Gary Aircaft Corp.

306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gary Aircraft Corporation and International Brother- hood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases 23-CA-3591, 23-CA-3660, 23-CA-3671, and 23- RC-3399 May 12, 1971 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On December 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Harry H. Kuskin issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, and also recom- mending that the representation election held on April 3, 1970, in Case 23-RC-3399, be set aside and a new election held, all as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other un- fair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as mddified herein. 1. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by President A. W. Stewart's soliciting employee Riso to tell other and less senior employees to vote against the Union. In our opinion Stewart's request, unaccom- panied by either a threat or promise of benefit, was not unlawful.' 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by granting its employees an attendance bonus plan and an increase in the night shift differential. However, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's further finding that "by thereafter withdrawing them," when it realized the implications of its conduct Respondent again violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The withdrawal was made on the advice of Respondent's attorney to place the employees in status quo ante. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Gary Air- craft Corporation, Hondo, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as herein modified: 1. Delete paragraphs 1(b) and (e) from the Recom- mended Order and reletter the remaining paragraphs accordingly. 2. Insert the word "immediately" before the words "Notify" and "Guadalupe" in paragraph 2(c) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 3. Substitute the attached Appendix for the Trial Examiner's Appendix. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on April 3, 1970, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election3 omitted from publica- tion.] ' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U. S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 23 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. APPENDIX ' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear prepon- derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings herein. ' Member Jenkins agrees with the Trial Examiner that in the circum- stances the Respondent's conduct involved herein was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the un- ion activities of our employees by attending their union meetings. 190 NLRB No. 61 GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten our em- ployees with plant removal or closing down and terminating operations, if the Union prevailed in an upcoming election. WE WILL NOT grant benefits to our employees during an organizational campaign in order to in- duce them to abandon the Union. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the Union, or any other labor organization of our em- ployees, by discharging or otherwise discriminat- ing against our employees in regard to hire, tenure, or any other condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer- cise of their right to join or assist a union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their 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. WE WILL offer Guadalupe R. Canales immedi- ate and full reinstatement to his former job, or, if that job no longer exists , to a substantially equiva- lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights, privileges, or working conditions, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of Inter- national Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL- CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization. GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above -named in- dividual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Dallas-Brazos Building, Fourth Floor, 1125 Brazos Street, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 713- 226-4296. 307 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HARRY H. KUSKIN, Trial Examiner : This case was heard at San Antonio, Texas, from September 9 through September 12, 1970. It had its genesis in the efforts of the International Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union or Union-Petitioner, to become the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of Gary Aircraft Cor- poration, herein called Respondent or Respondent- Employer. The representation proceeding in Case 23-RC- 3399 was initiated by a petition filed by the Union-Petitioner on February 2, 1970, for an election in a unit of Respondent- Employer's production and maintenance employees; it was followed first by a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election entered into by Respondent -Employer and the Un- ion-Petitioner and approved by the Regional Director for Region 23 of the Board, and then by an election on April 3, 1970, which the Union-Petitioner lost by a vote of 120 to 102,' and to which it filed timely objections . The complaint in Case 23-CA-3591, which was amended during the hearing, issued on June 18 , 1970, and was consolidated with Case 23-RC- 3399; the consolidated complaint in Cases 23-CA-3660 and 3671, which was also amended during the hearing , issued on August 12, 1970, and was simultaneously therewith con- solidated further with Cases 23-CA-3591 and 23-RC-3399. The complaint in Case 23-CA-3591 is based on a charge filed on June 8, 1970; the part of the consolidated complaint relat- ing to Case 23-CA-3660 is based on a charge filed on June 17, 1970; and the part of that complaint relating to Case 23-CA-3671 is based on a charge and an amended charge filed on June 17 and August 12 , 1970, respectively . The ques- tions presented are (1) whether the election should be set aside because of conduct affecting the results of the election; (2) whether Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights; and (3) whether Respond- ent, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, dis- criminatorily discharged employees Guadalupe R. Canales and Jesse Carmona on March 13 and June 4, 1970, respec- tively, for union-connected reasons.' Respondent denies that it has engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged herein. Upon the entire record , including my observation of the witnesses, including their demeanor while on the witness stand, and after due consideration of the briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The amended complaints allege, and Respondent admits, that it is a Texas corporation engaged in manufacturing, buying, selling, exchanging, overhauling, repairing, and leas- ing aircraft and their component parts; that it operates a facility at Hondo, Texas, which is the only facility involved herein, where it is engaged in the repair of ground support engines and that during the past 12 months, which is a repre- sentative period, goods and materials purchased by it and ' There was one challenged ballot which could not affect the results of the election ' At the hearing, I granted the motion of the General Counsel to with- draw the Section 8(a)(5) allegations appearing in the consolidated complaint in Cases 23-CA-3660 and 3671 I also granted his motion to withdraw paragraphs 7(e), (f), and (g) of the complaint in Case 23-CA-3591, it ap- pearing that the allegations in these paragraphs are encompassed in para- graphs 7(b), (c), and (e) of the above consolidated complaint 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly to its Hondo, Texas, facility from points outside Texas. I find upon the foregoing, as Respondent also admits, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that International Brother- hood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organ- ization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Some Background Facts; The Sequence of Events; The Issues Herein The Union made an attempt at organizing Respondent's employees at its Hondo, Texas, facility during 1968 but was unsuccessful; it lost the Board election held in that connec- tion in November 1968. The Union's next campaign at this facility began about a year late;, in December 1969. At that time, Fidel Sanchez, an international representative and or- ganizer for the Union, approached some employees, with whom he had had contact during the prior campaign, about helping in this new organizational effort. Among those who agreed to help were employees Carmona and Canales. There- after each of them got employees to sign union authorization cards. Carmona and Canales also served with other em- ployees, whom they helped select, as committeemen on an in-plant organizing committee. In addition to the committee meetings held during the campaign, the Union called three general meetings of plant employees which were held in Janu- ary, February, and March, 1970, respectively, at the West End Club in Hondo, Texas, about 1-1/2 miles from the Hondo plant, and each meeting was preceded by the distribu- tion of handbills in front of the plant announcing the event. At the January meeting, Canales was the only employee, among the approximately 135 employees in attendance, who sat on the rostrum along with Union Organizer Sanchez and other union officials. Among those attending the February meeting was Foreman Frank Gomez, an admitted super- visory employee.' It is apparent from the testimony of Assistant General Manager Charles E. Hutcheson, an admitted supervisor, that Respondent became aware in short order of the fact that the Union was making another attempt at organizing the Hondo plant. He acknowledged that he had discussions concerning the union activity in the plant with Arturo Barrientes, a leadman and also an admitted supervisor, starting in Decem- ber 1969 and until shortly before the latter's discharge on February 6, 1970.1 More specifically, he testified that, "I would say maybe seven or eight times he dropped by my office . he would come to me and say he would like to tell me how things are going in the plant, that maybe there were guys agitating over on the assembly line or in the cylinder line, things like that. Some guys, he said, he knew were passing out cards in the plant."5 Also according to Hutcheson, he neither asked for, nor did Barrientes mention, the names of em- ployees engaging in the prounion activity being reported to him. Contrary to the above, Barrientes testified that, during one such conversation, Hutcheson inquired about how the Union was doing, was it "coming strong or was it weak or what?", that he then told Hutcheson that "he better watch ' The record fails to disclose whether or not Gomez was handbilled prior to that meeting. All dates hereinafter are in 1970, unless otherwise indicated. On one such occasion, according to Hutcheson, Barrientes told him, speaking in the context of the Union, that "he [Barrientes] was pretty sure there was a couple of bad apples in the sheet metal shop." Canales", and that Hutcheson responded, in turn, "I know. We know that already." It was also Barrientes' testimony that Hutcheson "was always on [his] back" to give him, Hutche- son, information about the Union. Although Barrientes' tes- timony was somewhat confused at times, and although his prehearing affidavit to a Board agent, in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 2, admittedly omits many of the details to which he testified as a witness for the General Counsel, I am satisfied from all the foregoing, and particularly from Hutch- eson's apparent receptivity to the information which Bar- rientes admittedly brought to him on these seven or eight occasions, that Hutcheson did, as Barrientes testified and also stated in the above prehearing affidavit, ask Barrientes to obtain such information and that Barrientes told Hutcheson, during one of these meetings, that he, Hutcheson, better watch Canales. I therefore credit Barrientes in this regard. As already found, on February 2, the Union filed its peti- tion for an election in a unit of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at the Hondo plant. On the same day, Respondent received a letter from the Union demanding recognition as the bargaining representative of these em- ployees. Thereafter, at about 3 p.m. of the same day, Robert S. Bambace, Esquire, who is also of counsel to Respondent herein, appeared at the plant. He read the Union's letter and suggested that a meeting be convened of all supervisors. At the ensuing meeting, according to Bambace, the following occurred: He inquired as to whether all those assembled had a copy of the Company's "do's and don'ts,"6 and the two individuals who answered in the negative were furnished with copies. He also reminded the assemblage of the contents of the "do's and don'ts" in general terms, telling them to re- member three principles in relation thereto, namely, to make no promises, to make no threats, and always to tell the truth. He then proceeded to ask them questions, such as, whether supervisors were privileged (1) to engage in surveillance, (2) to go to a union meeting, or (3) to ask employees whether or not they had signed cards-the purpose of these questions being to test them to see whether they got the message. In addition, he told them that, if they saw employees passing out union leaflets or wearing union buttons, they were to ignore the leaflets and buttons, as the employees were to be judged on whether they were good or bad workers. Barrientes also testified with respect to this meeting. While he testified that Bambace (1) told the assemblage, inter alia, that it was "up to the leadmen to keep the Union out of the plant by telling the employees that a union wasn't going to help them any" and (2) mentioned the last election at which 68 employees voted for the Union and added that he wanted the leadmen "to go out and find out who those persons were". He also testified that Bambace told the leadmen "to go out and tell the people what ... they thought about a union, if it was good, bad or whatever it was" and he corroborated Bambace on the fact that he tested the leadmen by questions to ascer- tain whether they understood the Company's "do's and don'ts." In view of all the foregoing, and the probabilities of the situation, as well as Bambace's denial that he asked the leadmen and supervisors to ascertain from those who had voted for the Union in the last election why they had done so, and his further denial that he told the leadmen and super- visors that they should interrogate employees about their intent as to voting for the Union in the next election, and also in light of the fact that Bambace impressed me as a more reliable witness than Barrientes, I credit Bambace's version ' This document is in evidence as G. C. Exh. 13. It was distributed to Respondent's supervisors and leadmen about 3 years before the instant hearing. GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 309 and find that the content of the meeting was as testified to by him.' The record shows, and Respondent admits, that after the above talk by Bambace, Barrientes interrogated Respondent's employees. Respondent- concedes that the interrogation was unlawful but contends further, in effect, that this was not a violation of the Act, as alleged (1) because it was in violation of Bambace's specific instructions and in disregard of the "do's and don'ts," for which Respondent terminated him on February 6, a few days later, after an investigation among its employees revealed that he had engaged in such conduct and (2) because it thereafter apprised his subordinates of his dis- charge and of the reason therefor, namely, his violation of Federal law. The issue thus posed is whether Barnentes' interrogation warrants, in the circumstances, a finding that Respondent violated the Act thereby. I shall deal with the allegation relating thereto more fully hereinafter. The record shows further that subsequently, about the middle of the month of February, Vice President A.J. Stewart and Personnel Manager Joel Gomez made speeches to the employees in small groups of two or more sessions' in which they announced an additional paid holiday on Memorial Day, an increase in the differential from 5 cents to 10 cents an hour for employees on the night shift, and an attendance bonus to be paid every 120 days (each such period being coextensive with the 120-day periods used for employee wage evaluation) to any employee who had perfect attendance for that period. So far as appears, a week or so later, Respondent had occasion to mention to Bambace that these benefits had been given, and was advised by him to delay the increase in the night shift differential and the attendance bonus due to the receipt of the Union's letter demanding recognition but to allow the grant of the additional holiday to stand. Where- upon, within a week, A.J. Stewart and Gomez communicated the withdrawal and the reason therefor to the employees.' The amended complaints herein allege that the granting of benefits as well as the withdrawal of benefits granted were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Additional 8(a)(1) issues alleged in the amended com- plaints herein relate to whether during the period between the filing by the Union of its representation petition on February 2 and the election on April 3, Respondent, through one or more of the following admitted supervisory personnel, namely, A.W. Stewart, its president; A.J. Stewart, its vice president; Guillermo Gutierrez, its vice president in charge of engineering; Joel Gomez, its personnel manager; Charles E. Hutcheson, its assistant general manager; Juan Gonzalez and Frank Gomez, its foremen; and Vernon Muennink, its lead- man, engaged in one or more of the following acts: interroga- tion of employees concerning their union activity; threats to employees of plant closure, of sale of plant machinery, of reduction in the amount of work for employees, of temporary layoffs, or of discharge because of their union activity; attend- ance at a union meeting so as to interfere with the employees' organizational rights; solicitation of employees to campaign among other employees to vote against the Union in the There is testimony by Bambace that Arthur J Stewart, Respondent's vice president, and Hutcheson, the assistant general manger, also spoke at this meeting However, the record is devoid of any reference to what they said at the time Gomez usually accompanied Stewart when these speeches were made However, he, alone, spoke to the night shift employees During the former occasions, Stewart would make the presentation in English and Gomez would follow with a translation of Stewart's speech into Spanish, if his questioning of the employees in Spanish revealed that what Stewart had said was not clear to them According to Respondent, the withdrawal occurred no more than 2 weeks after the announcement of these benefits coming election; promises to employees that they would re- ceive a wage increase if they voted against the Union in that election; and granting wage increases to employees on or about the day of that election in order to dissuade them from voting for the Union. And finally, the amended complaints present the issues of whether during the period before the election, namely, on March 13, Respondent discriminatonly discharged employee Guadalupe R. Canales for union-con- nected reasons; and whether, subsequent to the election, namely, on June 4, Respondent discriminatorily discharged employee Jesse Cannon, also for union-connected reasons. As to Case 23-RC-3399, one of the consolidated cases herein, it involves the issue of whether the Union's objections to the election have merit and warrant setting the election aside. Insofar as the objections allege coercive interrogation of employees, surveillance of employees' union activities, threats to employees of loss of benefits in the event they voted for the Union and/or assisted the Union in its organizational efforts, threats to close the plant in the event the employees voted for the Union, promises of benefits in the event they voted against the Union, and the granting of wage increases immediately prior to the election in order to dissuade em- ployees from voting for the Union, these allegations parallel those in the amended complaints herein. However, an addi- tional issue raised by the objections, and not covered by these amended complaints, is whether Respondent interfered with the election by posting in the plant only election notices which, except for the bilingual sample ballot set forth therein, are in English, when the Regional Director furnished it for posting both a set of such election notices and another set of election notices which, except also for the bilingual sample ballot set forth therein, are in Spanish. B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions as to the 8(a)(1) Allegations 1. The allegations of 8(a)(1) in the complaint in Case 23-CA-3591, as amended Paragraph 7(a) of this amended complaint alleges that be- tween February 1 and 6, 1970, Leadman Arturo Barrientes interrogated employees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires in violation of the Act. As already found, Respondent admits that subsequent to the meeting of Bambace and members of management with the leadmen and supervisors on February 2, Leadman Barrientes, an admitted supervisor within the Act's meaning, unlawfully interrogated Respondent's employees, however, it contends that, under the circumstances, it did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act thereby. It is apparent from the testimony of Barrientes that, at some point during the Union's organizational campaign, he decided to aid the Union in its organizational drive. Bar- rientes explained his actions, as follows: "At first I didn't, but they were always on my back, everything I did, they watched me. I couldn't do nothing because, in the first place, I wasn't for the Union, but then I started thinking, myself, and I said, `well, what the hell, I am going to go for the Union because even if I am not for a union they think I am for a union; so I had to do it anyway. I had no choice."' Barnentes testified further, in this connection, without pinpointing the time pre- cisely, that he got 7 or 8 employees to sign union authoriza- tion cards, talking to most of them at work and to others in town, and telling them "it's up to them whether they wanted to sign or not, but its better for them to sign it because they would obtain more money and better conditions, and if [he] were them [he] would sign it." Respondent introduced credible testimony to show that it learned through questioning of employees under Barrientes' supervision that Barrientes had, in fact, questioned them as 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to their feelings or activities regarding the Union." The record also discloses that, on February 6, Barrientes was called into the office of Hutcheson, the assistant general manager, and was told that he was being terminated because of his interrogation of employees in violation of Federal law and contrary to the orders of President A.W. Stewart. The record further shows that the following Monday Hutcheson convened Barrientes' subordinates and advised them of Bar- rientes' discharge and the reason therefor. According to Hut- cheson, he told them that "it had come to our attention that Barrientes had been questioning them about their union ac- tivities, about their opinion of a union and how they would vote in the event of an election, that this was a direct violation of Mr. Stewart's orders, that Barrientes was aware of this, he had a copy of these orders, and it had been explained to him several times, that Mr. Stewart felt their opinion of a union or how they would vote, this was entirely up to them. This was a decision they had to make. We would not have our supervisors spying on them or interfering in any way." It is apparent from all the foregoing that, in engaging in this prounion conduct, Barrientes was acting in derogation of Bambace's instructions on February 2 to him and other supervisory personnel, and in derogation of the instructions from President A. W. Stewart, which was set forth in the "do's and don'ts" distributed to supervisory personnel. It is also apparent that Respondent acted with reasonable dis- patch to terminate Barrientes for such conduct and made the reason for such discharge known to his subordinates, and at the same time assured them of their right to be free from such interference by management. Accordingly, as Respondent did, in this particular situation, take the foregoing steps to apprise the employees that it did not condone Barrientes' interrogation of its employees, I am persuaded, and find, that it thereby effectively disassociated itself in the eyes of the employees from these instances of interrogation and that it may not be held responsible therefor. Accordingly, I find further that the allegations in paragraph 7(a) of this amended complaint have not been sustained by the record." The General Counsel contends, in effect, for the first time in his brief, that Respondent's act of informing the employees of Barrientes' discharge constituted, under the circum- stances, a signal or threat of like action against employees for engaging in Barrientes' activity of talking about the Union, and that such a finding would be proper, notwithstanding the fact that the discharge of a supervisor for such activity is usually not subject to adjudication under the Act. However, absent any allegation in any of the amended complaints herein to this effect, and absent any litigation of this issue, I find it unnecessary to, and do not pass upon, this contention. Paragraph 7(b) of this amended complaint alleges that, on or about February 7, Foreman Juan Gonzales interrogated employees concerning their union membership while he and they were at a cafe in Hondo, called "Santillano's." In sup- port thereof, the General Counsel adduced testimony by Canales that the following occurred about that time: Gon- zales, a friend of his of about 20 years standing, and employee Valdemar Sanchez stopped at his house on a Saturday or 10 Employee Manuel DeLeon testified that Personnel Manager Joel Gomez and other officials called him in for the purpose of asking him whether Barrientes had questioned him about the Union. Gomez himself testified credibly that he talked to all of Barrientes' subordinates, individu. ally, telling them that he was going to ask them some questions about Barrientes and some of his actions with his employees, that "this in no way would be held against them", that he would then ask them whether Bar- rientes had at any time questioned them as to their feelings or activities regarding the Union, and that, after they responded, he would ask them whether they would mind signing a statement to that effect. 11 See Cosmodyne Manufacturing Company, 150 NLRB 96. Sunday evening. He had a few drinks with them and then, at Gonzales' invitation, they proceeded in Gonzales' truck to "Santillano's" place. When they got there, Valdemar Sanchez got out of the truck to go to the restroom but Gonzales and Canales remained in the truck. During the absence of Valde- mar Sanchez, Gonzales asked him if he knew that Fidel Sanchez, the representative of the Union, had been at the plant. He then replied, "You know, I am the only one that could put the Union in there."12 Gonzales replied, in turn, that he was not for or against the Union, because he, Gon- zales, was a foreman. Valdemar Sanchez was approaching the truck at this time and Gonzales then said, "Come on, let's talk about this later." Canales acknowledged, during cross- examination, that "both Gonzales and he were "half drunk" at the time. In addition, Valdemar Sanchez, a witness for Respondent, testified that he did not leave the truck when they arrived at Santillano's; that they saw that the place was very quiet and continued on their way; and that, during the entire time that he was together with Gonzales and Canales, he did not hear any conversation between Gonzales and Canales about the Union, nor was the word "union" men- tioned. Gonzales did not testify in this proceeding. In view of Canales' admitted state of insobriety at the time, and in view of the countervailing testimony of Valdemar Sanchez, I am unable to find that such a conversation did, in fact, take place. Moreover, even if such conversation did occur, Gonzales did no more than inquire whether Canales knew that the organ- izer for the Union had been at the plant, and Canales then proceeded to brag about his influence among the employees in union matters, As such, Canales' attribution to Gonzales would fail to preponderate in favor of a finding of interroga- tion in contravention of the Act. Accordingly, I conclude, and find, that the allegations of paragraph 7(b) of the amended complaint in Case 23-CA-3591 have not been sus- tained. Paragraph 7(c) of this amended complaint alleges that, "in early February 1970, the exact date being unknown," Person- nel Manager Joel Gomez interrogated employees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires. The General Counsel relies, in this connection, on Carmona's testimony to the following effect: About 3 weeks before Barrientes' dis- charge, he was called into the office where he found Joel Gomez and two other management representatives, i.e., Charles Heilig and Ken Mullins. After some questions by Gomez as to the kind of leadman Barrientes was and as to how Barrientes was treating him, Gomez asked him whether anybody has been talking to him about the Union. He named three people and identified them as Barrientes, Heilig, and Gomez. At this, Gomez laughed, saying that he did not mean to include those in the office. Gomez then continued by ask- ing whether he knew whether Barrientes was working for the Union or saw him doing anything for the Union. He an- swered, in turn, that he did not know, that Barrientes does his work and he, Carmona, does his own work. At this point, he expressed concern over the fact that Barrientes was "in all this trouble," and Gomez answered that he thought that Barrientes was doing something for the Union. To Gomez' further questions as to what Barrientes said to him about the Union, he replied that Barrientes asked him what he thought about the Union, what was his opinion and how he was going to vote. He also told Gomez that he asked Barrientes' why he, Barrientes, was asking these questions, and Barrientes replied that he had orders to do so from the office. At the " During cross-examination, Canales denied that he volunteered the above to Gonzales, saying, "I didn't voluntarily tell him because he was asking me indirectly about Fidel Sanchez because I psychoanalyzed his question to me." GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 311 same time, he also volunteered that other leadmen or super- visors were asking other employees the same questions as Barrientes, and he mentioned leadman Barrios and Rubin Rodriguez and Foreman Frank Gomez" in response to Gomez' request for names. Gomez indicated that he would have these named individuals in the office later and asked him to sign a statement. When he answered that he did not want to sign it, Gomez replied that he did not have to sign it if he did not want to do so. Only Gomez, among those present for management at this discussion, testified in this proceeding. Gomez gave general testimony as to the nature of his dis- cussion with Barrientes' subordinates", omitting any mention of the specifics of his conversation with Carmona and failing to deny that he asked Carmona for names of the persons who had talked to him about the Union. The General Counsel argues that such failure warrants a finding that Gomez did so inquire and that he did thereby interrogate Carmona in violation of the Act. However, as I am persuaded by Gomez' other testimony in the record that the thrust of these inter- views was to find out what Barrientes was doing, and as Carmona, himself, testified that the discussion began with conversation about Barrientes as a leadman, I am unable to find that the record preponderates in favor of a finding that Gomez did, differently from his discussion with other subor- dinates of Barrientes about whether Barrientes was question- ing them about their feelings or activities regarding the Un- ion, ask Carmona in a broadside fashion whether anybody had been talking to him about the Union. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the allegations of Paragraph 7(c) of this amended complaint have not been sustained. Paragraph 7(d) of this amended complaint alleges, in sub- stance, that Respondent violated the Act through the attend- ance of Foreman Frank Gomez at a union meeting. There is testimony by Canales that Frank Gomez attended a union meeting held during the latter part of February and that, while there, Frank Gomez conversed with him. Frank Gomez was not called as a witness in this proceeding and it does not appear that he was unavailable. On this state of the record, I credit Canales' testimony and find that Frank Gomez did attend this union meeting. Respondent defends on the grounds that (1) "there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Company ordered or suggested that Leadman Gomez go to these meetings, if he did go" and (2) "the evidence estab- lishes that the Union handbilled in front of the Company's plant on numerous occasions , inviting recipients to union meetings, and that leadmen were probably handed notices of union meetings as they were leaving the plant along with the Company employees (no Company employees engaged in the handbilling)." As to (1) it is clear that, irrespective of whether Respondent ordered or suggested that Frank Gomez attend the meeting, it would be answerable for his conduct in attend- ing the meeting, under the doctrine of "respondeat superior, " applicable herein. In this connection, although Respondent and Canales referred to Frank Gomez as a leadman, I note that Respondent admitted in its answers to the complaints herein that his supervisory title was that of foreman. It is also apparent from the record that Frank Gomez was a high ranking supervisor, since there were six foremen immediately subordinate to Hutcheson, the assistant general manager, and to which foreman about 25 leadmen, also admitted to be supervisors, were, in turn, subordinate. As to (2), even grant- ing that the handbill inviting attendance at the meeting was " As in the case of Barrios and Rodriguez, there is no direct evidence in the record of any incidents of interrogation by any of these individuals, nor is it alleged in any of the complaints herein that any of them engaged in interrogation in violation of the Act " See fn. 10, supra. given to Frank Gomez, such handbilling falls far short of an express invitation to Frank Gomez to attend the meeting. Accordingly, I find, in view of all the foregoing, that the attendance by Frank Gomez, a high ranking supervisor, at the union meeting, without a specific invitation, constituted surveillance which reasonably tended to interfere with, re- strain, and coerce employees in their organizational rights and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.15 Paragraph 7(h) of this amended complaint alleges that on or about April 1, A. W. Stewart, president of Respondent, threatened employees with the sale of all the plant machinery if the Union won the scheduled election on April 3. The General Counsel adduced testimony by Carmona in this re- gard. According to Carmona, the conversation occurred one week before the election and began in the plant lunchroom16 and was continued in the plant proper near the grinders. He gave the following account of the episode: A. W. Stewart approached him with a piece of paper in hand and said that he, Carmona, had been working for Respondent for 3-1/2 years, and had received 85 cents in raises during that period. A. W. Stewart then asked when his last raise occurred and he replied, in turn, that it occurred 8 months ago. At this, A. W. Stewart pointed out that he was asking him, Carmona, for the amount of the raise and not for its timing and suggested they "go out by the grinder so [they] can talk." When they were at the grinders, A. W. Stewart again adverted to the above-mentioned tenure of 3-1/2 years and added that he, Carmona, was the kind of man the Company wanted as an employee. A. W. Stewart followed this by asking whether he liked his job, and, when he implied that he did, A. W. Stewart said, "I want you to help me and talk to the new employees, tell them to work for the Company because you have more time for this Company." After this, A. W. Stewart began to talk about the machinery in the plant, saying, "Do you see all this machinery around here? I owe on it. I am paying for it, making payments.... Are you making payments? At this, he replied, "Yes sir, I am making my payments" and A. W. Stewart interjected, "I am tired of this business going around here, this union. Anytime I feel like it, I can sell the whole machinery and retire. Then what will you do?" His answer was that he would be doing what he was doing before Re- spondent employed him, namely, look for a job. The conver- sation concluded with A. W. Stewart saying, "You are pretty smart, uh?" and with his denying that he was smart. Al- though A. W Stewart admitted having a conversation with Carmona during the week of the election, he placed the entire conversation in the lunchroom, and said it was confined to whether Carmona had been getting raises at evaluation time. The occasion for the conversation, according to him, was that, during his visit to the Hondo plant that day, he heard from someone, whom he could not identify, that Carmona was going around saying that he had not been getting such raises; this caused him to check the matter with someone in the personnel department, from whom he learned that Car- mona "had recently had a couple of raises, in accordance with our regular evaluation procedure." Whereupon, he asked Carmona "why he had been saying he didn't have a raise when he knew he had, and that [he, A. W. Stewart], had checked and [Carmona] had had normal raises." Also, ac- cording to A. W. Stewart, this ended the conversation. In evaluating the foregoing, I note the following: Although A. W. Stewart testified that he had ascertained from the person- nel department that Carmona had recently had a couple of raises, Respondent's Exhibit 21, in evidence, which sets forth " See Colo. Well Service, Inc., 163 NLRB 707, 712-13 " This is also known as the break room. 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the results, as shown by Company records, of the evaluations made in November 1969 when Carmona was due for evalua- tion, omits Carmona's name from among those who received raises at that time. It is therefore unlikely, I find, that A. W. Stewart would have received information to the contrary and would have made a statement at odds with the actual facts to Carmona. More likely, I find, is Carmona's testimony that A. W. Stewart asked him when he had last received a raise and that he replied that it occurred 8 months ago." I note further that both Vice President A. J. Stewart and Muennink placed Stewart in the lunchroom during the entire conversa- tion with Carmona and immediately thereafter. However, even so, A. J. Stewart's testimony corroborated Carmona's testimony insofar as Carmona claimed that A. W. Stewart and he moved from their initial location to another location where they "can talk." Thus, A. J. Stewart testified, "There were a number of people entering the breakroom. And after he [A. W. Stewart] got Carmona's attention, they walked over aside, out of the traffic, away from the people, away from some individuals that were already seated in the break room." In all these circumstances, I am persuaded that, irrespective of where this conversation occurred, Carmona's testimony as to the content of this conversation is more reliable than that of A. W. Stewart, and I credit Carmona in this regard. Ac- cordingly, I conclude, and find, in view of the foregoing and on the entire record, that A. W. Stewart made it clear to Carmona that the Union's presence in the plant could cause him to close down the plant and retire, thereby making an implied threat that this would be the consequence of a victory by the Union in the coming election. And I conclude, and find further, that the foregoing conduct interfered with, re- strained, and coerced Carmona in his Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.1e Paragraph 7(i) of this amended complaint alleges that, on or about April 1, President A. W. Stewart solicited an em- ployee to tell other and less senior employees to vote against the Union in the coming election if they wished to continue their employment. Employee Joe Riso testified, in this regard, that during the week of the election, A. W. Stewart ap- proached him at his place of work and said that he, Riso, "was one of the oldest persons working for the Company, that [he, Riso], should go around to some of them newer boys that were working there and try to explain to them that [the employees] didn't need a union ... there was no sense in joining the Union when he [A. W. Stewart] done everything for [the employees] and [they] could talk to him ... anytime [they] wanted to ... because he always was ... and he was willing to talk to [the employees]." As to the foregoing, A. W. Stewart testified that he had "no recollection of talking to Riso on that particular subject." I note, however, that there is testimony by Carmona, set forth above, which I have cred- ited, that A. W. Stewart spoke to him, Carmona, as follows during their conversation in and about the lunchroom about a week before the election: "I want you to help me and talk to the new employees, tell them to work for the Company because you have more time for this Company." Since Riso's attribution to A. W. Stewart made to him during the same period is generally similar to Carmona's attribution to A. W. Stewart, and since A. W. Stewart could not recall whether he spoke to Riso "on that particular subject," I conclude, and " Carmona's evaluation prior to November 1969 as to whether he should receive a raise would have been in July 1969, about 8 months before the instant conversation. Although there had been an evaluation of Carmona in March 1970, he was not aware at the time of this conversation of the results of that evaluation 1" See discussion, infra, in respect to Gutierrez' remarks to employee DeLeon about closing the plant find, that Riso testified more reliably than A. W. Stewart in this regard, and I credit Riso. Accordingly, I find that A. W. Stewart solicited Riso to tell other and less senior employees to vote against the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Paragraph 7(j) of this amended complaint alleges that, on or about April 3, the day of the election, Assistant General Manager Hutcheson promised employees wage increases if they voted against the Union in this election. Carmona tes- tified that he was approached by Hutcheson in the plant shortly before the election was to start, that employee Mar- tinez was also present," and that the following then occurred: Hutcheson said, "Listen, I am going to say it once, and get it straight in your head. When you go up, climb the coconut tree, get those two coconuts, on the way down hold on to your nuts and work for the Company. We don' t want a union around here. We want to stop it up. You work for the Com- pany and Mr. Stewart is going to give you more money, Got it clear?" He answered "Ok, Charley," and the conversation ended. As to the foregoing, Hutcheson testified that he did have a conversation with Carmona at the time mentioned by Carmona. Like Carmona, he said that he opened the conver- sation with the coconut story. His version of the story was that he told Carmona, "I am telling you like the hurricane told the coconut tree: `Hang on to your nuts. This is no ordinary blow job."' He testified further that he then asked Carmona to vote for the Company, adding that he, person- ally, felt that "we didn't need a union at [the Company]; Mr. Stewart had been giving us many benefits and that they would continue to increase as the years went by." Since Carmona admittedly did not know what Hutcheson meant by the refer- ence to the coconut tree and, as both Carmona's and Hutch- eson's version of what was said in that connection is ambigu- ous, I attach no significance adverse to Respondent to that portion of the conversation. And as to the rest of the conver- sation, as Hutcheson's version of these remarks does not exceed permissible bounds, and as Carmona's version is somewhat ambiguous and falls short of establishing that Hut- cheson offered him a wage increase if he voted against the Union, I find that the record does not preponderate in favor of a finding that Hutcheson's remarks on this occasion con- travened the Act. Accordingly, I find that the allegations of paragraph 7(j) of this amended complaint have not been sus- tained. 2. The allegations of 8(a)(1) in the amended consolidated complaint in Cases 23-CA-3660 and 23-CA-3671 Paragraph 7(a) of this amended consolidated complaint alleges that at a date unknown during the last 2 weeks of March, Vice President Guillermo Gutierrez threatened em- ployees with plant closure if they engaged in prounion ac- tivity. Employee Manuel DeLeon testified, in this connection, that, about 2 weeks before the election on April 3, Gutierrez, an admitted supervisor, approached him at his place of work and said that, "if the Union come in, we would have a union at Gary Aircraft and Mr. Stewart could pick up all the tools or everything out of the Hondo plant and move it up to Nelson Road [one of the other plants], because he worked for a lot of unionized companies, you know. That could be done." To this, he responded that he did not know anything about it because he had never worked for a unionized com- pany. During cross-examination , when confronted with his prehearing affidavit to a Board agent, DeLeon testified that his affidavit correctly reflects what Gutierrez said on that occasion, namely, that "[he had] worked for a lot of compa- " Martinez did not testify in this proceeding GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 313 nies that are unionized and if the Union happens to come here and if Mr. Stewart and the Union don't agree to what the Union wants for you all, he could just shut her down and move everything to Nelson Road." Gutierrez testified on behalf of Respondent but was not questioned concerning any conversation with DeLeon.20 Accordingly , since Gutierrez did not specifically deny De Leon's testimony that Gutierrez and he had a conversation with respect to what could follow in the wake of the Union 's success in the coming election, and since DeLeon impressed me as a more reliable witness than Gutierrez, I credit DeLeon and find that such a conversation took place. And I find further that DeLeon's testimony, dur- ing cross-examination, accurately reflects what Gutierrez said on that occasion. I find, therefore, that Gutierrez told DeLeon that the plant could be shut down and moved if the Union won the election and Respondent was unable to meet the contract demands of the Union . The Supreme Court has recently held that an employer "may even make a prediction as to the precise effects he believes unionization will have on his company. In such a case, however, the prediction must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences or to convey a management decision already arrived at to close the plant in the case of unionization . See Textile Work- ers v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263 , 274, No. 20."21 I am satisfied that Gutierrez' remarks to DeLeon do not meet this test. Thus, Gutierrez made no mention of an actual manage- ment decision to close or move the plant in the event of unionization. Nor is there any showing that his remarks were predicated upon Respondent 's known inability to meet the union wage scales or other economic demands . Indeed, it is apparent that no economic demands had as yet been made by the Union upon Respondent . Accordingly, I find that Gu- tierrez did not tell DeLeon what he reasonably believed will be the likely economic consequences of unionization that are outside of Respondent's control, but, instead, impliedly threatened economic reprisal in the form of plant closure or removal, to be taken solely on Respondent 's own volition. I find further that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.22 Paragraph 7(b) of this amended consolidated complaint alleges that on various dates in March and during the first 3 days in April , Joel Gomez threatened employees with plant closure if they continued their prounion activity . Also ac- cording to the allegations of paragraph 7(d) of the same complaint, at about those times, Gomez threatened em- ployees with a work reduction if they selected the Union in the coming election . The only testimony proffered by the General Counsel as to the above was given by employee Adolfo Garcia and was as follows: At one of the meetings which management had with employees at the plant , at which he was present, Gomez, the personnel manager, said to the assemblage, "that Mr. Stewart might be forced to close the place down if a union took place ... in the form because . they might not have any more ... contracts or anything like this." He was unable, however , to identify the meeting at which this took place, and was also unable to remember what was said before or after this remark . Gomez denied that he made any speech wherein he said that the Company might close the plant and there would not be any contracts or any 30 Gutierrez was asked , however, whether he made a statement to the above effect to employee Joe Riso and he answered , "I never made such a statement, so sir " " N.L R B v. Gissel Packing Company, Inc, 395 U S. 575 " See N.L.R B v Gissell Packing Company, Inc., supra See also James A Pearson, et al d/b/a Crystal Lake Broom Works, 159 NLRB 429, 435, and cases cited therein. work, or that everybody would be laid off. He also denied that he ever told employees anything to the effect that if the Union came in there would be layoffs . However, he did acknowledge that, during one speech, A. J. Stewart and he (in tTie course of translating A. J. Stewart's words from English to Spanish) answered an employee's question as to whether there would always be work for the employees, and that they then told the employees that the Company does government contract work and that "[the Company's] being able to stay in business depends entirely on its ability to get contracts and renew those contracts." Gomez also acknowledged that, in the course of one speech, an employee, after commenting that other companies in Hondo were unionized and had had layoffs, asked, "If the union were to come to [the Company] would [the employees] have layoffs," and that A. J. Stewart and he (after A. J. Stewart had spoken) mentioned layoffs several times. According to Gomez , the answer to the ques- tion was, "We cannot predict what is going to happen at [the Company], but, yes, you are right other companies that have had unions have had layoffs"; and they commented further that the Company "never had a layoff in [its] history." It is apparent from the foregoing that the allegations of paragraph 7(d) of the amended consolidated complaint as to threats of reduction in hours have not been sustained , and I so con- clude. And I find similarly as to the allegations of paragraph 7(b) of this amended complaint . Thus, Garcia's testimony strongly suggests that , as Gomez testified, the comment about closing down was mentioned in the context of the eventuality that Respondent, which was engaged in government contract work, was unable to get contracts and renew contracts with the government. Accordingly, since Garcia was not a con- vincing witness, and as Gomez' version of what was said finds some corroboration in Garcia's testimony, I credit Gomez' version. I find that what was said was, in substance , a state- ment of what Respondent reasonably believed would be the likely economic consequences , either with or without the Union, if, for reasons beyond its control , it failed to get gov- ernment contracts . As such, these remarks did not contra- vene the Act. 23 Nor do I find any threat violative of the Act in the testimony given by Gomez as to what was said in answer to a question about the possibility of layoffs if Re- spondent's plant was unionized. The answer was couched in terms of what had taken place in the past in regard to layoffs and refrained from predicting what the future might bring in this area. Paragraph 7(c) of the amended consolidated complaint alleges that, on various dates in March and during about the first 3 days in April, Joel Gomez promised the employees increased wages , increased bonuses and an additional holiday so as to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union or giving assistance to the Union. Paragraph 7(e) of this complaint alleges that Respondent then, also in violation of the Act, withdrew the benefits previ- ously announced, giving as the reason therefor the Union's efforts to organize Respondent 's employees and the Union's presence in the plant. I have heretofore found that, about the middle of February , subsequent to the Union's filing of its representation petition and the receipt by Respondent of its letter requesting recognition , A. J. Stewart and Joel Gomez made speeches to Respondent's employees at Hondo, in small groups consisting of two or more sections, in which they announced an additional paid holiday on Memorial Day, an increase in differential from 5 cents to 10 cents an hour for employees on the night shift, and an attendance bonus to be paid every 120 days to any employee who had perfect attend- ance for that period and that, about 2 weeks after these 11 Compare N.L R B. v. Gissel Packing Company, Inc, supra. 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD benefits were announced, the two last mentioned benefits were withdrawn." As of the time of the withdrawal, the record shows, the employees had not received these two be- nefits; thereafter, at the end of May, they did receive the additional holiday. Respondent contends in its brief that its conduct in the foregoing respects did not contravene the Act. In respect to the benefit of the additional holiday, it asserts that this was no more than the announcement and implementation of a predetermined and previously announced benefit and there- fore does not run afoul of the Act. In respect to the other two benefits, it maintains that, while they were new benefits and there was no predetermined decision to grant these benefits, they were announced pursuant to a consistent practice or policy of the Company of granting new benefits each year and were not motivated by any desire or intent to thwart the Union's organizational attempts. And as to their withdrawal, it argues that they were not withheld by Respondent as a reprisal for the employees' union activity nor was there any conditioning of the future grant of these benefits on the out- come of the election, but rather, because it was advised by its counsel, as soon as counsel learned that the benefits were announced, that, if such benefits were awarded, it would be charged with interfering with the election and with the organ- izational rights of its employees under the Act, and it wanted to avoid any possible violation of law. In support of its position that the additional holiday had been predetermined and previously announced in advance of the instant organizational activity, Respondent points to a memorandum which was distributed to employees of Re- spondent's San Antonio plant on or about March 28, 1969, copies of which were thereafter posted at Respondent's other two plants, the one at Victoria and the one at Honda.25 The caption of the memorandum reads "TO ALL SAN AN- TONIO EMPLOYEES" and says, in relevant part: Each year since we started in business, we have tried to add additional employee benefits and this year the change to the new Victoria Bank plan will really benefit all of us. In addition, later this year, as soon as we can get the San Antonio plant to where we are making money, we plan to add one more paid holiday to our list of holi- days. More on this later. The last extra holiday we added was the Good Friday holiday which will be on April 4th this year and will be a paid holiday to all employees who work the regular work days before and after a holiday. [Emphasis supplied.] Significantly, in explaining why the memorandum was dis- tributed to employees at the San Antonio plant and only posted at the Hondo plant, A. J. Stewart testified, "the extra holiday was in it and there were some other items that we thought other people might be interested in,26 so it was de- cided to go ahead and post the notice at the other two plants. However, obviously from reading the notice it's of main inter- est to San Antonio personnel, where it was distributed in- dividually." It is thus apparent, and I find, that there is no warrant in this record for holding that the additional holiday for employees at the Hondo plant had been predetermined as " A. J. Stewart and Joel Gomez fixed the time as the first week of March. " A. J. Stewart, who testified that he posted the copies at Hondo, did not know how long they remained posted. 3° Also included in this memorandum were a report on physical improve- ments recently made at the San Antonio plant a discussion of plans for the annual picnic for San Antonio employees, a reference to the unsuccessful effort of "the Potter's Union" at organizing the Hondo plant in 1968, an expression of concern that two other named unions might attempt to organ- ize Respondent's plants in the future, and a reference to the Texas Right to Work Law, making it unnecessary for an employee to join a union to hold a job. of March 28, 1969. Indeed, the above quoted and under- scored language clearly shows that whether an additional holiday would be granted to the San Antonio employees had not yet been finally decided upon but depended upon the contingency that the San Antonio plant reached the point where it was making money; and nowhere does it appear (1) that, by the time that the additional holiday was announced to the employees at Hondo, such contingency had, in fact, occurred, or (2) that the employees at San Antonio had, in fact, received an additional paid holiday . Furthermore, it would be straining beyond reason to hold that the mere post- ing, without more, of a memorandum at the Hondo plant, which was addressed to Respondent 's employees at the San Antonio plant and made the addition of another paid holiday for the employees at the San Antonio plant contingent on that plant's profitability, was equivalent to a predetermination by Respondent and an announcement to the employees at the Hondo plant that an additional paid holiday was to be granted to them . It follows therefore , and I find, that Re- spondent's announcement to the employees at Hondo on or about the middle of February of an additional paid holiday came as a surprise to them . Accordingly, in view of the timing of the announcement of the grant of the additional paid holi- day in the midst of the Union's organizational campaign and about 2 weeks after the Union had filed its representation petition relative to these employees , plus the other unfair labor practices by Respondent found herein, I conclude, and find, that this announcement of an additional paid holiday was a promise of benefit to Respondent 's employees in order to induce them to abandon the Union27 and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act thereby.28 As to Respondent's simultaneous announcement of the increased differential to the night shift employees and of the attendance bonus, since it is already conceded in Respond- ent's brief that these were new benefits and that there was no predetermined decision to grant them, the only remaining question as to them is whether their withdrawal by Respond- ent about 2 weeks after they were granted exonerates Re- spondent's similarly illegal conduct in granting them. The withdrawal of these two grants of benefits occurred under the following circumstances : About a week or so after their announcement, Respondent had occasion to mention to Robert S . Bambace, Esquire, of counsel to Respondent herein, that three benefits had been granted to the employees. Bambace then advised Respondent to delay the granting of these two from among the three benefits. Within about another week, A. J. Stewart and Joel Gomez together, and Gomez individually, gathered the employees into groups and retracted the night shift differential and the attendance bonus. According to Gomez , Stewart and he addressed the em- ployees as follows: We have agreed to allow the NLRB to hold an election here at the plant to decide whether or not the employees of GAC want to be represented by a labor union. 37 Contrary to Respondent, the record fails to establish a consistent prac- tice or policy of the Company to grant new benefits each year. All that appears in this connection is the first sentence in the above quoted portion of the memorandum. Since this is a self-serving document and since there is absent any direct evidence of such a policy, I find that the record does not preponderate in favor of such a finding. " See N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405. See also N.L.R.B. v. Dothan Eagle, Inc., 75 LRRM 2531, 2534 (C.A. 5), enfg. 174 NLRB No. 120, in which the Court said, in relevant part, "The cases make it crystal clear that the vice involved in both the unlawful increase situation and the unlawful refusal to increase situation is that the employer has changed the existing conditions of employment. It is this change which is prohibited and which forms the basis of the unfair labor practice charge." GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION This election will be held on Friday , April 3, 1970. Everyone will be allowed to vote and we hope you will vote NO UNION. Because of the upcoming election , our lawyers tell us that we will have to make some changes in the announce- ments we made on February 16 about new fringe benefits. Because the holiday was announced almost a year ago, we will be able to keep it just as we planned . However, we can not now grant the perfect attendance bonus plan and the doubling of the night shift differential because of the recent activity. Our lawyers say that announcing these benefits after union activity started, could be taken as a possible bribe to our employees. Therefore, so there can be no question of GAC violating government law, the perfect attendance bonus plan and the doubling of the Night shift differential can not be given at this time. Are there any questions? It is apparent from the foregoing statement that the burden of the remarks of A. J. Stewart and Joel Gomez to the em- ployees was that they could not have the attendance bonus plan and could not be given the wage increase consisting of doubling the night shift differential because these benefits could be considered bribery to reject the Union in the coming election. I am persuaded that Respondent did not thereby dissipate the coercive impact of the granting of these benefits about 2 weeks before. Respondent was thereby telling the employees that these benefits could not be given because of the Union's organizational campaign and tended to empha- size rather than detract from the message implicit in the initial grant of these benefits , namely, that it was seeking thereby to induce them to abandon the Union . I therefore find, in all the circumstances and on the basis of the entire record, that, by granting to its employees the attendance bonus plan and the increased night shift differential in order to induce them to abandon the Union , and by thereafter withdrawing them , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.29 Paragraph 7(f) of the amended consolidated complaint al- leges that, during March 1970 , Leadman Muennink threat- ened employees with temporary layoffs in the event that the employees selected the Union in the coming election. Em- ployee Joe Riso testified for the General Counsel in respect to the above. According to Riso , he had several conversation " See The Bartley Company, 170 NLRB No 80, which was thereafter denied enforcement by a divided court in 410 F 2d 507 (C A 6) The instant situation is, however, a more aggravated one than in the cited case. Thus, the retraction there took place on the same day immediately after the promises were made, whereas the retraction here occurred about 2 weeks after the benefits were announced , even though Respondent was advised to do so by its counsel , upon learning thereof, about 1 week after they were announced In any event, I deem myself bound by the Board 's determination in the cited case See, in the latter connection , Insurance Agents Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, 119 NLRB 768 Montana Lumber Sales, Inc., 185 NLRB No. 12, a representation case, relied upon by Respondent to support a finding that the withdrawal of these two benefits did not violate the Act is distinguishable on its facts In that case, before the union's petition was filed, fringe benefits were promised to employees with the understanding that specifics were to be worked out and relayed to the employees at a meeting the following month At the meeting, the following month, the union's petition having intervened, the employer announced the withdrawal of the benefits in order to avoid the appearance of election interference Here, however , the benefits were first announced about 2 weeks after the filing of the Union 's petition and were withdrawn about 2 weeks later 315 with Muennink, his immediate supervisor,30 concerning the Union, and the general tenor of these conversations was that he should not join a union because Respondent did not need one in the plant. In one such conversation, occurring during the first part of the election week, he asked Muennink why Universal Rundle, a company which was operating a plant in the area and had a union, was paying better than Respondent. Muennink then replied that this was "because they are work- ing by the piece and the more, the harder they work the more they make. But here we could never do it because sometimes we get the motors and sometimes we don't. If the Union ever comes in then whenever the work slows down we are just going to have to lay everybody off that we don't need and keep the few we need." Riso also testified that it was a fact that sometimes Respondent received engines to work on and sometimes it did not; and that to his knowledge Respondent had never had a layoff. Muennink's testimony was considera- bly at odds with the foregoing. He acknowledged having two conversations with Riso at Riso's work station 6 weeks and 3 weeks before the election in which there was discussion about how the Union would fare in the coming election and that, at the first such conversation, his only comment was that the employees of another company, Chapman Milling and Grain, did not vote for union representation, and that at the second one his only comment was that he hoped that the employees would vote for the Company in the coming elec- tion and that one thing that he would like was that every employee vote. However, he specifically denied threatening Riso or any other employee that he would be laid off if the Union came into the plant, and denied having any conversa- tion with Riso about Universal Rundle. It was his further testimony that he had meetings with his section on produc- tion and had said, in answer to a question from an employee, that there had never been a layoff at Respondent's plant to his knowledge. The record establishes that there has never been a layoff at Respondent's plant. Yet, nowhere does it appear that Re- spondent has in the past been confronted with a shortage of work and has nevertheless retained all its employees. It fol- lows therefore that to mention the fact that layoffs would occur in such a situation and to add that this would occur while the Union was in the plant is to fall short of a threat that, but for the presence of the Union, such layoffs would not occur. Accordingly, even though Riso impressed me as a more reliable witness than Muennink, and I credit him rather than Muennink, I find that his testimony fails to preponder- ate in favor of a finding that Respondent violated the Act by the remarks attributed to Muennink. Accordingly, I find fur- ther that the allegations of Section 7(f) of the amended con- solidated complaint have not been sustained. Paragraph 7(g) of the same complaint alleges that Vice President A. J. Stewart threatened an employee with possible discharge if he voted for the Union in the coming election. Riso gave the following testimony in connection with this allegation: A. J. Stewart approached him at his place of work about 2 days before the election and said, "You better think twice before you join a union because if you don't, you might be looking for a job soon." Riso volunteered at this point in his testimony that he did not know what A. J. Stewart meant. With respect to the foregoing, A. J. Stewart could not recall talking to Riso individually during the week of the election, recalling only that he talked to him as part of a group during that week concerning the mechanics of voting during the election. He also specifically denied making the remark at- tributed to him by Riso. I am persuaded from all the forego- 10 Respondent admits that Muennink is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing and particularly in the light of the imminence of the election that, even granting that A. J. Stewart and Riso did have a conversation about 2 days before the election, it related to Riso's voting, as the above allegation asserts, rather than his joining a union, as Riso testified. In view of this, including Riso's volunteered statement that he did not know what A. J. Stewart meant by the remarks A. J. Stewart made to him, and A. J. Stewart's denial of this attribution to him, I find that the record fails to preponderate in favor of a finding that A. J. Stewart threatened Riso either with respect to joining the Union or voting in the coming election. Accordingly, I find further that the allegations of Paragraph 7(g) of the amended consolidated complaint have not been sustained. Paragraph 7(h) of the same amended complaint alleges that on or about April 3, the day of the election, Respondent granted wage increases to employees in order to induce them to vote against the Union in that election. The General Coun- sel adduced testimony in this connection by employee Riso. Riso testified, on direct, that William L. Laughinghouse, his foreman, approached him at his place of work at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, April 3, the day of the election; that April 3 was payday and he usually gets paid, "anywhere from 3:00 to 3:30 [p.m.], right between, sometimes 3:15"; that the election started at 2:30 p.m. on that day; and that the total conversa- tion consisted of Laughinghouse saying to him, "We are going to give you a raise just to show you that we don't need no union, that the old man does everything he can for us." Riso also testified that this raise occurred less than 3 months after a prior raise and was at a shorter interval than custom- ary." However, Riso gave a somewhat different version of the content of the conversation during cross-examination, omit- ting therefrom any reference by Laughinghouse to the Union. Thus, he testified that "[Laughinghouse] said that [he] was going to get a raise and that was to prove that the old man -would always treat us right, and he tries to look after [the employees] and give a raise as often as he can." He also added that he did not remember what else was said. In regard to the foregoing, Laughinghouse testified that on the morning of April 3 he told Riso that Mr. Stewart had approved his raise and that he would be getting an increase in that day's pay- check,32 that Mr. Stewart does everything he can for his em- ployees, that he, Riso, should keep up the good work, he was doing a good job, whereupon, Riso thanked him and he left. Laughinghouse specifically denied that he told Riso that he, Riso, was getting a raise to show that he did not need a union. It was also Laughinghouse's testimony that he spoke to the other men in his section on that day and told them the same thing he had told Riso, and that this advice to employees concerning a raise was in accordance with his usual practice. I note, in the latter connection, that Riso testified that usually nobody tells the employees in advance about their getting a raise, "it just comes out in the check" and that he was not told by anyone when he received a raise in November 1969 that he was going to get a raise." Noteworthy, too, is A. J. Stew- art's testimony showing that raises such as the one involved herein are handled "automatically" as far as the employees are concerned and that the recipient of a wage increase becomes aware thereof at the time he gets his paycheck. Thus, " Riso was in error in this regard, as the interval between this raise and the prior one was about 4 months and 2 weeks and the usual interval is about 4 months. Riso admitted, during cross-examination, that he does not know how Respondent's evaluation system with respect to raises works. " Riso's check was given to him later that day, not by Laughinghouse but by Mennink, the leadman over Rise. According to Laughinghouse, he usu- ally gives the checks to the leadmen to pass out. " It appears that Riso was hired on July 16, 1969, and received his first raise in November 1969. according to him, the employees are aware of Respondent's consistent past practice to evaluate every 4 months employees who have passed probation, and know when their time for an evaluation is due, and "if [the employee] knows he is going to be evaluated on the 30th of the month, he is expecting his paycheck, evaluation of his raise, to show in his paycheck right then, as close as he can to the 30th of the month. And it just solves that-we just automatically do it that way because it solves (sic) explanations. They expect it there just from the way the policy is, they know when it's due. This solves many problems. We have always done it this way. " In view of all the foregoing, I am persuaded and find that Laughinghouse did not testify credibly that it was his usual practice to notify employees whom he supervises of their raises in advance of the delivery of their paychecks to them by their leadmen. Notwithstanding my not crediting Laughinghouse in the above respect, I am satisfied that Laughinghouse's testimony concerning the conversation itself is more reliable than that of Riso, and I credit it. I do so in view of the differing versions thereof given by Riso on direct and on cross-examination, with the latter version failing to attribute to Laughinghouse any reference to the Union and conforming generally to the version testified to by Laughinghouse. Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing, in view of the fact that the raise to Riso on April 3 coincided in point of time with the day when a raise could have been given to Riso under Respondent's pre- vailing evaluation system for raises, and since the record fails to establish that the raise would not have been forthcoming were it not for the presence of the Union on the scene, I find that Laughinghouse's remarks to Riso did not constitute the granting of a wage increase in order to induce Riso to vote against the Union. Rather, it was a permissible attempt on Laughinghouse's part to remind Riso in advance of the elec- tion that day of some of the benefits the employees are deriv- ing under the present plant setup. Accordingly, I conclude, and find, that Section 7(h) of the amended consolidated com- plaint has not been sustained by the credible evidence in the record. 3. The allegation in Case 23-CA-3591 of the discriminatory discharge of Guadalupe R. Canales a. The nature and duration of Canales' employment and the issue raised by his discharge Canales started his employment with Respondent "almost four years" before his discharge on March 13, 1970. During this period of continuous employment, he held about six different jobs at the Hondo plant, the last of which began in December 1969 and was in the supply department. He re- ceived his last raise in January or February 1970. At all times material herein, William L. Laughinghouse was his foreman and Wendell Bearmen, also an admitted supervisor, was his leadman. During the final week of his employment, Canales received three written reprimands as to his work from Assis- tant General Manager Hutcheson. Up to this time in his almost 4-year tenure of employment, Canales had never re- ceived a written reprimand from Respondent. The first and second reprimands were received on March 9 and related to matters occurring on March 6 and March 9, respectively; the third reprimand was received on March 13 and involved some work done by Canales on February 26 and March 12. Canales was terminated at the time of the receipt of the third reprimand and was then told by Hutcheson that he was doing so in accordance with the Company's Rules. These rules34 provide, in relevant part, that "An employee receiving three (3) written warnings (whether or not all are the same rule) " They are in evidence as Resp. Exh. 14. GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION within a six (6) month period for violation of Company rules . will be subject to discharge. The Company may at its discretion amend discharge to a suspension of not less than three (3) work days." The issue thus posed is whether, as Respondent contends, this was the true reason for Canales' discharge or whether, as the General Counsel contends, this reason was a mere pretext to mask his termination for his union activity, to which activity I have previously referred. Respondent denies any knowledge of this activity. I shall, accordingly, set forth hereinafter the relevant details: b. Canales' union activity On the basis of my findings that Canales was among those who helped Fidel Sanchez, the organizer for the Union, in the organizational drive, which was still in progress at the time of his discharge, namely, getting employees to sign union cards; serving along with other employees, whom he helped select, as a committeeman on an in -plant organizing commit- tee; and attending union meetings, at one of which he was the only employee sitting on the rostrum along with the organizer and other officials of the Union, I conclude, and find, that Canales was very active in the Union and among those in the forefront of its organizational drive. I have heretofore found that Barrientes told Hutcheson, in response to the latter's question as to how the Union was doing, that he, Hutcheson, should watch Canales, and that Hutcheson answered, "I know. We know that already." I have also found that Fore- man Frank Gomez was present at the February meeting of the Union and spoke with Canales. As I infer and find that Bamentes was referring to Canales' union activity and that Hutcheson's answer manifested knowledge thereof, and as Foreman Gomez had observed and spoken to Canales during the February meeting of the Union, I reject Respondent's contention that it had no such knowledge and find to the contrary. c. The first reprimand This written reprimand to Canales covering a segment of Canales' work on March 6, gives as the reason therefor: "Violation of Company Rule # 12. Unsatisfactory quality and/or quantity of work. Employee was sent to hangar four to check in 14 engines. He took two hours to complete a job that should have been finished in thirty to forty minutes." There is no substantial dispute as to the time Canales spent in doing this work since Canales fixed the time variously as "between one and two hours" and as "about one and a half hours." However, Respondent's position that this work should have taken Canales 30 to 40 minutes, i.e., between 2 and 3 minutes on an engine on average, rather than about 8 minutes per engine, on average, finds support only in Bear- men's statement that he told Canales that it should have taken him 30 to 40 minutes and in the statement in the self-serving written reprimand to Canales to that effect. Thus, the record is devoid of any comparison of Canales' perform- ance with that of other employees on work of this type, or of evidence that Canales was ever told as to how much time he was expected to take per engine in checking it. As to what was involved in Canales' assignment the following appears: Each engine was encased in a wooden crate which was held together with about five or six wire bands." Access to the engine is gained through a door on one side. When the door is closed its upper part rests against three runners which are fastened to the underside of the lid of the crate, and there may " The dimensions of the crate, according to Canales, were 8 feet by 4 feet I find that he was implying thereby that the dimensions were 8 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet 317 be up to three nails going through the door and into these runners. The left side of the door, as one faces the crate, is always secured to the crate by hooks which are bent over onto looped ends emerging from the wire bands holding the crate together.76 In order to open the crate, one has to unbend the hooks and, if nails have been used, pull away the nails so that the door can open." In this connection, I credit the testimony of Canales that some of the crates involved herein did have such nails in them. Once the crate is open, the checker stands at the door of the crate, and puts his head inside in order to locate the number plate on the engine and to read the number on it and compare it with the packing slip, which the checker has theretofore removed from the side of the crate, to which it was affixed. If the numbers match, the checker places his initials and the date on the packing slip in the space for that purpose. It is apparent to me from all the foregoing, and I find, that, in allotting 2 to 3 minutes, on average, to Canales in order to complete accurately this entire operation, Re- spondent was making an unreasonable demand upon him. In addition, I find no warrant in this record for finding that Canales or any employee with his experience in this type of work could have met this timetable of Respondent. Indeed, Canales testified, without contradiction, that he did not take his coffee break that afternoon, working instead on this as- signment. d. The second reprimand This reprimand, also in writing, gave as the reason there- for: "Violation of Company Rule #4 .... Reading newspa- pers, periodicals, or loafing on Company time. At 7:45 this morning employee was standing around with his hands in his pockets. There was plenty of work to be done in the ware- house at this time." According to the testimony of Bearman, at the time in question a freight truck belonging to a carrier was stationed outside the warehouse door and its driver was unloading cartons of merchandise onto Company pallets. He was standing on the truck checking off the freight as the transfer took place and a Company forklift truck, manned by a Company driver and carrying one of these pallets, was on the point of entering the warehouse. He noticed at that time that the door was closed and that "Canales was just walking around there with his hands in his pocket[s]." Whereupon, he called out to Canales "to get his hands out of hispocket[s] and get over there and open the door so that [the forklift driver] wouldn't have to stop and get off from the forklift and open it and then get back on and drive in." Canales then opened the door. According to Canales, he had his hands in his pockets from time to time because his "pants were falling off" due to loss of weight, and he was lifting them up. He testified further that it was his job, in situations where Bearmen is outside on the truck, to stand by the door in order to assure free passage to the forklift truck when it comes inside with the merchandise and, while standing by the door, he is to listen for the telephone. Canales readily acknowledged that he had no specific instructions from Bearmen to be at the door, asserting that he was then acting in accord with Com- pany policy. Bearmen, on the other hand, testified that Canales should have then been inside the warehouse filling out requisitions. It is apparent from the above that Bearmen did not say to Canales at the time he noticed Canales that Canales was not supposed to be standing there. It is further apparent that, as the door was closed, effective movement by the forklift truck 11 A picture of this type of crate is in evidence as Resp Exh 6 17 It would appear that this may be done with a clawhammer or a crow- bar 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD required that someone be there to open the door. I note, too, that, Bearmen made only a brief observation of Canales' standing there with his hands in his pockets and, based thereon, took action against Canales. Thus, he did not discuss the matter with Canales before he took the matter up with Laughinghouse18 nor does it appear that he made it his busi- ness to ascertain how long Canales had been standing near the door and how much of that time he had spent in holding his hands in his pockets. I am persuaded from all the foregoing, and find, that Bear- men proceeded in an inordinate hurry on the basis of a brief observation of the claimed objectionable conduct by Canales to report thereon to management. Accordingly, I find that, even granting that Canales should not have been there at the time, the rapidity of Respondent's institution of action to discipline him therefor, without confronting him before doing so, strongly indicates that Respondent was more concerned with finding fault with Canales than it was with making sure that Canales' conduct at the time warranted a disciplinary reprimand. e. The session of Canales with management on March 9 at which time he received the first and second reprimand The record shows that the details of the incident on Friday, March 6, involving Canales were reported to Laughinghouse, and the latter, in turn, relayed them to Hutcheson and a decision was then made to issue a written reprimand to Canales thereon. However, because of the lateness of the hour at which the written reprimand was completed, it was de- cided to wait until Monday, March 9, to present the written reprimand to Canales. By 8:30 a.m. on March 9, Laughing- house relayed to Hutcheson the details he had earlier received from Bearmen of the 7:45 a.m. incident on March 9 involving Canales. It was then decided that a written reprimand was to be given to Canales on this incident, too. A composite of the credited testimony of Hutcheson, Laughinghouse, Bearmen, and Canales, who attended the meeting in Hutcheson's office on Marcb 9, establishes that Hutcheson told Canales about the two written reprimands and what prompted them, referring, in substance, to what was set forth in each reprimand; that he then commented that Respondent could not put up with work of this nature; that he handed Canales the two written reprimands and said, "I want you to read them and sign them";" that Canales said that he felt that he was doing a good job; and that after reading the reprimands, Canales signed them. f. The third reprimand This reprimand covers the claimed improper filling by Canales of two requisitions for materials, one occurring on February 26 and the other on March 12. The reprimand reads as follows: "Violation of Rule # 12: Unsatisfactory quality and/or quantity of work. Employees job is to fill material requisitions at the main warehouse. On 2/26/70 Canales is- sued five each items on M.R. #6951. The M.R. called for fifty each items. On 3/12/70 Canales issued the wrong material on M. R. #71057. The M. R. called for 50 lbs. of #5356 aluminum rod. 1140 With respect to the first requisition, which was marked "Rush," Canales testified that he correctly issued the 50 items as requested, and that no one talked to him on February 26 about not issuing enough items. He testified further that Bear- " Bearmen testified that he called Laughinghouse at 8 o'clock that morn- ing. " According to Laughinghouse, these were the words Hutcheson used. 41 The initials "M.R." are the symbols for "Material Requisition." man did talk to him more than a week later about this requisi- tion, telling him that he had sent five blocks over there instead of fifty, and that this was a serious mistake, and that he should be more careful, but he added that he denied he had made any mistake. Bearmen's testimony with respect to the above was as follows: He was alerted on February 26 by Ken Mullin, the foreman of the supply shop at Hangar 4, that this requisition had not been filled correctly as only five magneto blocks had been sent over instead of fifty. Immediately there- after, he spoke to Canales and Canales said he had sent 50 items as requested. He thereupon took Canales with him and they checked Respondent's inventory together and found that there was an excess of 45 such items. At this, he ex- plained to Canales how important it was, because of periodic inspection by the U.S. Government, that "these things ... be kept up." Assuming, without deciding, that Canales made an error in filling the requisition, Bearmen's own testimony establishes that he did not, upon learning thereof on February 26, recom- mend that Canales be disciplined therefor, notwithstanding that this was a rush order and that, in his view, Canales had made a serious mistake. And it would appear that Bearmen was not thereby according Canales any special consideration. Thus, Bearmen also testified that, although his department fills between 25 and 50 requisitions daily and utilizes about five employees on this kind of work '41 he had never caused any reprimands to issue to any of them, other than the one to Canales on March 13, for an error in filling them .41 With respect to the second requisition, Canales testified that the order in question called for a part with the number 5356; that, in the course of filling it on March 12, he located boxes with the first of these digits handwritten in ink on the outside and the remaining three digits stamped in ink; that he showed Bearmen these markings and questioned whether this was the right item; that Bearmen told him, "Yes, go ahead and issue it"; and that he then filled the order for 50 pounds of aluminum rod with five such boxes, 10 pounds to a box, and all boxes had the above described markings. In regard to the above, Bearmen testified as follows: He was alerted to the error by Canales in filling this requisition by a telephone call on March 12 from Muennink, the leadman in the welding booth. The latter reported that he had ordered aluminum rod numbered 5356 and he had sent rods numbered 356 and he could not use them. At this, he, Bearmen, telephoned Laugh- inghouse and told him that he could not put up with this kind of incompetent help any more and was going to do something about it. Later that day, when the packages relating to this order were returned to the main warehouse, he took Canales and showed him and explained to him the welding rod bin, and also showed him the M.R. involved herein, pointing out that it called for a part numbered 5356 and not 356 which he had issued. As to the returned packages, it was Bearmen's testimony that there were 10 packages, each containing 5 pounds of aluminum rod, rather than 5 packages, each con- taining 10 pounds of rod, as Canales testified; and that he examined their markings and found all but one had the num- ber 356 typewritten on a printed label which was placed thereon by the manufacturer, while the remaining one had the number 356 written thereon in pencil, and had also come from the manufacturer in that condition .43 " According to Bearmen, Canales was one of the five such employees at the time in question. " While Bearmen was somewhat evasive at first on whether there had, in the past, been situations, as here, where such errors were brought to his attention, he finally conceded that this was "probable." " Muennink gave corroborating testimony concerning the description of these packages. GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 319 Granting, without deciding, that Canales was to blame for the error in filling this requisition, I am nevertheless satisfied, and find, that Bearmen again exhibited a hastiness in taking disciplinary action against Canales. Thus, he contacted Laughinghouse before he spoke to Canales about the error, just as he had done 3 days before, on March 9, in respect to initiating the reprimand to Canales for the episode during which Canales held his hands in his pockets. This hastiness is further underscored by the fact, as found above, that nei- ther Canales nor any other employee had ever before been reprimanded by Bearmen for making an error in filling an order. In all these circumstances, I conclude, and find, that Bearmen was more concerned with finding fault with Canales than he was in making sure that the conduct involved war- ranted a disciplinary reprimand. g. The session of Canales with management on March 13 at which he received the third reprimand and was terminated As already found, Laughinghouse was told by Bearmen during the afternoon of March 12 about the error by Canales in filling the requisition for aluminum rods earlier that day. He was also told by Bearmen at that time about the error by Canales in filling the requisition for magneto blocks on Feb- ruary 26." Laughinghouse thereupon took this matter to Hutcheson and a decision was made to reprimand Canales and also to terminate him, as this was to be his third repri- mand in a 6-month period. Thereafter, on March 13, at about 10:30 a.m., Canales was brought to Hutcheson's office. Present were Hutcheson, Laughinghouse, and Heilig. A com- posite of the credited testimony of Canales, Hutcheson, and Laughinghouse establishes the following:` Hutcheson told Canales about the fact that he was being reprimanded for errors in filling the two requisitions, that this was the third reprimand in a 6-month period, and that he had no alterna- tive but to terminate Canales.46 At this, Canales jumped up from his seat and in a loud voice accused management of "just trying to throw chickenshit at [him] because they knew [he] was working for the Union." Hutcheson, in turn, denied that he knew anything about Canales' working for the Union and that he did not care "one way or the other." Hutcheson then sought to get Canales to sign both the reprimand and the termination papers but Canales refused. Whereupon, Hut- cheson ordered him terminated. Canales has not worked for Respondent since that time. h. Conclusions It is apparent from my findings above that Respondent's stated reasons for the three reprimands are suspect. Thus, in regard to the first reprimand, Respondent fixed an unreasona- ble amount of time within which Canales should have com- pleted his checking of the engines. And as to the second and third reprimands, Respondent manifested, by the haste with which it proceeded to take action adverse to Canales, that it was more concerned with finding fault with Canales than it was with making sure that his conduct, in fact, warranted a disciplinary reprimand. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that er- rors in filling requisitions, the conduct involved in the third reprimand, had, according to Bearmen, never before called forth a written reprimand. Also significant is the fact that, although Hutcheson indicated to Canales at the time of his discharge that Respondent had no alternative but to dis- " It does not appear that Laughinghouse was aware of this error " Heilig did not testify in this proceeding " I note, however, that the rule in question, set forth in relevant part heretofore, does provide an alternative of suspension for no less than 3 days charge him, the Company rule, which was applied in this manner, also allows for the use of discretion in such cases and for the substitution for discharge of suspension for no less than 3 days. In all these circumstances, including the facts that Canales was active in the Union; that Respondent had knowledge thereof; that, so far as appears, Respondent had, except for these three written reprimands, all administered within one week, not issued a written reprimand to Canales during his tenure of employment of almost 4 years; that Respondent exhibited an union animus, as shown by the unfair labor practices already found herein; and that Canales was terminated in the midst of the Union's organizational campaign, I conclude, and find, that the asserted reason for Canales' termination, i.e., the three written reprimands within a 6-month period, was a pretext to mask Respondent's termination of Canales because of his union activity. I find further that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. The allegation in consolidated Cases 23-CA-3660 and 3671 of the discriminatory discharge of employee Jesse Carmona a. An overview of the events immediately preceding Carmona's discharge and the resulting issue Carmona had three and one half years of employment tenure with Respondent at the time of his discharge on June 4, 1970. For the period since November 1969, he worked in Section 32 where his usual work was the Konverkoting of parts for airplane engines. Louis R. Perkins, Sr., was his foreman and Rubin Rodriguez was his leadman. Rodriguez served as a conduit in relaying Perkins' orders to the em- ployees in this section and was in charge in Perkins' absence. On the critical day, Carmona was assigned by Rodriguez to unload engine parts from carts into the appropriate bins in Section 31, the rework section. Some of those parts were for the bins near the place where employee Julian H. Alvarez was working. While in that vicinity, Carmona and Alvarez en- gaged in conversation. As they were talking to each other, they were observed by Hutcheson, who was then touring the section. According to Hutcheson, he observed them from a distance for 2 or 3 minutes in such conversation. The record shows that he thereupon walked over to them and made inquiry as to what they were talking about; that both of them answered that they were talking about their work, namely, that Alvarez was explaining to Carmona what a reclamation tag looked like and that, when a part had such a tag, it was not to be placed in the bin but was to be returned to Section 32; that Hutcheson accused them of "goofing off," of standing there 2, 3, 4 minutes, and of not, so far as he could see, accomplishing anything; and that he added that if they had any questions about parts in this section, such questions were for the leadman. In this latter connection, Carmona, in effect, conceded that employees were under instructions not to inter- fere with the work of other employees, when, as in his own case, they were in another section; and that if they had any questions about the work, such questions were to be directed to the leadman. The upshot of this episode was a decision by Hutcheson to reprimand Carmona and Alvarez for loafing on the job. However, whether Carmona and Alvarez deserved to be reprimanded for loafing is, in view of subsequent develop- ments, a peripheral matter. Thus, later that day, Perkins, on instructions from Hutcheson, escorted Carmona to Hutch- eson's office. While en route, Carmona engaged Perkins in conversation. According to Carmona, he then said to Per- kins, "Charlie Hutcheson probably have a good reason to take me to his office. Either one of two things going to happen ... I am going to get a reprimand or get fired." Perkins' version was substantially different. According to him, Car- 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mona asked him what this was all about ; his reply was that they would just have to wait and find out when they get to the office; and then , as they continued walking, Carmona said, "Well, I'm going to tell you one thing, it better be good or only one of us is going to walk out of there." Perkins made no reply thereto.47 In Hutcheson's office, as will appear here- inafter in greater detail, Perkins mentioned the above conver- sation after Hutcheson had virtually finished taking up the matter of Carmona's written reprimand and after this had brought forth some criticism by Carmona of Hutcheson and him in their managerial 'roles.45 The discussion between Hut- cheson and Carmona then changed course and dwelt upon whether Carmona had made the remarks attributed to him by Perkins and what he meant by his remarks. The conse- quence of this latter exchange was a decision to discharge Carmona under Rule 43 of the Company 's Rules," for threat- ening supervision . That rule calls for mandatory discharge in situations involving "threatening, cursing, slandering or oth- erwise showing disrespect toward supervision , military, com- pany or customer representatives." The issue then, taking into account the facts that Carmona was active in the Union and that Respondent admits having knowledge thereof, is whether, as contends, it discharged Carmona for uttering a threat in violation of a Company rule, or whether , as General Counsel contends , in effect, the claimed violation of the rule was a pretext to mask Carmona's discharge because of his union activity . I shall now proceed to treat with the signifi- cant aspects of this discharge. b. Carmona 's union activity Carmona, like Canales, was one of those who assisted Fidel Sanchez, the organizer for the Union , in the organizational drive, and helped him in the formulation of an in -plant organ- izing committee and in the selection of committeemen from among the employees. Carmona accompanied Sanchez on visits to the homes of employees in an effort to get them to sign union authorization cards and also turned over signed authorization cards to Sanchez . He attended all regular meet- ings of the Union , as well as the in-plant committee meetings, taking an active part therein. In addition, he was one of the two observers for the Union at the election on April 3. c. The first session in Hutcheson's office on June 4 As already noted , Carmona was escorted to Hutcheson's office by Perkins, at Hutcheson's request . In the office at the time were Hutcheson and Ed Koshina , the production manager. The record establishes that Hutcheson initiated the business at hand by telling Carmona that he was going to give him, as well as Alvarez, a reprimand because they had wasted two minutes of Company time in conversation that morning; and that Carmona denied the accusation , maintaining that Alvarez and he were talking about parts , and refused to sign the written reprimand when he was requested to do so by Hutcheson. At this point, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Hutcheson and Perkins, Carmona became criti- cal of the way he was being treated . According to Perkins, Carmona called him a "sorry foreman" and accused him of cursing people and of conniving ways to get rid of Carmona. According to Hutcheson, Carmona said that he "didn't like °" According to Perkins, they were then "in the midst of the plant and a lot of people." " Perkens' explanation of his timing was, "I didn't tell it to anybody until after Mr. Hutcheson got through with his business. That is what I was called in there for." " There is undenied testimony by Hutcheson that each employee is given a copy of these rules at the time he is hired. the way the foremen had been pushing him, the way [he, Hutcheson] had been cursing people. Both Hutcheson and Perkins agree that Perkins thereupon interrupted, saying, "Charlie [Hutcheson] I have got to tell you something that happened on the way up to the office." After Perkins related his version of the conversation with Carmona, as described heretofore, Hutcheson began to question Carmona about this attribution to him by Perkins. According to Carmona, the exchange between Hutcheson and him was as follows: Hut- cheson asked him whether he had said to Perkins, "this better be good or only one of us is coming out of there." He an- swered that "[he] didn't say it that way."50 Hutcheson then asked him what he meant and he answered that he meant that "one of two things happen every time somebody comes to the office, you get a reprimand or you get fired." He acknowl- edged also that, when asked by Hutcheson, what he meant by the statement attributed to him by Perkins, he answered, "What do you think I meant?", and that he could have been asked the same question a second time and he could have given the same answer. Both Hutcheson and Perkins gave mutually corroborative testimony as to this exchange. Each of them testified that Carmona admitted that he had made the remarks attributed to him; that Hutcheson then asked what Carmona meant thereby; that Carmona answered, what did you think I meant?"; and that the question was put to Car- mona again by Hutcheson and Carmona gave the same an- swer. d. The interlude between the first and second session in Hutcheson's office After the above exchange, Hutcheson asked Perkins to take Carmona to the reception area and stay there with Carmona until called by him. While in that area, Perkins and Carmona had a short conversation. According to Carmona, he said to Perkins, "this is it"; and Perkins replied either "You had it coming," or "if it is, Jesse, it's your own fault." Perkins, on the other hand, testified to the following: Carmona said, "Well, I messed myself up, but good this time," and he an- swered, "Well, Jesse, you have got nobody to blame but yourself." e. The second session in Hutcheson's office At Hutcheson's request, Carmona was brought back to his office. Present during the session were Hutcheson, Perkins, Koshina, Kellenbarger, a personnel man, and Carmona. Ac- cording to Carmona, Hutcheson addressed him and said, referring to some papers, "This is your termination papers- you are no more employed at Gary. Turn in your badge"; in addition, Hutcheson started reading from these papers and said, "We have got you on Article 43, threatening the Com- pany, no respect for the Company." At this, also according to Carmona, he interjected that, if he has no respect for the Company, Hutcheson and others (namely Perkins and Fore- man Schuehle of Section 31) were to blame for having set a bad example by using profane language in front of employees, and he pointed out, in this connection, that Hutcheson had used profanity on one occasion in front of another employee and him during a discussion about his work. Hutcheson then asked him to sign the termination papers but he refused. Both Hutcheson and Perkins also testified as to what occurred at this sessions' Their testimony which was, in large part, mutu- 50 At another point, Carmona said that he answered, "I am not saying that you are saying that." " It was stipulated that, if Koshina were called as a witness, his testimony concerning this session and the first session would be the same as their testimony. GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 321 ally corroborative was as follows: Hutcheson asked Carmona again if he had made the remarks attributed to him by Per- kins, and Carmona answered in the same way as before. At this, Hutcheson told Carmona that he had violated a serious rule of the Company, namely, Rule 43, and read the rule to him. Hutcheson then said that he had no alternative but to terminate Carmona, and handed Carmona the termination papers, asking Carmona to sign them but Carmona refused. f. Conclusions I am persuaded that, if made, the statement attributed to Carmona, namely, "it better be good or only one of us is going to walk out of there," could, in the circumstances, reasonably have been understood to constitute a threat to supervision and, as such, rendered Carmona subject to mandatory dis- charge under Company Rule 43.52 The critical issue here is whether the statement was, in fact, made. Carmona's tes- timony, at first, was to the effect that, after the above remark was attributed to him by Perkins in Hutcheson's office and he was asked by Hutcheson whether he had made the remark, he disavowed making the remark. However, it was his further testimony that he answered, when asked what he meant by the above remark, "What do you think I meant?" Since this answer by Carmona subsumes his having made the remark, it tends to contradict his earlier testimony. In contrast to this seemingly ambivalent testimony is the mutually corrobora- tive testimony of Respondent's witnesses that Carmona first admitted the attribution and then, when asked what he meant thereby, answered, "What do you think I meant?" As this quoted answer by Carmona is a more logical sequitur to an admission than to a disavowal of the attribution, I am per- suaded, and find, on the basis of the logic as well as the probabilities of the situation, that Respondent's witnesses testified more reliably than Carmona and that Carmona did admit making the remark attributed to him by Perkins." In light of the foregoing, it cannot be gainsaid that, at the time of Respondent's decision to terminate Carmona, a valid reason grounded in Carmona's uttering a threat to super- vision in violation of Company Rule 43 existed for taking such action. However, this must be measured against the fact that Carmona was active in the Union, that Respondent was aware thereof, and that Respondent had engaged in other unfair labor practices, as found therein, and manifested thereby an union animus.54 On balance, and particularly as Carmona admitted making the threat to supervision and as Respondent acted consistently with its rules, which had theretofore been made known to Carmona and which man- dated discharge in such a situation, I am satisfied that the record does not preponderate in favor of a finding that Re- spondent discharged Carmona because of his union activity. Accordingly, I conclude, and find, that the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint that Respondent dis- cnminatonly discharged Carmona in violation of Section " Hutcheson testified, in this connection, that the remarks were "to [him] a plain threat toward [a] supervisor," and that "[he] thought it was a very obvious threat " " While I take cognizance of the testimony of Carmona and Perkins as to the short conversation between them during the interval between the first and second sessions in Hutcheson's office that day, I draw no implications adverse to Carmona therefrom and place no reliance thereon in making the above finding Thus, while Carmona, according to his own testimony, appar- ently foresaw that he was headed for discharge, that testimony, as well as Perkins' version of what Carmona said, falls short of an admission by Car- mona that he had made the statement attributed to him " I am not persuaded that the record preponderates in favor of a finding, as contended, in effect, by the General Counsel, that there was a meaningful change of attitude for the worse toward Carmona after the election on April 3, at which he was one of the two observers for the Union 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act have not been sustained by the record." Upon the basis of the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the following conduct which interfered with, re- strained and coerced employees in the exercises of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act: (a) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its employees by attendance at a union meeting. (b) Soliciting the aid of employees to tell other em- ployees to vote against the Union in an upcoming elec- tion. (c) Impliedly threatening employees with plant re- moval or closing down and terminating operations, if the Union prevailed in an upcoming election. (d) Granting benefits to its employees during an or- ganizational campaign by the Union in order to induce them to abandon the Union. (e) Granting benefits to its employees during an organ- izational campaign by the Union and thereafter with- drawing them in order to induce them to abandon the Union. 4. By discharging employee Guadalupe R. Canales on March 13, 1970, because he engaged in union activity pro- tected by the Act, Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not discriminated against employee Jesse Carmona in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act nor has it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in any respect not found herein. IV FINDINGS AS TO THE UNION'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION IN CASE 23-RC-3399 It is apparent from my findings heretofore with respect to the allegations in the amended complaints herein that Re- spondent-Employer contravened the Act during the critical period between the filing of the petition in Case 23-RC-3399 on February 2 and April 3, the day of the election. It neces- sarily follows therefrom that there is merit in those objections by the Union to the above election which have their counter- part in these sustained allegations. Accordingly, I find merit in, and would sustain, objections 1(b) relating to unlawful surveillance, 1(d) relating to threats to close the plant in the event the employees voted in favor of the Union, and 1(e) relating to promises of benefits in order to affect the results of the election, and I also find without merit, and would overrule, objections 1(a) relating to coercive interrogation and 1(c) pertaining to threats of loss of benefits for supporting the Union and/or voting in favor of it, and objection 2 per- taining to the giving of wage increases immediately before the election so as to dissuade employees from voting for the Union. " I find it unnecessary to pass upon, and do not decide, whether Carmona was, in fact, loafing during the morning of the discharge and whether Re- spondent properly sought to reprimand him therefor For, I am satisfied that a finding in the negative on these issues would not derogate from my conclu- sions above that Carmona's discharge did not violate the Act 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There remains for consideration objection 3, which reads as follows: The majority of eligible voters are Spanish speaking Americans, many of whom do not read English. For that reason arrangements were made with the Regional Office to have the Notices of Election prepared in both Spanish and English. Such notices were prepared in both Spanish and English and were sent to the parties with instructions to the Employer that such notices were to be posted in suitable and conspicuous places in and about the Company's property. Nevertheless, the Em- ployer only posted those notices which were printed in English with the results that many employees were de- nied the opportunity to understand the purpose of the election or the assurance contained in the notice that the election was to be a secret ballot election conducted under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board. The record shows that, after entering into the consent elec- tion agreement, the Union, without the knowledge of Re- spondent-Employer or its attorneys, unilaterally requested of a Board agent that election notices be posted in English and in Spanish. Thereafter, in the letter of transmittal from the Regional Director to Respondent-Employer there were in- cluded four election notices in English (except that the sam- ple ballot set forth therein was in both English and Spanish), four election notices in Spanish (except also for the bilingual sample ballot therein), a certificate of posting, and an election check sheet. The latter indicated that two notices were to be posted by Respondent-Employer in suitable and conspicuous places and that two extra notices were to be used in the event of mutilation, loss, etc. Respondent-Employer thereupon posted two of the English election notices in conspicuous places in the plant. Respondent-Employer's explanation for posting only the English notices is that the eight notices sent to it with the letter of transmittal were so arranged that the four English notices were on top and the four Spanish notices were underneath, and that Company officials pulled the top two notices and posted them. In this connection, there is testimony by Bambace, of counsel for Respondent-Employer herein, that, in his capacity as legal representative of Re- spondent-Employer in the election proceedings, he received a copy of the letter of transmittal but it contained no election notice in Spanish; its contents were an election notice in English and an election check sheet. The record also shows that shortly before the election there went out from the Union to all the employees appearing on the list of employees, fur- nished by Respondent-Employer to the Union in accordance with Board directions, a handbill with one side in English and the other side in Spanish, which set forth graphically and in words the mechanics of the election procedures; urged a "yes" vote for the Union; and explained what a "yes" vote means, as follows: You are telling the U. S. Government to certify the UNION. This gives the union the legal right to REPRE- SENT US. It gives all of us the opportunity to work together for better wages-better conditions-and real security. A "YES" vote does not mean you are voting for any person. A "YES" vote is not a vote against the company or your boss. A "YES" vote is a vote for your- self and your fellow workers. In addition, all but three of the eligible employees voted and, of these three, one employee did not vote because he was in the hospital at the time. Further, there is no evidence what- ever of any employee claiming that his ballot, as marked, did not express his true intent. In light of all the foregoing, I am persuaded that the failure of Respondent-Employer to post election notices in Spanish is insufficient ground for sustaining this objection. Thus, Re- spondent-Employer had no advance knowledge that notices in Spanish, as well as in English, had been requested or were being provided; the election notices which were posted did contain a sample ballot in both English and Spanish; the Union's leaflet to its employees explained the mechanics of the election procedures both in English and in Spanish; the vast majority of Respondent-Employer's employees voted, and, so far as appears, no employee who voted has since claimed that his ballot, as marked, did not express his true intent; and the tally of ballots signed by the observers for both parties certified that the election was fairly conducted. It follows therefore, and I am satisfied, that the conditions un- der which the election was conducted were adequate to assure the effective and informed expression by all employees of their true desires.56 Accordingly, I recommend that objection 3 be overruled. Recommendation Respecting the Election As I have found merit in objections 1(b), 1 (d) and 1(e), I find that this objectionable conduct by Respondent- Employer, as well as the unlawful discharge of Canales, all occurring, as they did, subsequent to the Union's filing of its representation petition herein but before the election, were sufficient to taint the atmosphere so that a free and fair elec- tion could not be held. I therefore recommend that the results of this election be set aside and a new election be conducted at a time to be determined by the Regional Director. The Remedy Respecting the Unfair Labor Practices Found Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from and that a broad order issue designed to protect its employees. Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Guadalupe R. Canales, I shall also recommend affirmatively that Respondent offer him im- mediate 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 as a result of the discrimina- tion against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 716. RECOMMENDED ORDER57 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I reccom- mend that: ?4 See, in this connection, Thomas A. Nelson d/b/a Trio Metal Cap Com- pany, 168 NLRB No. 105. " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION A. Respondent, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its employees by attending union meetings. (b) Soliciting the aid of employees to tell other employees to vote against the International Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union, in an up- coming election. (c) Impliedly threatening employees with plant removal or closing down and terminating operations, if the Union pre- vailed in an upcoming election. (d) Granting benefits to its employees during an organiza- tional campaign in order to induce them to abandon the Union. (e) Granting benefits to its employees during an organiza- tional campaign and thereafter withdrawing them in order to induce them to abandon the Union. (f) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or other- wise discriminating against its employees in regard to hire, tenure, or any other condition of employment. (g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to join or assist a union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Guadalupe R. Canales immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or if that job no longer exists, to a 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 as a result of the discrimination practiced against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." 323 (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports and all other records necessary in determining the amount due as backpay. (c) Notify Guadalupe R. Canales, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full rein- statement, upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Service and Training Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Post at its plant in Hondo, Texas, copies of the notice attached, marked "Appendix."58 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being signed by a representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicu- ous 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. (e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here- with.59 (f) It is further recommended that the amended complaints be dismissed insofar as they allege violations of the Act not found herein. " In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board " " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "