Haring Meats & Delicatessen, Inc.

HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. 709 Haring Meats & Delicatessen, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N.: A., AFL-CIO, Local 346. Cases 8-CA-5107 and 8-CA-5130 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On February 10, 1969, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended they be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. 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 Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, to the extent consistent with the Decision herein. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, giving the impression that the employees' union activities were under surveillance, threatening employees with reprisals for supporting a union, and promising and granting wage increases if employees abandon union activities. We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that the illegal temporary layoff of Jere Hill on July 9 was discriminatorily converted to a permanent layoff on July 31. In our view, Hill's change in layoff status from temporary to permanent was a further step in the Respondent's unlawful campaign to thwart its employees' organizational efforts. 'This case was consolidated for hearing with Case 8 -RC-7186 which was thereafter severed and remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate action. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Hill was temporarily laid off in violation of Section 8(a)(3) on July 9, the day before the parties executed a consent-election agreement. At that time Hill, despite his length of service with Respondent and reputation as a good worker, was not offered alternative employment but was told that his layoff was temporary, that business was "down," and that when business picked up after school started in September he would be called back. Hill's role in the Union's campaign was well known to Respondent, and prior to his layoff he was the direct object of certain 8(a)(1) conduct. On July 31, 1968, the day of the election, when Hill appeared at the polling area to act as the Union's observer, Respondent informed Hill and the Board agent that Hill was permanently laid off and no longer an employee. The Trial Examiner, in dismissing the 8(a)(3) allegation based on this incident, sustained the Respondent's contention that this discharge was justified by elimination of the need for Hill's services. We disagree. On the basis of the entire record, Respondent's precipitous action in permanently severing this known union adherent despite its earlier indications that Hill would be recalled when business picked up in the fall, and under conditions where Respondent's action would render Hill ineligible to vote, can only be explained as an attempt on Respondent's part to influence the outcome of the election. Considering Hill's length of service, his good work record, his known role in the organizational campaign, Respondent's failure to offer alternative employment, the unlawful temporary layoff, Respondent's union animus, the timing and conditions under which it terminated Hill, and the fact that it acted precipitously without deferring any permanent layoff until it could be determined whether the school reopening would produce an increase in volume sufficient to require Hill's services in the fall, we find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Hill on July 31, 1968. THE REMEDY In accordance with the above finding, we shall order that the Respondent offer Jere Hill immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he normally would have earned from the aforesaid date of his layoff to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period. The backpay provided herein 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 177 NLRB No. 100 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Haring Meats & Delicatessen, Inc., Mansfield, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified. 1. Change subparagraph (e) of paragraph 1 of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order to subparagraph (f) and insert the following as subparagraph (e): "(e) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against Jere Hill, or any other employee, because of his interests or sympathies in, or activities on behalf of, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. A., AFL-CIO, Local 346, or any other labor organization." 2. Change subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) of paragraph 2 of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order to subparagraphs (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and insert the following as subparagraphs (a) and (b): "(a) Offer to Jere Hill immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earning he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" provision of this Decision and Order. "(b) Notify Jere Hill if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after his discharge from the Armed Forces." 3. Insert as the third, fourth, and fifth indented paragraphs in the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order the following three indented paragraphs: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against Jere Hill, or any other employee, because of his interests or sympathies in, or activities on behalf of Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. A., AFL-CIO, Local 346, or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer Jere Hill immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges he previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make Jere Hill whole for the discrimination against him by payment to him of any loss of earnings he may have suffered, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. WE WILL notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after his discharge from the Armed Forces. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION RAMEY DONOVAN,'Trial Examiner: The charge in Case 8-CA-5107 was filed on August 2, 1968 by Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. A., AFL-CIO, Local 346, herein the Union. Under date of September 11, 1968, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein the General Counsel , issued a complaint against Haring Meats & Delicatessen, Inc., herein Respondent or the Company. The complaint alleged various acts and conduct , including the layoff or termination of employee Hill, as violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On August 21, 1968, the above Union filed a charge against Respondent which was designated Case 8-CA-5130. A complaint based on this charge issued under date of October 3, 1968 alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, including the termination of employee Filipak. In its answers, Respondent has denied the allegations of unfair labor practices in the complaints. Consolidated with the aforementioned unfair labor practice cases for the purpose of hearing are certain challenges and objections in an election that was held on July 31, 1968, among Respondent's employees in Case 8-RC-7186. The challenges relate to the ballots case in the July 31, 1968, election by Betsch (Curt) Haring, Grogg, and Hill and the objections are based on the termination of Hill; the granting of wage increases; and the alleged threatening of reduction in hours. The consolidated proceeding was tried at Mansfield, Ohio on October 29 and 30, 1968, before me, with all parties represented by counsel. 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is an Ohio corporation with its principal office and place of business in Mansfield, Ohio, where it is engaged in the meat packing business. Annually, in the course and conduct of its business , goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 are purchased, transferred and delivered to Respondent at its place of business in Mansfield, either directly from points outside the State or from enterprises located within the State, and the aforesaid enterprises had received the said goods and materials from states other than Ohio. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent corporation came into being in about 1960 and had been organized by Joseph Haring who was the sole stockholder. In 1964, the business was purchased by HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. 711 Frank and James Haring, sons of Joseph, with financing by Joseph Haring. The sons thereupon became the sole owners of the common stock in equal shares, with the father being the owner of the preferred stock. Frank Haring became president of the corporation; Joseph Haring was vice president; and James Haring was secretary-treasurer. The foregoing officers also constituted the Board of Directors. Dan Haring, brother of Joseph and uncle of Frank and James, also worked for the corporation, apparently as office manager. At the time of hearing, Frank Haring was 34 years of age. I would estimate that James Haring was in the same general age bracket as his brother, give or take a few years. Curt Haring, the third son of Joseph Haring, was 22 years of age and a college student in 1968. As had been the case in other college vacation periods, Curt Haring had worked for Respondent in the summer of 1968 as a truckdriver and in various other manual jobs. He returned to college in the latter part of August 1968. His ballot is one of those challenged at the Board election on July 31, 1968. Further facts relating to this aspect are described at a later point in this Decision. Pursuant to a decision to go into the wholesale meat business exclusively and to abandon its retail meat store, Respondent moved to a newly acquired plant in April 1968. The new plant was 4 miles distance from the retail store and the latter was sold in June 1968. The evidence is sparse concerning the meat cutting personnel at the store in the period prior to the move to the new plant in April. Hill was a retail meat cutter and, according to James Haring, Hill was the "main meat cutter" in the retail operation. Grogg, who was a more experienced meat cutter than Hill, appears to have been in charge of the wholesale aspect of the work although Hill states that Grogg was also his immediate supervisor. Hill was transferred to the wholesale operation in April at the time of the move to the new plant. Beasley, another meat cutter from the retail store, left the Company about April. Grogg transferred to the new plant together with Hill. Kopp, a highly skilled meat cutter with many years of experience was hired in April 1968 at the new plant. Several weeks later, Karst, a meat cutter of substantial skill and experience at least comparable to Kopp, was also hired at the new plant. In addition to Grogg, Hill, Kopp, and Karst, who were the meat cutters at the new plant, there were other employees who ran hamburger grinding and hamburger pattie stamping machines. There were some truck drivers who loaded trucks and delivered orders to customers and there were employees engaged in sausage operations.' Early in April 1968, a two-page document signed by James Haring appeared at the new plant.' Each page was on a company letterhead and dated April 1, 1968. The first page bore the opening "To Each Employee." It then mentioned that another milestone in the business had been achieved and commended past performance by the employees and exhorted them to work together as "we begin operations in this new plant...." The second page read: The sausage kitchen had been located about a half mile from the retail store The sausage operation did not come to the new plant immediately but it was located at the new plant by June or earlier 'James Haring was in charge of Respondent's production , maintenance and personnel Frank Haring was in charge of sales and ordering These were apparently general areas of normal responsibility but not inflexible since the record discloses that Frank as president also concerned himself with the condition of the business, its policies and personnel. However, Frank had been hospitalized from January 1968 until about July 12, 1968, Policies At New Plant - Effective April 1, 1968 1. Operations A. Duane Grogg is Plant Superintendent over all operations. II. Working Days A. All employees are to report to work at 6:30 a.m. unless otherwise instructed by Duane Grogg. B. [the workday] C. [lunch breaks] D. [punching time clock] E. [coffee breaks] III. Sale of Meat to Employees A. B. C. IV. Absenteeism A. Grogg testified that no one had spoken to him beforehand about the notices. He states that he came in one morning in April, saw the above documents on the desk, and he then distributed them to the employees in the fresh meat department. From the names of those employees he mentioned as distributees, it appears that all but the sausage operation received copies from him. Grogg mentions Such, a truck driver who made in-town deliveries of Respondents products, as one of the distributees.' Grogg states that his own duties were the same after as before the above notices.' James Haring in his testimony does not refer to the above notices. In addition to Grogg's limited testimony about the documents, the record contains no evidence that the notices were rescinded or changed, verbally or in writing, or that any other subsequent notices on the subject appeared. Continuing chronologically, we come to the end of May 1968 when employee Hill contacted the Union. In 2 or 3 days in the week of June 3, Monday, between about June 4-6, Hill, principally; and with employee Filipak assisting, secured the signatures of approximately 10 employees on union authorization cards. Thereafter certain conversations took place in which Grogg made various remarks to individual employees on the subject of the Union. The General Counsel and the Union contend that Grogg is a supervisor whereas Respondent contends, in substance, that he is not, but that he is simply a group leader possessing no supervisory authority. In addition to Grogg's role in the alleged unfair labor practices, his ballot at the July 31, 1968, election was challenged on the ground that he is a supervisor and is before us as a challenge ballot to be resolved. We therefore consider the status of Grogg. Grogg is an experienced and capable meat cutter. He was first employed by Respondent in 1961, when he was on layoff from a tire company. After working for and was out of the business for all practical purposes during that period. 'Elsewhere Grogg and James Haring testified that Grogg was the group leader in fresh meat department; that Such was the group leader in shipping; that Tobin was group leader in sausage operations. 'Hill testified that while employed at the retail store, prior to the move to the new plant, there had been a notice posted over the telephone stating that Grogg was in charge . Although Hill was the principal or main retail meat cutter at the store, he testified that Grogg was his immediate supervisor both at the store and later at the new plant . He recounts an incident at the store where Grogg told him that he, Grogg , had forced three female retail clerks to quit. Grogg considered these individuals to be incompetent and had brought about their quitting by assigning them tasks that they disliked. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent until about 1962 he returned to the tire company and then, in January 1964, he worked for Respondent until the present . We are concerned with his status in the period from April through July 1968. It is obvious that as owners and as officers of the relatively small business of some 15-17 employees, the management and ultimate supervisory authority resided in Frank and James Haring. But the evidence, in our opinion, reveals that in the immediate day-to-day work relationship of at least the employees in the fresh meat operation and the truck drivers, who comprised the unit employees except for those in sausage work, Grogg was the immediate supervisor. The April 1 notice, described above, which Respondent has not even attempted to explain away, makes it quite apparent that, next to, and under, the Haring brothers, Grogg was, to the employees, the man in charge . On July 10, 1968, when Respondent entered into a consent election agreement with the Union and with the participation of the Board agent, Respondent produced a `job description list" of its employees. Prior to coming to the July 10 meeting , James Haring had written out the list with the names and job descriptions. His secretary then typed the list and Haring and his counsel produced the list on July 10 . Among the names on the list was: Duane Grogg, Foreman in charge of fresh meat production and putting up orders . Cuts meat about 50% of the time. The matter of Grogg's supervisory status and eligibility of Grogg to be a voter in the election was discussed at the July 10 conference. Haring and his counsel went aside and conferred among themselves . They came back and agreed to exclude Grogg from the list of eligible voters and initialed the physical crossing out of Grogg's name from the list. Cates has been a hamburg grinder for Respondent since September 1967.' His rate, when hired, was $2.21 per hour and at the time of hearing he was receiving $2.60. We consider Cates a credible witness . He was hired by Frank Haring who told him when he was hired in September that Grogg was his, Cates', boss.' Cates testified that, throughout this period of employment up to the hearing, Grogg laid out Cates' work and told him everything he was to do. Grogg would tell him how many batches of hamburg to grind and would from time to time tell him to stop work on this or that type of ground meat and work on another type or to set up a machine. Grogg would check on Cates' work during the course of the day. If Grogg was absent, Cates would go to James Haring for work assignments. In March 1968, Cates spoke to Grogg about taking his vacation during the summer , even though Cates would not have completed until September his year of employment entitling him to a vacation . Grogg replied that Cates could take his vacation during the summer as long as it did not occur on a holiday weekend but told Cates to speak to James Haring about the vacation pay aspect. In short, Grogg made the decision to allow Cates to take his vacation that summer before he had completed his year but referred Cates to Haring on the matter of whether he would receive his vacation pay before his year was up. Cates thereafter spoke to Haring and the latter said that he could take the vacation that summer as long as it was not a holiday weekend and that he would receive his vacation pay even though his year was not completed. 'He worked for Respondent briefly, on a temporary basis, previously. `The witness was uncertain whether the term used was boss or foreman. Normal hours at the plant were 6:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. and 6:30 to 12 on Saturday. On one occasion Cates told Grogg that he would like to leave at 10 a.m. on a particular Saturday to attend a local festival. Cates said he was willing to come ,in at 6 a.m. instead of 6:30 if he could leave at 10 a.m. Grogg told Cates that he could leave at 10 and that he did not have to come in at 6 but could come in at the regular starting time . On another occasion, at quitting time, Grogg asked Cates to drop off a meat order for a customer on Cates' way home. Grogg told Cates that he would give him 30 minutes time.' Grogg was, of course, not an executive sitting behind a desk. He was a working supervisor and he did not make basic policy. This latter was in the hands of the Harings. But, on day-to-day matters, with Cates and similar employees, Grogg was the immediate supervisor. It is apparent that Grogg was closest to and knew the work performance of such people as Cates. If Cates was a careless worker, lazy, reluctant to follow orders or was otherwise a problem, it is our opinion that Grogg was in the best position to know it and to report it, and to make recommendations. Conversely, if an employee was a good, dedicated worker, Grogg would know it. And, in our opinion, Grogg did exercise his discretion and judgment in his responsible directing of employees such as Cates. It is well to bear in mind that Respondent did not have hundreds of employees nor was it involved in building hydroelectric dams or sophisticated machines or some other operation entailing numerous decisions and judgments of a complex nature by those individuals in charge of seeing that the work was performed. Respondent' s production operation was cutting meat, grinding meat, and delivering it; the immediate supervision and such judgment and direction as the tasks and the employees required was, in our view, exercised by Grogg, under the Harings. Kopp testified credibly that he was hired in April 1968 as a meat cutter by James Haring. The latter interviewed Kopp in the presence of Grogg. When Kopp described his experience and qualifications as a meat cutter , Haring asked Grogg if he was satisfied that Kopp was qualified and Grogg said, he was. Kopp was thereupon hired and Haring told him that Grogg was his supervisor . Kopp, a man of 53, has been cutting meat since he was 17 and he is a highly skilled meat cutter, requiring little or no direction in the actual cutting . However, it was Grogg who showed him, when he first commenced working, what Respondent's basic method of meat cutting was.' In day-to-day work, Grogg writes on a piece of paper the number and kinds of steaks, roasts, and so forth that he wants Kopp to cut that day and he gives the paper to Kopp. The information that Grogg uses to write out these assignments is obtained from written purchase orders received in the office or from orders that Grogg may receive over the telephone from customers . During the day, Grogg may tell Kopp to stop work on some particular uncompleted assignment and to work on another assignment. This happens several times a day. On an occasion in June 1968, Kopp asked Grogg if he could leave 30 minutes early to keep an appointment. Grogg told him that it was all right to do so. That is, Grogg would credit Cates for 30 minutes additional worktime for which he would be paid in addition to his regular work. 'It appears that different companies in the business have certain basic methods of breaking down and cutting meat but thereafter the meatcutting skills are of general application HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. 713 Hill, a meat cutter, testified credibly that when he came to work in the morning he would go to Grogg to find out what work he was to do and Grogg would lay out his work for him. During the course of the day, Grogg would take Hill off one order and assign him to another. If, during the course of his work, Hill trimmed a steak too closely or left too much meat on a bone, Grogg would speak to him about it and say that he did not want the meat cut that way and that it was costing him money.' Hill wanted to take a week of his vacation in the last week of July. He spoke to Grogg about it. It appears that another employee had planned on the same week. Hill spoke to the other employee who was Cates and the latter, in effect, relinquished the last week in July. Hill came back to Grogg and the latter said that if it was all right with Cates it was all right with Grogg for Hill to have the July week. Filipak was hired in July 1967 by Frank Haring. We credit his testimony that Haring introduced him to Grogg, saying that Grogg would be his immediate supervisor and when Filipak came to work he reported to Grogg. In June 1968, Filipak asked Grogg if he could be off work on a Wednesday to attend a funeral. Grogg asked if he would be out the entire day. The employee said he did not know. Grogg told him to come back to work on Wednesday if the funeral finished in time. Filipak was absent the entire day of the funeral and returned to work the next day without further comment. Filipak was a truckdriver who made out-of-town deliveries for Respondent on a daily basis. He would report to Grogg in the morning and the latter would hand him invoices or tell him where they were. Filipak would load his truck and tell Grogg when he was ready to leave. Frequently, Grogg would tell Filipak the order in which the deliveries were to be made and Filipak would act accordingly even when the order of delivery entailed backtracking on the route or delivering in other than in geographical sequence according to the customers' locations. Grogg punches a timeclock, cuts meat, assigns work, sees to it that orders are filled and placed on trucks for delivery. During president Frank Haring's hospitalization from January to the middle of July 1968, Grogg also performed much of Haring's work in buying meat and selling to customers on the telephone, in addition to Grogg' s usual duties. Grogg's hourly rate is $3.36 per hour which is higher than all other production employees except Karst, a highly skilled meat cutter, who receives $3.50. However, in 1967, Grogg also received a bonus of $1,200 computed as a definite percentage of Respondent's profits. No other employee received a comparable bonus and while other employees did receive bonuses in various amounts, the bonuses were not computed on a percentage of the profits. The bonus for other employees was an arbitrary figure determined by what the Harings thought the particular employee deserved. On a list of production and maintenance employees produced by Respondent to show wages and pay increases, the next highest bonus to Grogg was $200, received by employee Hill.'° Grogg also receives fringe benefits greater than other employees. He receives $10,000 of life insurance coverage which no others receive; he has sick pay coverage of $100 per week whereas other employees receive sick pay based on a percentage of pay, with a maximum of $60 per week." 'As we shall see, Grogg, in addition to his wages, received a percentage of Respondent's profits. "In his testimony, James Haring opined, without much certainty, that an outside salesman , DeCarlo, who was not in the production and James Haring testified that Grogg neither has, nor exercises, authority on hiring, firing, promoting, pay raises, promotions or vacations and that Grogg was "not in a position to recommend." Grogg testified to the same effect including the assertion that he also did not grant time off to employees. According to these witnesses, Grogg was one of three group leaders, the others being Such in shipping and Tobin in sausage . The evidence shows nothing regarding Tobin and his duties. However, Such was Respondent's in-town truck driver. The other two drivers were Gleason and Filipak, the out-of-town drivers. Such was hired in a permanent basis in January 1968. Respondent has revealed nothing concerning his pay. Grogg, who distributed the April 1, 1968, notice, above described, wherein Respondent informed all employees that Grogg was "Superintendent over all operations", testified that he gave the notices only to those in his department. He testified that he gave one to Such.'2 In the job description list that Respondent prepared and presented on July 10, 1968 in the pre-election conference, Such's job and duties are described as, "Puts up orders and delivers them." On the same list, Grogg's job is described as "Foreman . Such was admittedly out delivering orders much of the time and there is no evidence that he functioned as a group leader in any respect, in or out of the plant. Grogg, however, admittedly saw to the cutting of meat, filling of orders, loading of trucks and delivery. As both Hill and Filipak testified, Grogg gave the drivers instructions regarding the order of delivery to the various customers. As far as appears no employee ever heard the term group leader used in the plant and Respondent never used the term orally or in writing." I conclude that Grogg was a working supervisor and that his immediate and ultimate superiors were the owners and officers of the corporation, James and Frank Haring, who, of course, constituted the ultimate management. We now return to the union activity among Respondent's employees. As we have seen, early in the week of June 3, 1968, a substantial number of employees signed union cards. In the above week, a few days after Cates has signed a card, Grogg told Cates during working hours to step out in the hall at the plant and that Grogg wanted to talk to him. In the hall, Grogg asked Cates if anyone had brought a union card to him for signature. Cates said, yes. Grogg asked if he had signed. Again affirmative. Grogg, then, "really blew up." He said the Union would never get in the plant because it would run into him first; that if a union came in, Grogg would make it so tough on Cates that he would quit; that there would be no coffee breaks; that the vending machine would be removed; that you will get your vacation when "I", Grogg, want you to have it; that you will have the day off that "I", Grogg, want you to have and that Grogg might give him Wednesday as his maintenance unit, might have received a bonus of $600. "DeCarlo, abovementioned, receives the same insurance and sick pay coverage as Grogg Respondent, in its brief, endeavors to attribute the greater fringe benefits of Grogg and DeCarlo to length of service. The sole evidence of DeCarlo's length of service is James Haring's testimony that DeCarlo has been with the Company "over 3 years." Employee Hill who received no such benefits, however, had been with the Company since June 1964 or 4 years Except for temporary employment in 1961, Grogg's employment dates from June 1964. "There is not a word about group leaders in the notice. "James Haring testified that he did not know when he first heard the term, group leader, used, whether in conference with his attorney or otherwise 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD day off and have him work all Saturday.' ° Kopp, who had also signed a union card at the same time as Cates, received substantially the same treatment from Grogg as had Cates, a few days after the signing. Kopp was working in the cutting room when Grogg called him to the shipping room about 100 feet away." In the same week , Hill was subjected to substantially the same treatment by Grogg, of interrogation and threats, as had Cates and Kopp. When Hill admitted having signed a union card, Grogg said that he would make Hill's job so miserable for him that he would quit and Grogg said he would cut Hill's hours to 40 a week. Grogg also asked Hill why he had signed a union card. Hill said that it was because he was not making enough money in comparison to the union scale . Grogg asked him what he thought he was worth . Hill, who was earning $2.45, said, about $3.00 per hour . Grogg said, "Well, I'll talk to Jim Haring about it and we'll see what we can do if you will agree, if you will just forget this union deal." This conversation was about June 5-7, 1968, and , effective June 17, Hill received a 30-cent pay increase from $2.45 to $2.75." In the same week as all the foregoing Grogg contacts with employees , Grogg took Filipak aside in the plant and asked him if he had signed a union card . Although Filipak had signed a card, he denied it to Grogg . The latter said he did not think a union would be good in the plant. The next day, when Filipak came to work , Grogg immediately accosted him, calling him a liar and stating that he had signed a card . Filipak admitted that he had signed. Grogg said that if you think a union is going to get in here, you will run into me and that Grogg would make things so rough that Filipak would quit . Grogg told the employee that he could discharge him and that he might do that. A few days later Grogg again spoke to Filipak , saying that he knew who was pushing the Union and referred to the latter as "Jere Hill's and your [Filipak' s] union." He said that, if or when the Union got in, the Company" will pay the union scale but the employees would never get more than 40 hours work.'" Hazel Siwek , who ran a hamburg pattie machine, signed a union card on June 6. A week or two after this, Grogg came over to her as she was working and asked if she had heard anything about a union coming into the plant. She said, no. Grogg asked if anyone had brought union cards around for her to sign . She said, no. Grogg left and returned in a few minutes. He again asked her about union cards and she again denied seeing any. Grogg said that he thought she was not telling the truth and that "Cates and the other employees, who testified concerning Grogg's statements to them regarding the Union and what Grogg would do, impressed me as honest witnesses not given to exaggeration or embroidering of testimony. "This ordering about of employees and their obedience is also relevant with respect to Grogg's supervisory status. Grogg questioned Kopp about the Union and signing a card as he had questioned Cates. Kopp admitted signing but refused to tell, although asked , who had given him the card Grogg said that, if "you fellows" get the Union in, you will be sorry, because Grogg would make things so rough on you that you will regret having joined the Union. "In his 4 years of employment by Respondent, Hill had received a large number of pay increases but the June 17 increase of 30 cents was the largest he had ever received. In the list of employee pay raises produced by Respondent at the hearing , no employee on the list received a raise equaling Hill's and there is no testimony that anyone received a raise of equal amount in 1968 "Grogg said "we." "As earlier appears, the employees worked more than 40 hours , Monday through Friday and 6 30 a .m to 12 on Saturdays. she did know who was passing out cards. Siwek again denied it. The next morning she went to Grogg, admitted having lied to him and said that she had signed a card. He asked why she had lied and she said that she did not want to jeopardize anyone's job. Grogg said that he knew who was for the Union and who was signing cards. A week or two before the July 31 election, Siwek was in the shipping room and she asked Grogg if he knew where she could find a skid, a piece of equipment relating to her work. Grogg said, no, and added, that if Siwek thought it was rough now, she should see what it was when the Union got in because he would make it so rough she would want to quit and she would not be the only one. On Monday, June 17, 1968, Grogg told Siwek that James Haring had said that, if Siwek was not in favor of the Union, she would receive a raise in pay effective that morning. Siwek said that she was undecided and Grogg said that it was all right. Siwek did receive a 20-cent-per-hour increase, effective Monday, June 17. This was the largest raise she had ever received since she was hired in April 1967. The June 17 raise is not only noteworthy as to Siwek because it was double any of her previous raises but because she had received a raise in May 1968, and a previous raise in January 1968. There is nothing in the record regarding increased responsibility or greater productivity on Siwek's part to explain the third raise in 6 months and the fact that the employee had received a raise in May, just shortly before June 17 raise. On July 31, the day before the election, Frank Haring asked Grogg if he could spare Siwek for 10 minutes. Grogg said, yes, and Haring then had a private conversation with Siwek. Haring reminded Siwek of the consideration shown to her in the past by Respondent and Siwek acknowledged that such was the fact. Haring then asked her to "give this matter consideration, about the union" and she said she would. In the same conversation, the subject of employee Hill arose but Siwek did not recall just how this aspect first came up. However, she did testify that Haring said that Hill "should have been fired a long time ago." As we have seen, in the week of June 3, 1965, about 10 employees had signed union cards. We have also seen Grogg's interrogations, threats, and awareness of the union activity. At the end of the week, on Saturday, June 8, as Hill, Cates, and Kopp were punching out from work, James Haring told them that he would like to speak with them and the three men acceded to the request. A careful consideration of the testimony of Cates, Kopp, and Hill, as to what transpired at this meeting, leads me to the following synthesis of the credited testimony.=" Haring said that he had had a great deal on his mind with his brother hospitalized and with the new plant and that he had not realized there was this trouble with respect to the employees and the Union. He said that he would like to "Siwek responded that Hill should have been fired when they were in the retail store in the period prior to the move to the new plant in April 1968 Siwek said, however, that since moving to the new plant Hill had "straightened up" Haring made no comment . At the hearing, Siwek stated that while they were in the retail store, Hill used to be late for work but as far as she knew Hill was never late in the new plant and she worked in the same department, fresh meat. In the store, according to Siwek, Hill once came in wearing a beard and Haring had made him shave it off. "Although James Haring testified at the hearing, he gave no specific testimony about the meeting or what he had said to the employees on that occasion. His reference to the meeting, in his testimony, was that Cates told him "in our little meeting, that he definitely was in favor of the Union." Grogg, who was standing in the doorway throughout practically the entire meeting , gave no testimony about what transpired. HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. 715 work something out and said that because it was a small company he believed that, if it was necessary to have a union, it would be better to have a company union but that if the employees in an election voted for the international union he would go along with the result of the election. Haring asked if there were any questions and Cates spoke up and told Haring what Grogg had said to him about the Union. Cates said that he, Cates, favored a union but that, if he had any doubts, Grogg's treatment of him regarding the Union confirmed him in his belief that he should support the Union. Grogg was standing in the doorway during Cates' remarks. Grogg said nothing at the time and Haring said nothing other than as described above. Cates and Kopp left and Hill started to leave and as he was leaving Grogg accused him of having instigated the whole union matter and that he was pushing people into signing union cards. Hill admitted talking to people about the advantages of a union but denied twisting anyone's arm to sign a card. In concluding that the above accurately reflects what transpired, I have been aware that in cross-examining Cates, Hill, and Kopp, Respondent's counsel asked each witness, inter alia, whether it was not true that, after Cates had spoken about Grogg at the meeting, Haring had said that Grogg did not make policy "around here." Cates answered that he did not remember Haring making such a statement. The same question was addressed to Hill by Respondent's Counsel and Hill said that he did not remember Haring making such a remark. When the same question was put to Kopp, the latter said that Haring said something "to that extent" since Haring said that if the employees voted a union in "that he would go along with it." As I appraised the witnesses and the entire testimony, described in the second preceding paragraph above, we are satisfied that Haring did not say anything about, or to, Grogg at the meeting. Confirmation of this conclusion is to be found in the fact that neither Haring nor Grogg testified that Haring had said anything about Grogg, let alone saying that Haring had told the men that Grogg did not make policy. I do not consider that Haring's remarks to three employees on June 8 obliterates or repudiates the strong antiunion interrogations, threats, and promises made by Grogg to various employees both before and after June 8. For one thing, Haring's remarks were made to only three employees and the record reveals that at least two other employees, Filipak and Siwek, had also been recipients of the Grogg antiunion treatment. On June 8, or before or after, Respondent issued no statement or repudiation of Grogg's conduct to the employees in the production and maintenance unit, either orally or in writing. The most that can be said is that as to three employees, Haring had stated that he favored a company union but that he would abide by the result of a Board election, i.e., he would recognize an affiliated union if it won the election. Such a statement was, of course, quite legal, but our interest in it is with regard to Respondent's contention that Haring thereby repudiated all Grogg's antiunion activities and absolved Respondent from all responsibility for such conduct. In our opinion, Haring did no more than to tell three employees that Respondent, as it was legally required to do, would recognize the Union if it won an election. We are prepared to conclude that, as to the three employees present, this statement neutralized or repudiated Grogg's remarks to the extent that, in substance, he, Grogg, had said that he would stand in the way of a union ever getting into the plant. But the principal thrust of Grogg's threats to various employees had been that if the Union got into the plant, (presumably by winning an election), Grogg would make working conditions so rough on the union adherents that they would quit; he threatened to reduce hours and eliminate overtime; to alter, to the detriment of individuals, the allocation of days' off and vacations; and he promised wage increases to several employees if they abandoned the Union. Since, at the meeting on June 8, Haring was aware of the type of conduct that had been engaged in by Grogg, Haring's statement that he would go along with the election and recognize the Union if it won, was not enough to insulate Respondent from responsibility for Grogg's conduct. In our view insulation from Grogg's conduct required at least a statement to all employees by Haring that, in addition to recognizing the Union if it won an election, there would be no reprisals or harassing of employees for union adherence and that Grogg would not do the various things he had threatened when the Union was recognized and was in the plant and that existing conditions of work would not be changed by Grogg to the detriment of employees as a reprisal for union adherence. Further, the insulation contention, to be effective, would require, in our view, evidence that Haring had specifically told Grogg to cease his conduct and not to carry out his threats and evidence that such an order from Haring to Grogg was brought to the attention of all employees by a notice or otherwise. Grogg's conduct and threats, we must recognize, were about as heavy handed and pervasive as can be found in an antiunion campaign and required reasonably related steps before any contention of insulation or repudiation is convincing." Regarding pay increases given to production employees on June 17, 1968, Respondent in its brief states that "such raises were uniform to all employees in the hamburg unit and sausage kitchen ...."Zr James Haring testified that over a period of years Respondent had given raises to individual employees based on their merit, efficiency, and integrity. He also said that groups of employees received a raise in February 1968. This last statement we find unconvincing. On the list of employees produced by Respondent showing raises from June 1964 to, and including, June 1968, there are no group raises shown; i.e., raises to a group in the same month. The raises on the list were obviously granted on an individual basis to employees at various times. As to a group raise on February 1968, there is no evidence to show this. In fact, on Respondent's list the only employee who received a raise in February 1968 was Filipak. Respondent points to the fact that the June 17 raises were given to employees in the sausage kitchen and to meat cutter Betsch, all of whom Respondent admittedly "We are persuaded, for reasons previously stated, and we have found, that Haring did not say that Grogg does not make policy Even if the remark had been made, the remark, by its words, related to such policy as recognizing or not recognizing the Union if it won an election or other matters at a policy level, such as buying meat by the carload rather than small lots and such things. The small (but important to employees) nitty gritty of the day-to-day work relationship between the employees and their immediate supervisor, Grogg , which was the area of Grogg's threats, would not be covered by a statement that Grogg does not make policy, even if such a statement had been made. "The evidence also shows that Hill , who was neither in hamburg or sausage, received the largest raise on June 17 that he had received in 4 years of employment. Betsch , a skilled meat cutter, also received a raise on June 17. 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD knew were opposed to the Union. Respondent then states that since raises were also given to employees who favored the Union, this demonstrates that the raises were uniform. The observation may be correct but uniformity has no significance in the circumstances of this case. There is no evidence, indeed no contention, that each or any of the recipients of the June 17 raises had shown any increase in productivity or efficiency or that they had assumed or were given additional work responsibilities, so that they merited wage increases on June 17. Nor, as we have seen, is there evidence that Respondent had previously granted general increases to all employees or groups of employees at the one time. Of course Respondent had granted individual increases in the past at various times but there is no evidence as to any legitimate or normal reason for the group increases on June 17. The inference is compelling that the increases of June 17 were granted to thwart the Union and to affect the election. As we have seen, as early as the week of June 3, a few days after employees had signed union cards, Respondent was aware of the fact. The raises were quite apparently part of an antiunion campaign and this is a matter of legitimate inference from the timing and other circumstances of the increases. There is, as we have seen, direct evidence of employees, who had told Grogg that they had signed union cards, being told by Grogg, in substance, that he would speak to Haring about a raise for them if they would forget about the Union. In each instance, each employee aforementioned, Hill and Siwek, shortly thereafter received the largest raise each had ever received from Respondent. It is therefore clear why the raises were given. The message of the raises to each recipient was also that Respondent was taking care of its employees and a union was not needed to secure wage increases. This would confirm those employees who were opposed to the Union in their opposition to the Union. Moreover, since Respondent was granting increases to prounion people to wean them away from the Union in the impending election, it could not very well omit the antiunion people except at the risk of alienating them and thrusting them in the union's direction. On the evidence and findings heretofore set forth I find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercive interrogation of its employees regarding protected union activities such as the signing of union cards; by creating an impression of surveillance by picking out and questioning and threatening, regarding their union activities, the exact employees who had, a day or so before signed union cards, and by telling employees, who had in fact signed union cards but who denied the fact to supervisor Grogg, that they were liars - all this creating the impression that through some means of surveillance, possibly including an informer or other means, Respondent was aware of the union activities that had taken place among the employees outside the plant and supposedly without Respondent's knowledge; by threatening its employees with economic and other detriment regarding working conditions, including fewer hours of work, an unaccommodating method of scheduling vacations and days or time off, and the making of conditions of work so intolerable that employees would be forced to quit; by promising to grant and granting wage increases to employees in an effort to forestall or defeat the Union in its effort to organize and to secure collective bargaining rights with Respondent on behalf of the employees. The Discharges Hill had worked for Respondent since June 1964. During his first 2 years of employment Hill was a truckdriver delivering meat orders to Respondent's customers. Thereafter he was a retail meat cutter at Respondent's store." Prior to Respondent's move to its new plant, in April 1968, Hill had been Respondent's principal or head retail meat cutter. When the new plant was opened, Hill and Grogg were the only two employees with meat cutting skill who had moved to and remained at, the new operation." The new plant, being in the wholesale business, entailed wholesale meat cutting. Almost immediately after the move to the new plant, two highly skilled and experienced meat cutters, Kopp and Karst, were hired. Respondent's complement of meat cutters therefore consisted of Kopp, Karst, and Grogg, the latter being, as we have found, a working foreman or working supervisor, and Hill." The first three men, aforenamed, were all highly skilled and experienced wholesale meat cutters. Hill was the least skilled and least experienced at wholesale meat cutting, having been, as we have seen, a retail meat cutter prior to coming to the new plant. There is no dispute that retail and wholesale meat cutting involve differences in cutting the meat and, on the evidence before him, I find that the wholesale cutting entails greater skill and experience. It is also found that Kopp, Karst, and Grogg were more experienced and more skillful meat cutters than Hill. Kopp and Karst, for instance, had worked at the trade for many years and Grogg's experience and skill is not disputed. In the new plant, therefore, Hill's principal work was cutting down the quarters (e.g. hindquarters of beef). He also cut portions of butt steak, rolled roasts, and sliced liver, but the more sophisticated cutting, after the quarters were broken down by Hill, was performed by the others aforementioned. Occasionally, in this period, when the need arose, Hill also drove a truck for Respondent although this was not his regular job. None of Respondent's witnesses, Frank and James Haring and Grogg, testified that Hill was an unsatisfactory employee and in point of service with Respondent, Hill had substantially more service than Kopp or Karst.=b The aforementioned list of employees, showing dates of hires and wage increases, records eight wage increases for Hill, the last being a 30-cent increase in June 1968. According to the list, Hill had received more wage increases than any other employee on the list. James Haring testified that he did not know of any employee that had received as many increases but he said "I don't know that there are not [some employees who received as many increases] or that there is not a person that got that many." In any event, there is no evidence of any employee who had received as many increases as Hill. "Hill had had about 2 years of meat cutting work in the past but he had worked for an electronics firm in the period immediately prior to being hired by Respondent in 1964. 'Grogg had initially cut retail meat at the store But since 1965 he had principally cut wholesale meat in addition to other duties previously described. "Betsch, a skilled meat cutter, who was employed elsewhere, had a regular part-time job with Respondent , working Saturdays for about 2 years, performing boning work. "On the list of employees in the fresh meat department that Respondent produced at the hearing, no employee except Betsch, the part-time worker, had been with Respondent as long as Hill Both men were hired in June 1964 The next most senior employees in the department had been hired by HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN , INC. 717 We have seen that Hill was the leader in the union movement among the employees. Grogg interrogated him about signing a union card during the week of June 3, 1968, and threatened to force him to quit by making his job miserable. Grogg, when told by Hill that he had signed a union card because of dissatisfaction with his wages, promised to talk to James Haring about a raise for Hill if Hill would forget about the Union . At the end of the June 8 meeting in James Haring' s office, Grogg accused Hill of being the instigator of the union movement and the one who was pushing employees into signing union cards . Hill admitted that he spoke to employees about the advantages of a union but denied pressuring anyone . On another occasion, when Grogg was speaking to employee Filipak , who had helped Hill secure signatures on some of the union cards, Grogg referred to the Union as Hill's and Filipak's union movement among the employees. Thereafter, at some date between Grogg's conversation with Hill about a raise , above, and the time in June when Hill received a 30-cent raise, Hill encountered James Haring in the ice room of the plant. In the course of the conversation, Haring told Hill that he was planning on giving him a raise and that not too far in the future, when the new plant was better established, he planned to move Grogg up to the shipping office and make Hill foreman in the backroom.l7 On Tuesday, July 9, 1968, Hill had finished his day's work and had just punched out. James Haring at that point asked him to step into his office . Haring then told Hill that business was down and it was necessary to lay off one of the meatcutters . Haring said that Hill was the man being laid off but that, when business picked up after school started in September, he would be called back. Hill was upset, pointing out his years of service compared with the 2 and 3 months of service of Kopp and Karst. Haring admitted this fact but said that the other men were better meat cutters and more valuable to the Company. Hill acknowledged the superior ability of the other men which he attributed to their 30 years of experience in the trade. Hill was thereupon laid off. James Haring in his testimony states that on July 9 the layoff of Hill was temporary and that he told Hill that the reason for the layoff was that business was "down." On July 10, at a conference attended by a Board agent, James Haring and his attorney and the Union representative, who was accompanied by Hill, an agreement was reached for a consent election to be held on July 31 . It is apparent that this tripartite conference and its subject matter had been arranged beforehand and did not just happen on July 10. Prior to the conference and in preparation therefor , Haring had written out and had his secretary type a list of employees in the unit with attendant job descriptions, and this list was used at the conference in discussing and agreeing about voter eligibility or ineligibility. I conclude therefore that the prospect of or possibility of an election was known to Haring on July 9, when he laid off Hill at the end of that day. As a matter of fact on June 8, when Haring had discussed with Hill and other employees the matter of the union organizing activities, Haring had spoken of an election. On July 31 , the election was scheduled for the hours 3:15 p.m . to 4 p.m., in the plant. Hill who was to be the union's observer at the election, came to the plant between 3 and 3: 15 p.m. When Hill came to the election area, Haring was talking with the Board agent . Haring turned to Hill and said that the Company was not making any money on steaks and it did not need Hill as a meatcutter. A short conference was then held between the Board agent, Hill, and the union representative, and another employee was appointed as union observer for the election in view of Haring's statement that, in effect, Hill was permanently laid off and was no longer an employee. Shortly thereafter, when Hill came in to vote, he voted under challenge and the Board agent wrote on the challenged ballot envelope "permanent layoff." Hill testified that this was the first indication he had had between July 9 and 31 that his temporary layoff had been converted to a permanent layoff . The foregoing version by Hill of the events of July 31 is the sole testimony in the record regarding this incident. Without controverting the foregoing description of when and how it first appeared that Hill's temporary layoff had been actually converted into a permanent layoff, Frank and James Haring testified that the reason Hill was permanently laid off and terminated was as follows: Both before the move to the new plant in April 1968 and thereafter, it was the Respondent's practice to purchase quarters of meat, such as hindquarters. The quarters would be broken down, cut down, into primal cuts. This cutting down of the quarters was the principal task of Hill at the new wholesale plant. A quarter would yield seven primal cuts and the latter, according to type, would yield different products , such as various steaks or roasts and so forth . Kopp and Karst were the meat cutters who worked on the primal cuts. They cut whatever type or character of portions were ordered by a customer, such as a hotel, that might order a certain kind and number of steaks of a certain thickness . Hill did not possess the skill and experience for the portion cutting of the primal cuts although occasionally, in an emergency, he had helped out on portion cutting.28 According to the testimony of Frank and James Haring, the Respondent had been losing money on its sales. As Respondent states it in its brief, ". . over a period of time the records of Haring meats reflected that the Corporation was not making its percentage margin of profit and, in fact, was loosing money." As we have seen, president Frank Haring, who normally handled the buying of meat for the Company, was hospitalized and was out of the business from January to about July 12 , 1968.29 He testified that when he came back and resumed his duties he and his brother saw that they had been losing money and concluded that the weakness was in the buying of meat by quarters. Both Harings testified on this aspect and it comes down to this : When Respondent purchased quarters from a supplier it was, of course, at a particular price. Thereafter, after Respondent cut the quarters into primal cuts, it found that fluctuations in the market price of the various primal cuts were of such an extent , that it was extremely difficult to determine whether the prices charged to customers for the portions cut from the various Respondent in 1967. "This testimony is not controverted . In fact, virtually all Hill's testimony about the union topic , involving himself and Grogg and/or James Haring is uncontroverted except for Grogg's testimony that he had no conversations with Hill regarding the Union and that he never questioned Hill on the matter of union cards . I have found this testimony of Grogg to be unconvincing. "Frank Haring testified that retail and wholesale pnmal cuts are completely different and entail different cutting . James Haring testified that Kopp and Karst were master meat cutters and that he would classify Hill as an apprentice meatcutter We have seen the substantially higher wage rate of Karst and Kopp as compared to Hill although they had worked for Respondent only a few months as compared to Hill's 4 years. "During this period Grogg was taking care of the purchasing. 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD primal cuts were correct in order to insure the desired profit margin from the entire quarter of meat.3° Prior to July, Respondent, although principally purchasing quarters, had bought a few primal cuts directly but was never able to secure a satisfactory source of supply. It was found, for instance, that most packers would not sell primal cuts at what Respondent considered a reasonable price. Respondent had experimented with buying primal cuts directly from Chicago packers but found that the time entailed in securing delivery was too great. Shortly before Frank Haring returned from the hospital, Akron Packing in Akron, Ohio, that had previously sold meat by the quarter, began selling primal cuts. Respondent bought a few of these cuts from the Akron Company and after Frank Haring returned to the plant and looked into the state of Respondent' s business, aforedescribed, it was decided to shift substantially to buying primal cuts from Akron Packing and thus rectify the poor profit situation that Respondent attributed to its prior quarter purchasing. After Hill was laid off on July 9, and up to July 31, James Haring testified that the purchase of primal cuts increased 60 to 70 percent. Respondent states, that although it still purchases some quarters, it had largely shifted its purchases into primal cuts. The cutting of quarters now entailed, according to the Harings, which is the type of work in which Respondent considered Hill to be principally qualified, would require no more than a half or I day's work per week by a meat cutter with Hill's qualifications. This and the more skilled work on the primal cuts is handled by Kopp and Karst with some assistance from Grogg. Respondent has hired no meat cutters since Hill's termination but did hire a truckdriver in September 1968. I have considered Respondent's entire explanation, aforedescribed, in the light of the entire record. Various questions and observations have occurred to us. We also are aware that no books and records were introduced to support statements regarding the business and the kind and type of purchases. But the Harings stated that their books and records supported their testimony. Neither the General Counsel nor the Union subpoenaed such records or asked Respondent to produce them. Because of evidence before him I have not credited Respondent's witnesses on various aspects of the case but we perceive no valid or substantial reason why we should not credit the testimony of the Harings regarding the business conditions aforedescribed. There is insufficient evidence to warrant rejection of that testimony. We therefore credit the testimony since it is not inherently or otherwise implausible or unconvincing. The evidence persuades me, however, that the admittedly temporary layoff of Hill on July 9 and the conversion of the layoff to a permanent layoff and termination , on July 31 , are distinguishable in an important respect. I believe that the termination on July 31 was, as Respondent contends, for the reasons described above, namely, a substantial change in the type of meat purchased. More specifically, the purchase of primal cuts in preference to quarters, as was the predominant past practice, was due to business reasons. This change in purchasing between the period after July 9 and including "Part of the problem was the customers' buying pattern. When a customer ordered 100 sirloin butts, this required 100 hindquarters as the source, and after cutting out the primal cuts of the aforementioned butts Respondent might have an overstock and possible spoilage as to other parts of the 100 quarters that had been used July 31 led Respondent to make a final decision to terminate Hill on July 31 and it did so on that date. Whatever suspicion may exist, the evidence, in our opinion, is such that we accept the fact that the change in purchasing and Hill's comparatively limited skill as a meat cutter on other than quarters, led to his July 31 termination. But the change in purchasing from quarters to primal cuts, as far as the record shows, was not the reason for Hill's July 9 layoff. The decision that the problem of, and the solution of, Respondent's profit picture lay in changing from the purchase of quarters to primal cuts was made after July 9 and after Frank Haring returned from the hospital on July 12. Between that time and July 31 the purchase of primal cuts was substantially increased until the new type of purchasing had been sufficiently tested so that, by July 31, Respondent reached a decision to terminate Hill, and did announce the action and did terminate him on that date. This reason for termination, being the change in the type or form of purchases, had nothing to do with the existing volume of sales to customers. The new method or type of purchase simply increased the profit margin on sales. The July 9 layoff of Hill was due, so Haring told Hill at the time, to the fact that business was slow and that, when business picked up after the schools started up in September, he would be recalled. Haring also told Hill on that occasion that a "couple" of other employees would also be laid off presumably for the same reason. The foregoing, in our opinion, demonstrates that Hill was told, in effect, that the volume of business was down, due apparently from what Haring said, to the fact that the schools were closed and that when the schools reopened in September and volume increased, he would be recalled. The complaint alleges that Respondent laid off, discharged or otherwise terminated Hill on July 9 because of his union activities. As the Examiner views the record, the critical element is not whether it was a temporary layoff on July 9, or a permanent layoff or termination, as the General Counsel contends in his brief." What I must resolve is whether or not the layoff on July 9 was due to legitimate reasons or whether it was due to Hill's union activities. In resolving the foregoing, I have found no convincing legitimate explanation for the July 9 layoff of Hill. We have Hill's testimony abovedescribed as to what Haring told him when he was laid off and we have Haring's testimony that he told Hill at the time that the layoff was temporary because business was down." Hill, of course, could testify only as to what he was told. He could not and did not attempt to testify as to the reason why he was told certain things . But Haring was obviously in a position to inform us why he laid off Hill on July 9 and why, what he told Hill, was in fact the true reason for the layoff. This, however, has not been done. We do not have testimony or explication as to the reason for the layoff nor any books or records to show that what was told to Hill on July 9 was true. We simply have Haring's "Whether the July 9 layoff was permanent at the time although ostensibly temporary, or whether it was temporary, we believe that July 31 was the cutoff date in the event that either of the foregoing is found to have been discriminatorily motivated. In the last mentioned situation, the economic reason for the July 31 action would be the cutoff date for either back pay or reinstatement "There is virtually no conflict in the testimony on this aspect. Hill's testimony, which we credit, is slightly more detailed but Haring did not undertake to controvert any of the details but simply gave a brief summary of the event HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. testimony as to what he told Hill at the time." We therefore have on the one side the evidence that the July 9 layoff was discriminatorily motivated and, on the other side, we have evidence as to what Haring told Hill at the time of layoff. After careful consideration I conclude that on July 9, Hill was given a temporary but substantial 2-month layoff. It was a temporary layoff because that was what Haring told Hill that it was and Haring testified that it was temporary. There is inadequate evidence on which to conclude otherwise although there are grounds for suspicion. I believe that the July 9 layoff was because of Hill's union activities. Hill was a union adherent and the ringleader of the union movement and preeminent in the attempt to bring the Union into the plant. The evidence establishes that Respondent was aware of this fact as described in detail at an earlier point." Respondent did not want the Union in its plant and illegal steps in the form of threats and wage increases were promised and then granted to Hill and others. Grogg had specifically told Hill that he would speak to Haring about a raise for him if he would forget about the Union. The raise was soon forthcoming. Hill gave no indication thereafter that he had forsaken the Union. A conference regarding a consent election was scheduled for July 10. On the day before, July 9, a Tuesday, Hill was laid off and the reasons given were as described above. We note the timing of the layoff since Frank Haring testified that Respondent's pay period was Monday through Saturday, with payday on Friday. The layoff of Hill on Tuesday, for the asserted reason that volume of business was down because the schools were closed (but that Hill would be recalled in September when schools reopened), is not convincing. The selection of Tuesday rather than the end of the work week or the beginning of the workweek, although not necessarily or absolutely inconsistent with normal business procedure , is to some degree indicative of other than normal action, particularly in the circumstances of the instant case. We have no reason to believe that Ohio schools do not close in June, early in the month, or in the middle or soon after in that month. Moreover, such closings are predictable. Schools have closed in June for as long as I can recall. The July 9 Tuesday layoff has therefore merited our scrutiny. Further, Respondent has been in business over a period of years. In one period, it cut meat both retail and wholesale and in the new plant it was confined to wholesale. There is no evidence of past layoffs or that Respondent had ever laid off a meat-cutter for any period because of a drop off in business, due to school closings or otherwise. And there certainly is no evidence of such a layoff from July 9 to September for any reason." Like schools, other wholesale customers of Respondent such as hotels, hospitals, restaurants and so forth, have been operating for years. As far as appears, in these days, hospitals are crowded year round and hotel and restaurant business in many, if not most instances, is as good or better during the summer vacation period as at other times. Moreover, in these times, with the stress on education and getting into college and taking courses, schools and colleges are prone to be more active than in the past, with makeup courses, "This aspect is of course to be contrasted with the detailed explanation by the Harings regarding the July 31 termination which was allegedly due to the change in purchasing in the period after Frank Haring's return to the business. I have credited the explanation of the July 31 termination including the business change after Hill's July 9 layoff. 719 enrichment courses and activities of that nature during the summer. Therefore, not only do we have no evidence from Respondent to show that the reason given to Hill for the July 9 layoff was the fact or the true reason, but we find, upon analysis that the reason given to Hill is lacking in any perceivable substance. I am persuaded that Hill was laid off on July 9 because of his union activities. The layoff for 2 months was a substantial one and to the employees it certainly could have a dampening effect in their attitude on the advisability of union adherence. Although Hill was told that he would be called back, there was no guarantee of a job and, to the worldly wise employee, Hill's situation, as the employee who was the union leader, could not have been very appealing. We find that the layoff of Hill from July 9 to July 31, 1968, inclusive, was in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act." Filipak had worked for Respondent from July 1967 to August 17, 1968, when he was discharged. He was an out-of-town truckdriver who daily delivered Respondent's products to customers such as hotels, restaurants, and institutions, in surrounding cities and communities. His starting salary was $85 per week and he testified that within a week or two, Frank Haring told him that Grogg had informed Haring that Filipak was doing an excellent job and he was raised to $90." On Respondent's pay raise list in evidence, Filipak's increases are listed as October 1967, $1.76 per hour;38 January 1968, $2.04 per hour; February 1968, $2.22 per hour. Frank Haring states that Filipak never received a merit wage increase. He states that when Filipak was hired that he was told that he would receive an automatic $5 after the first month and that there would be other $5 increases. According to Respondent' s list, the increases received by Filipak were not general increases . No other employee is shown as having received an increase in February 1968; one other employee received an increase in January 1968; and two other employees received increases in October 1967. If Filipak's increases were not merit increases or general increases, we are at a loss to describe them since the raise in January and again in February 1968 seem to eliminate the characterization as annual increases or semiannual or quarterly increases . In any event, this employee had received several wage increases although none since Respondent was in its new plant. The record, earlier described, shows that Respondent was aware of Filipak's prominent role in the attempt to organize the plant and that he was a coactivist with Hill in getting cards signed. Filipak testified that, about the middle of July or about 2 weeks before the July 31 election, Frank Haring called him to his office and accused him of cheating the "Among other evidence, Grogg , in Haring's presence told Hill that he was the one who was pushing the Union. On another occasion, Respondent referred to the Union as Hill's and Filipak's union. "There is no evidence that anyone but Hill was laid off in 1968. "The General Counsel has argued that, in view of Hill's prior service with Respondent as a truckdriver, the failure to offer Hill a truckdriving job in September 1968, when Respondent hired a new truck driver, is evidence of discrimination. We have considered the point and do not reject it lightly. However, there is no evidence of any past practice of Respondent to contact terminated employees in situations where, a few months later, a job opened up Some employers do contact former employees and some do not. On the evidence available to us, we cannot find that Respondent's inaction regarding Hill in September warrants the conclusion the General Counsel would have us draw. "Respondent's list of pay raises shows Filipak's starting wage as $90 "For the 55-hour week that the employee worked , this would be $96.80 at a straight time rate of $1 76. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company on time. Haring said that on the same delivery run on two different days the records showed that in one day he made the deliveries in 4 hours and the next time he showed 6 hours. Filipak testified that he, Filipak, explained that sometimes he had to wait longer for the customer to check and sign the invoice." Filipak states that Haring said that thereafter he wanted Filipak to mark the time of delivery on each invoice . According to Filipak, "we got into quite a discussion over this ... and I said it was unjust and he said it had to be." Filipak finally agreed to do as directed "to the best of my ability." Thereafter, Filipak states that he put the time on invoices "as best I could" but that he did not do it regularly . He said that, at some restaurants and hotels where he delivered, the clocks were not visible, "so I could not see wasting any time hunting for a clock and then I would just omit it." About a week later , according to Filipak, Haring again called him to the office and told him that he was not putting the delivery time on all his invoices; Filipak replied about the availability of clocks as described in his testimony above; Haring told him to estimate the time and put it down if he was unable to ascertain the precise time; Haring further told the employee, according to the latter, that he was not to omit the time on any invoice and that, if he had to talk to him once more about it, he would fire him; Filipak said he would comply to the best of his ability. The following day Filipak states that he spoke to the other out-of-town driver, Gleason, and asked him if he was putting the time of delivery on his invoices. Gleason said he was not going to do so. Filipak asked Such, the in-town driver, the same question . Such said he was not putting the time down and was never told to do so. At some time during this period when the Filipak-Haring matter about writing down the time of delivery was going on, there was one morning when Grogg had a typed statement. The statement was to the effect that the drivers were to write their delivery times on the invoices. All the drivers signed the statement when Grogg presented it. Haring testified that the requirement applied only to the out-of-town drivers and drivers making out-of-town deliveries, and this may find some degree of confirmation in the fact that Such told Filipak that he, Such, had never been told to write down his time on his invoices. Filipak states that, on July 26, Frank Haring called him to the office and "asked me if I was unhappy with working at Haring and we talked about the Union."" Haring said that the Company did not want unhappy people who were dissatisfied with how things were being run and that if Filipak was unhappy he should quit. Haring asked the employee if he felt he was underpaid and Filipak said , yes, and asked Haring if he could live on his salary. Filipak said he would not quit. Early in August, according to Filipak, Haring again called him to his office and told him that he would be laid off because business was slow . Haring said that he would keep him on a few weeks while he looked for another job." On August 17, Saturday, at the end of Filipak's workday, about 4 p.m., Dan Haring, the office manager, "Haring testified that his brother, Curt Haring, who was working for the Company that summer during college vacation, had told him that on a trip to Mount Vernon, involving eight stops, it took Filipak 6 hours but that, in the following week, on the same eight stops, it took 3 hours. "There is no explication of what was said by either party about the Union or who initiated the union topic. "Haring does not refer to either of the two foregoing sessions specifically in his testimony read to him a note that had been written and left by Frank Haring. The note said that he was discharged for failure to comply with a direct order from Haring. The reference was quite evidently to the order to write the time of delivery on invoices. Filipak said nothing on August 17. Haring testified that the reason he discharged Filipak was because of his disobedience of the direct order to write down the time of his deliveries and that this was the straw, in his words , that broke the camel's back. Haring states that on August 17 he looked over Filipak's invoices for the preceding day and found that, on at least 20 delivery stops, the employee had written the time on only one invoice . Haring states that he then typed the notice of discharge. The witness recounts past situations involving Filipak . Before Haring was hospitalized , the Company had found that Filipak had transacted personal business on an hour or 45 minutes of company time and the Company made the employee deduct this period from his worktime." Haring relates the report from his brother Curt about the variation in Filipak's delivery time on the same route and delivery stops, abovedescribed. He also states that Dan Haring had reported that Filipak was constantly short on his deliveries and the Company believed that Filipak was taking the difference between the order and what was delivered but was unable to prove it. The witness' s testimony is substantially the same as Filipak's about the order to write the time of delivery. He states that Filipak was argumentative and recalcitrant over the matter and that Haring spoke to him about three different times regarding the order and that on one of the occasions Filipak asked Haring why he did not fire him if he did not trust him. Haring replied that he was not interested in firing him. Haring asserts that he did not check on Gleason's invoices to see whether he wrote down the time because Gleason was one of the best men the Company ever had and the Company was convinced of his reliability." There are some elements in Filipak 's case that give rise to some questions. For instance, the apparent attempt to have him resign and the statement that he would be laid off. But, in some respects, the foregoing are not entirely inconsistent with Respondent's dissatisfaction with Filipak's qualities as an employee. We note that this employee did not receive a raise in the new plant or in June 1968 , when others, including union activists such as Hill, did receive raises to influence their relationship with the Union. The complaint alleges that Respondent discriminatorily enacted the rule about writing down the time of delivery and that it discriminatorily applied the rule to Filipak. We do not agree. The rule, in the circumstances shown in the record, was not unreasonable . Its requirements were not excessive and we believe that an average individual could comply without undue difficulty. Moreover, Filipak was told to estimate the time if he did not know the precise time. This is not to be compared to a rule with arduous and almost impossible requirements, e.g., if an employee normally made eight deliveries on a route , a rule that he must make sixteen deliveries on the same route in the same time period could well manifest an ulterior purpose in the rule. Haring had no reason to believe initially that Filipak would not or could not comply with the rule. Filipak could have obviated his situation of rather "Filipak testified to having voluntarily deducted personal business time from company time on one occasion. "Gleason had signed a union card Such, the in -town driver, had refused to do so HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. 721 blatantly violating a direct order by simply doing what he was told to do. Nor do we believe that the fact that Haring did not check on the other out-of-town driver manifests illegal discrimination. As far as Haring was concerned the problem was Filipak. Initially, there was no rule but there was a direct order to Filipak. After failure to secure compliance, Haring then, apparently felt that the formality of a written rule might bring results, but it was primarily directed to Filipak. Filipak was discharged after substantial refusal to obey a direct order and after a prior specific warning of discharge. We conclude that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof and dismissal of the allegations regarding Filipak is recommended. The Objections The objections to the election filed by the Union that have been referred to me in this consolidated hearing are: (1) the discharge of Jere Hill; (2) granting wage increases; (5) threatening the reduction of hours. Since the foregoing were among the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, our disposition appears above. In sum, we have found that Hill was discriminatorily laid off on July 9, 1968;00 we have also previously found that Respondent engaged in the conduct referred to in objections 2 and 5. However, it is our understanding that the Board has adopted the position that it will not consider election objections based upon interference that occurred prior to the date of execution of a consent election agreement.i5 In the instant case, therefore, the cutoff date is July 10, 1968. Since Hill's discriminatory layoff occurred on July 9, we recommend overruling objection no. 1. Both the effective date and the date of receipt of the wage increases were in June 1968. The conduct referred to in objections no. 2 and 5 occurred prior to July 10 and we therefore recommend overruling these objections in accordance with the doctrine of the A & P decision, above. The Challenges Andrew Betsch This employee is a skilled meat cutter who has worked as a regular part-time employee for Respondent since 1964. Betsch has another full-time job. When working for Respondent he punches a timeclock; he is hourly paid; he works on Saturdays when Respondent's other employees also work; and the boning work he performs is the same type of work, inter alia, performed by other of Respondent's meat cutters during the week. In its brief, the Union states that, in the light of the evidence, it withdraws the challenge to Betsch's ballot. We recommend that the withdrawal be recognized and that the ballot be counted since, absent the withdrawal, we recommend overruling the challenge. Duane Grogg We have found that Grogg was and is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We recommend that the challenge to his ballot be upheld. Jere Hill We have found that although Hill was discriminatorily laid off on July 9, 1968, the cutoff date was July 31, 1968 when he was terminated for cause. He was terminated before the election on July 31 and therefore we recommend that the challenge to his ballot be sustained. Curt Haring This 22 year old employee was the brother of Frank and James Haring and the son of Joseph Haring . We have earlier 'The termination of Hill for cause on July 31 , 1968, was previously described. "The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118. described in detail the corporate and ownership setup of Respondent. It is reasonably apparent that in this family business of Respondent's, Curt Haring's relationship alone distinguishes him from the other rank-and-file employees in the voting unit. It would be extremely difficult to conclude otherwise than that he did not share the same community of interest as did the other employees among themselves with respect to the owners and operators of Respondent, the employer. Frank Haring testified that one of the main causes of his distrust of Filipak and one of the underlying factors that resulted in Filipak's discharge in August 1968 over disobedience of a subsequent direct order was a report that Frank Haring had received earlier that summer from his brother Curt. The latter was working that summer during his college vacation as a truckdriver for Respondent. According to Frank Haring, Curt had reported to him that, one week on a particular route involving eight stops, Filipak had taken 6 hours but that, in the following week, the same eight stops took only 3 hours of Filipak's working time. In our opinion, the average employee would probably not have had access to records showing another driver's detailed work performance or, if he did, he probably would not have reported another driver's work discrepancies to the president of the Company, both because he would have been reluctant to draw any conclusions from such information and because he might well have felt no obligation to do so or to inform on a fellow employee. It is apparent that Curt Haring's family relationship, since he was not a supervisor, prompted his action in reporting to his brother as described above. However normal and reasonable may be his action in view of the family relationship, it reflects a distinguishing element between Curt Haring and other rank and file employees. Curt Haring, in 1968, was a student at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio." As far as appears, he was a sophomore or a junior. When Capital's school term ended in May 1968, Haring returned to Mansfield and was employed as a truckdriver by Respondent during the summer vacation period. He returned to the University when school resumed in September. In previous years, Haring had also worked for Respondent during vacation periods such as on holidays like Christmas and in the summer. There is no evidence that Respondent employed or had employed other students on a part-time basis at any time of the year." In August 1968, Curt Haring married and he and his wife returned to Columbus soon after, he to resume his studies at the University, and his wife to a job in that city. Employee Cates testified credibly that Curt Haring had told him, while both were working for Respondent, that he, Haring was going to get married and return to school. Kopp testified substantially along the same lines. Filipak testified that Haring had told him that he was going to get married and return to school and that his wife's working would help to support him. Siwek had been told the same thing by Haring. °8 James Haring testified that he was "Previously he had studied at Franklin Business College and Ohio State University. Both these schools are also in Columbus, which is about 70 miles from Mansfield "While many businesses or operations may employ students for relatively extended periods, such as the summer months, or on a regular part-time year-round basis, there are relatively few places where a student is able to secure work during brief vacation periods in the course of the school year. Exceptions are, of course, such seasonably affected operations as the post office and department stores, and, of course, a father's or family's business. "Curt Haring did not testify. 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD aware on July 10 that Curt was getting married. James Haring states that "we [Frank and James Haring] were hoping that he [Curt] wouldn't consider going back to school." Curt Haring told his brother about concern over having enough money to return to school and made no definite commitment about his future plans at that point. However, as we have seen, Curt did tell others of his plan to return to school and he did in fact return. On July 10, 1968, at the conference arranging for a consent election, Respondent and its counsel agreed to the exclusion of Curt Haring from the list of eligible voters. I conclude that Curt Haring was a temporary employee, a student who worked for Respondent on his vacation, and that he, as a close relative of all the owners and operators of the business, had a status and relationship different from that of other employees engaged in Respondent's production and maintenance work. We recommend that the challenge to his ballot be sustained. It is recommended that the challenge ballots be counted or eliminated, respectively, each in accordance with the foregoing findings and recommendations and that a final count of all valid ballots be made and the result certified, with the customary appropriate steps being taken thereafter in accordance with whatever result the final count of all valid ballots may disclose. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Our conclusions of law regarding the various allegations of violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the complaints have been set forth in detail above." To repeat them at this point would add to the length of this Decision which is already substantial in scope. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated the Act in certain respects we shall recommend that it cease and desist from such conduct. With respect to employee Hill, we recommend that Respondent make him whole for the wages and any fringe benefits that he normally would have received but his discriminatory layoff in the period from July 9 to July 31, 1968, inclusive, with interest at 6 percent, S° and less intermediate earnings in such period. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record , it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively and illegally interrogating its employees regarding their own or other employees' protected union activity. (b) Giving the impression to its employees of surveillance of their union activities. (c) Threatening its employees with economic and other detriment regarding their conditions of employment or related reprisals, all because of legitimate union activities on the part of employees "Inter aba, we have not sustained the allegation that by expressing a preference for, and by verbally counseling, that a Company Union would be better for the employees, Respondent has violated the Act "Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 714 (d) Promising wage increases or other benefits if employees change or abandon legitimate union adherence, support, or activities. (e) In any other like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right might become affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of said Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Jere Hill for any loss of earnings he suffered as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful in computing the amount of backpay due, as hereinabove provided. (c) Post at its premises in Mansfield, Ohio, copies of the attached notice, marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notices, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director of Region 8, Cleveland, Ohio, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.52 "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: As the result of a trial before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, at which the General Counsel of the Board , the Company, and the Union were represented by attorneys, and at which witnesses testified and were examined and cross-examined, and evidence was introduced, the Trial Examiner, who heard the testimony and considered all the evidence, has found that we have HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. violated the National Labor Relations Act in the respects set forth in his Decision, and to remedy these unfair labor practices, he has recommended that we advise you that: WE WILL NOT coercively question any employee regarding his own or other employees' lawful union activity. WE WILL NOT give employees the impression that we are engaged in surveillance of their union activity. WE WILL NOT threaten any employee that he or she will suffer the loss of any existing benefits or conditions of employment or will be treated less favorably because of union activity. WE WILL NOT promise wage increases to employees for abandoning their union activity. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with or restrain any employee in the exercise of his or her right to join or assist any union , to bargain collectively through their representatives, or to engage in other concerted activity , or to refrain from such activity except as such right may be affected by some agreement as provided in Section 8(a)(3) of the 723 National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL pay Jere Hill the wages or earnings he may have lost from July 9 to July 31, 1968 in the manner set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision. All our employees are free to support or to become or remain members of any union or to refrain from such activity, subject to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. HARING MEATS & DELICATESSEN, INC. (Employer) Dated By (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 Regional Office, 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 216-522-3738.