosch's Contrary to the contentions of General Counsel and the Charging Party I find that Hosch quit her employment on April 27 when the third shift was eliminated and that the circumstances do not spell out a constructive discharge Thereafter, on September 5, 1968, Sharon Hosch applied to the Company for employment in the machine shop" by mailing the following letter to Caruk I am still available for employment in the machine shop either first or second shift and would appreciate being called at the first opening that is available " she would earn upon transfer to the first or second shift, rather than the problem of caring for her small children , then it is implausible that she would not have made inquiry as to the rates of pay and shift differentials for the various lobs "Hosch testified that as she was about to leave the plant on April 27 she observed Martin Olliges, assistant personnel manager , walking in According to Hosch , " I went up to him and said that I had heard rumors from the other employees that I had quit, and that I wanted it on my records that I hadn ' t, that I would take the first opening on the first or second shift in the machine shop And he said, well, he would look into it and be sure my record was straight" Olliges testified that the conversation took place near the loading dock as he was entering the plant According to Olliges , "she stopped me and indicated she considered losing her employment to be a layoff And in the process I acknowledged what she said " Charging Party argues , " regardless of whether Olliges told her that he would see to it that the records conformed to her request , or whether he merely acknowledged receipt of her request , it is clear that he, the assistant personnel manager of the Company , was being informed by Hosch that she 'did not wish to be considered a quit , but wished to be on layoff In other words she was telling Olliges that her relationship with the Company was not severed, but that she wished to be recalled if any opportunity arose Whether Olliges misled her by merely saying yes or ok, or whether he actually said, yes , I will correct the records,' the important thing is that she explained her position to him and that he understood her explanation " I do not agree with Charging Party' s argument even if the incident occurred as Hosch testified it did Whether or not Hosch quit her employment turns not upon her state of mind or upon her intentions but upon what happened The operative facts are that Hosch was advised that her job on the third shift was being eliminated , that she was offered employment on either the first or second shift , and that she rejected such employment In these circumstances , regardless of what she might have intended to do, she quit her employment (This follows regardless of whether the Company through the device of offering her an unacceptable job unlawfully and in violation of Sec 8 ( a)(3) induced her to quit her job and regardless of whether she applied for employment in a job different than the one offered to her ) Furthermore , according to Hosch , Olliges' response to her statement that she had not quit and would take the first opening on the first or second shift in the machine shop was merely that "he would look into it and be sure my record was straight And he told me he would let me know " Thus, he neither told her that he accepted her assertion that she was not to be considered as an employee who had quit her job or that the Company would consider her as an applicant for employment in the machine shop on the first or second shift "Hosch testified that on several occasions after her last conversation with Caruk she telephoned Respondent' s plant with the object of speaking about employment in the machine shop but that on none of those occasions was she successful in contacting Caruk or any other official of the Company Caruk responded by letter, dated September 16, 1968, which reads as follows. Dear Miss Hosch This letter is in reply to your letter dated September 5, 1968, informing us that you are still available for employment in the machine shop for either the first or second shift As you are well aware, at the time we eliminated our 3rd shift operation on April 26, 1968, all 3rd shift employees including you, were offered available jobs on the 1st and 2nd shifts Rather than take one of these positions you informed us that you could not work either of these shifts and chose to voluntarily quit the Company You were at that time and until just recently eligible for rehire and had you notified us of your availability for work on the 1st or 2nd shift and applied for a job with us, you would have undoubtedly received favorable consideration. In the past few days, however, it has come to our attention, and your letter implies, that you contend that at the time of the 3rd shift elimination you made the request to several management officials to work on the 1st or 2nd shifts and your request was refused You as well as Company officials know that you made no such request and that you voluntarily quit the Company. If such is now your contention we can only conclude that you are not truthful and trustworthy, therefore, not of the caliber or type of person we desire to have as an employee and would not be eligible for rehire by the Company Since, however, we are not absolutely certain as to what your contention is about your quitting the Company, we must withhold decision on your employment eligibility until it can be determined Please understand that your refusal to determine your employment eligibility at this time has nothing to do with you having filed a charge against the Company with the National Labor Relations Board We respect your rights and the rights of all of our employees to utilize any legal rights and remedies available to them When we learned you had filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board we were surprised but felt that perhaps you sincerely, although mistakenly, believed that the 3rd shift was eliminated to discriminate against you, or that you had some other reasonable but mistaken grounds for feeling you had been discriminated against. Apparently, however, such is not the situation We, therefore, must withhold decision on your request until such time as your truthfulness and trustworthiness can be determined. Very truly yours, BRAKE PARTS COMPANY FRANK H. CARUK Personnel Manager General Counsel and Charging Party contend that this letter in and of itself constitutes a violation of the Act because 'Jilt is an attempt to punish a person for using Board processes although the pretext is that she is being punished for untruthfulness." I agree The letter advises Mrs Hosch that she is not immediately eligible for employment with the Company because there now exists a question concerning her "truthfulness and trustworthiness " This question, "Mrs Hosch testified that the representative of the General Counsel had suggested that she write a letter to the Company after she had complained to him that telephoning didn't seem to help much BRAKE PARTS CO. 259 , according to the letter, (I) arose in the past few days, (2) because the Company believes she contends (3) that at the time the third shift was eliminated she asked several management officials for work on the first or second shift and was refused " Mrs Hosch's contention referred to in the letter appears to be the contention which was advanced in these proceedings that Hosch had been constructively discharged by being refused a transfer to a job in the machine shop on the first or second shift. No explanation has been offered to the contrary. Neither Caruk nor any other witness who testified on behalf of' the Company explained how the Respondent learned of Hosch's contention although Caruk's letter states that "[tin the past few days it has come to our attention that you contend,... " 'However, on September If, 1968, 5 days before the Respondent wrote its letter to Sharon Hosch, counsel for General Counsel served upon Respondent an Answer to Interrogatories which states, in pertinent part, as follows 2. With respect to paragraph 7(a) of the Complaint and General Counsel's More Definite Statement, the Respondent refused to reinstate former employee Sharon Hosch to her former or substantially equivalent position of employment on April 26, 1968 and at all times thereafter 3 With respect to paragraph 7(a) of the Complaint and General Counsel's More Definite Statement, Sharon Hosch requested to be transferred to an available job on or about April 25, 26, and 27, 1968 and May 3, 1968 4 With respect to paragraph 7(a) of the Complaint and General Counsel's More Definite Statement, Sharon Hosch requested to be transferred to the machine shop. 5 With respect to paragraph 7(a) of the Complaint and General Counsel's More Definite Statement, Sharon Hosch made the request to transfer mentioned above to Frank Caruk, Martin Olliges, and Wayne Moore either individually and/or jointly in the plant " Absent any other explanation the reasonable inference is that Caruk in his letter was referring to the Answer to Interrogatories as the source of the information which came to the Company's attention within "the past few days." Thus, Respondent's claim that Hosch may be untruthful and untrustworthy is founded upon information set forth in the formal papers served in these proceedings The self-serving statement in the letter disclaiming any connection between the action taken against Mrs Hosch and the pending proceedings before the Board is without substance The letter states specifically that "we must withhold decision on your employment eligibility until [your contention about your quitting the Company] can be determined " However, this contention is the very issue that must be resolved in order to decide and dispose of the allegations in the complaint that the Respondent had unlawfully discriminated against Mrs Hosch when her employment terminated on April 27, 1968 How then can the determination referred to in the letter be unrelated to the pending Board proceedings? The letter, I find, informs Mrs Hosch that she is being penalized by being refused consideration as an applicant for employment because of her involvement in these proceedings and the contentions being advanced herein with respect to her termination." Respondent thus has discriminated against her for reasons prohibited by Section 8(a)(4), and because the discrimination arises out of a proceeding brought upon the instigation of the Union it would tend to discourage membership in the Union. Accordingly, I further find that on September 16, 1968, Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act discriminated against Sharon Hosch by rejecting" her application for employment." IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Sharon Hosch with respect to her application for employment, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer her immediate employment as a machine operator in its machine shop if such position became available on or after September 16, 1968, when Respondent rejected her application for employment. I shall further recommend that the Respondent make Sharon Hosch whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her as a result of the discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned from such date beginning on and after September 16, 1968, as a job for which she applied became available, until the date of such offer, less her net earnings during said period. Such backpay shall be computed on the basis of calendar quarters, in accordance with the method prescribed in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to such net backpay and shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following "Neither in its letter nor at the hearing did Respondent contend that Mrs Hosch lacked the qualifications to perform the job for which she applied "In response to Respondent's request for a more definite statement of the allegations of the complaint in this case, on August 19, 1968, counsel for General Counsel served upon Respondent a More Definite Statement, as follows With respect to paragraph 7(a) of the Complaint, the Respondent "constructively discharged" employee Sharon Hosch in that it terminated her by refusing her request to be transferred to an available job after her shift was eliminated "It is not material that the charge filed on Hosch's behalf, or the contentions advanced in support of the charge, may turn out to be without merit John Oster Manufacturing Co, 173 NLRB No 82, fn 3, TXD, Waterman Industries , Inc, 91 NLRB 1041, 1043, fn 8 "It is immaterial whether the rejection was final or was provisional "Hoover Design Corporation, 167 NLRB No 62, Lee Cylinder Division of Golay & Co , 156 NLRB 1252, modified in other respects 371 F 2d 259 (C A 7), G C Lingerie Corporation of Alabama, 146 NLRB 690, Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc, 92 NLRB 1854, 1865-66, Dubin-Haskell Lining Corp v N L R B , 386 F 2d 306, 309 (C A 4), cert denied 393 US 824 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I By threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals for engaging in union activities, by coercively interrogating employees as to who favored or who was actively assisting the Union and as to who was going to be the union steward, and by threatening employees that it will spy upon or otherwise engage in the surveillance of their union activities, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 2 By discriminatorily rejecting Sharon Hosch's application for employment because the Union filed charges on her behalf with the National Labor Relations Board and because of her involvement in these proceedings, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act 3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 4. The Respondent has not engaged in any violations of the Act by reason of conduct alleged in the complaint in Case 38-CA-506 to constitute unfair labor practices except insofar as such conduct hereinabove has been found to violate Section 8(a)( 1), (3), or (4) of the Act [Recommended Order ommitted from publication APPENDIX A I First of all let me say that it is good to see all of you again With my schedule being what it is, it is hard for me to come up here to see you as often as I would like. Unfortunately, this visit is not for a pleasant purpose Those of you who have been here since the plant opened will remember us discussing this ugly subject before. I'll get right to the point I have come up here to talk to you about a very serious matter-the future well being of this plant and your jobs I'm no orator and I don't like long speeches, but I have a lot of important things to say so I have written them down so I wouldn't forget or leave anything out. Everything I say today is important to all of us' You know, your future job security and welfare as a Brake Parts Company employee depends on one thing and one thing alone, the well being of this plant, its ability to compete with other companies and grow in volume of sales and to maintain our high quality standards. Anything that can hurt our ability, our growing volume and quality standards can and will hurt you Let me point out that security for all of us depends upon our ability to sell our products at a profit in an open competitive market If we can't do this, if our products pile up here in our warehouse our shareholders will send us a big padlock and we're out of business I am here today because I have just heard about something that could have a very adverse effect on this plant and, in the long run, on your fobs. I'm talking about the UAW I understand they are passing out their propaganda and cards and I understand they are trying to get you to sign their cards telling you it is only to get an election' Don't sign without knowing what is involved and don't believe it is only for an election They don't want just an election. They want to get in any way they can Those union cards are dynamite' I can assure you they have more plans for your signature than an election. They haven't told you everything and don't want to They probably would try to use those cards to get in here by some short cut method without having an election Namely, by a demand to the company to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent for ALL employees without an election. Ask them if the only reason they want you to sign a card is to get an election9 I think you will find that they have already lied to you about those cards They look at those cards as monthly dues of about $6 00 or $7.00 dollars or more from each of you. Assessments-You probably are aware of the recent Auto strikes whereby the UAW assessed all of its membership additional money to help support the strike Another way they may have lied to you about those cards is by saying no one will ever know if you sign one. Many times employees have to get on the witness stand in open court and swear under oath that you signed a card Those cards are one of the trickiest little legal documents you can ever put your signature on Your signature is too valuable and important and binding to put on something when you have never dreamed about all the consequences. Think! Don't sign anything) Don't sign the card without having all the facts, even though we recognize the pressure some fellow worker may bear on you Let's move on and talk about the basic question of whether you need a union here or whether a union would be in your best interests First of all, I want you to know in no uncertain terms that we prefer to deal with you without a union on a man-to-man basis as we have always done in the past, without any outsider who knows nothing about making and selling brake parts coming in charging you dues and assessments and stirring up constant trouble I want to tell you now that we intend to use every. legal means to keep these outsiders from coming in We recognize we have had problems with equipment and parts but we have made tremendous strides in the right direction and have many more similar projects under way No union can help solve these problems. These are solved by Management and Employees. Let me explain WHY we take this attitudes 1. We have a relatively small plant here. Everyone knows almost everyone, we're not a big giant where people are numbers. In a small comfortable plant like ours, we don't need a union to deal with each other. - Our basic philosophy-get the job done through people by being able to communicate individually with our people we can and will accomplish the end results 2. We are going to do what we think is fair by you and what our business will allow-union or no union. No union can make us do more or less. The only way they have to try to make us do anything is by pulling you out on strike! 3. Unions can call strikes Nobody wins in a strike; you lose wages, and we lose customers, we also lose sales and the ability to pay you Remember, your paycheck comes from the company If we lose customers, the business suffers and if the business suffers, you suffer 4 Unions cost companies money by stirring up constant conflicts and friction between employees and management. They must do this to justify charging monthly dues. 5 You don't need a union because you are going to get everything without a union that you could get with a union, and without having to pay dues to the union. We believe we have proved to you our sincere concern BRAKE PARTS CO. 261 for all employees. We have made many changes in benefits and working conditions and we intend to do the same in the future Many of these changes have resulted from discussions with our employees 6 Unions have been known to run plants completely out of business --losing jobs for everyone It has happened many places that I know about So don't sign those cards without considering all the facts Furthermore, if you did sign one without knowing all the facts, you have a legal right to get it back by asking for it We intend to protect your legal right, so if you ask for your card and it is not immediately returned to you, we want to know. It they refuse to give back a card, we can have it invalidated legally for you. I'm sorry for being a little long, but I believe I would not be fair to you if I did not point out these things to you. It is a very serious matter and I owe it to you as our employees to tell you how we feel and what we know If you have any questions, feel free to talk to me or any member of management after this meeting. We are ready and willing to discuss this union thing with any of our employees any time In fact, as you have done in the past, come to us any time with any question or problem. We want to help. Thank you APPENDIX B June 7, 1968 Dear Employee, As we told you in our letter of Friday, the 24th of May, the UAW has had its say, and they probably do not want you to hear the Company's side of this current union question They know that if you are exposed only to their "brain washing" tactics and do not get ALL THE FACTS, they have a better chance of getting you to vote for them so they can get their hands into your pocketbooks These UAW "organizers" have been known to boast that if they can get your ear for long enough without you hearing the other side of the picture, they can get anybody to vote for them. Well, we do not intend to fail to meet our obligations to you We recognize an obligation to you as our good employees to point out to you things that we think you should consider before deciding how to vote on this all important matter that may affect you and your family for a long time to come, whichever way you vote It is because of this obligation and because, quite frankly, we believe that the future well being of this plant will be better insured by continuing to deal face to face with each other rather than through this outsider that cares nothing about the well being of your Company. One of the things that the UAW will not tell you about is STRIKES!! No, they won't bother to mention strikes because they know that the sorry spectacle that results from a UAW strike is something they do not want you to think about before voting. They know that the only way they have to force a company to agree to anything that it does not believe it should agree to, or that it does not want to agree to, is to pull employees out on strike to walk a picket line for an unknown period of time. Many of you have never experienced the miseries and hardships that come from a UAW strike to try to force acceptance of their demands A few of the things that accompany these unfortunate events are: I Paychecks stop! 2 The State does not pay unemployment! 3. The Company has a right to continue to operate! 4. The Company has the right to permanently replace strikers the minute they walk out the door! This means that when the strike is over the replaced strikers have no /obst 5. The union can still collect dues from strikers' 6. The paychecks of the union organizers do not stop because they are paid out of union dues! Paid by employees like you? 7. Possibility of lost customers and ultimate reduction in jobs' 8. Possible violence that sometimes results from strikes! It is not a very pleasant picture, is it9 Well-it happens all the time No doubt, the UAW will try to tell you that they will take care of you during a strike They will talk in terms of their strike benefits which they pay employees during a strike. You had better take a close look at the exact amount they are talking about (and to be on the safe side, get an agreement from them in writing saying that if you have to go out on strike and miss any paychecks they will make up what you lose) before you take a chance on these fast talking organizers who will try to make you think you can walk a picket line with no paycheck coming in without feeling the pinch. I wonder if your creditors would buy the UAW assurances, or if they want something more concrete? Many employees have lost cars, homes, appliances and other things they were buying on time because of wages lost during strikes Another aspect about strikes that the UAW does not like to talk about is the fact that they often assess employees who are not out on strike and who have no quarrel with their company for strikes called in other places You know, the news is almost always full of talk about a UAW strike in some big automobile plant somewhere Last summer, as you all know, Ford Motor Company had a lengthy strike During this strike the UAW assessed its members in non-striking plants in other industries as well, approximately $30.00 each, to help pay for the Ford strike. That doesn't seem quite right, does it? Ask the "in-plant committee of organizers" about these facts. Tell them to put their answer in writing the way your Company deals with you. Now, we want it clearly understood that unionization would not necessarily result in a strike here or the loss of benefits or jobs. We are not saying that we would refuse to bargain in good faith, that bargaining would be futile, or that we would try to precipitate a strike by failing to uphold our obligations under the law. On the other hand, the law does allow an employer an absolute right to stand firm and not give in to union demands just because the union threatens a strike If the UAW came in here with unreasonable demands, though, we would not sell this Company and your job out by agreeing to things that we believed would shackle this Company down to the point that it simply could not operate profitably We do not mean to imply that we would try to cause a strike by retaliating in the event of unionization, but we would not be upholding our obligation to you if we did not point out to you the very real possibility of a strike when the parties fail to reach agreement during negotiations. You know, it all boils down to a very simple proposition. without the UAW, we can guarantee you there will be no lost paychecks becauseofa UAW strike- with the UAW they cannot guarantee you that there will be no strike and no lost paychecks Can you afford to 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD take this risk? YOU BE THE JUDGE AFTER LOOKING AT ALL THE FACTS' VOTE "NO" ON ELECTION DAY' Sincerely, J W Adel