Centralia Container Corp.

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Centralia Container Corporation and Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 50, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America.' Case 14-CA-6178 February 29, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On September 7, 1971, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and in opposi- tion to the General Counsel's 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order except as modified herein. 1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating an im- pression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees and by giving those employees the impres- sion that an end of the union problem would enhance their prospects for a wage increase; he also found that the Respondent did not threaten to discharge or in fact constructively discharge employee Myers in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. For the reasons fully expressed in the Trial Examiner's Decision, to which no exceptions were filed, we adopt the Trial Examiner's Decision with respect to the foregoing. 2. The Trial Examiner further held that the Re- spondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by posting and requesting employees to sign a statement in opposition to the Union's objections to conduct affect- ing the results of an election in a related representation case.2 We find merit in the General Counsel's excep- tions to this conclusion. An election was conducted by the Board in the afore- mentioned representation proceeding on February 18, 1971. Thereafter, timely objections to conduct affecting the results of that election were filed by the Charging Party herein. On or about March 1, 1971, Respondent's president, Bernard, made a speech to the assembled employees in which he told them he was posting a statement on the bulletin board which they could sign Hereinafter referred to as the Union of the Charging Party Case 14-RC-6662, not reported in bound volumes of Board decisions if they wished and which he would send to the Board no matter how many signed. The statement, set forth in full in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision, was subsequently posted and thereafter signed by 17 of the approximately 30 employees. Essentially it constitutes a refutation of the Union's objections to the election. As found by the Trial Examiner, in this same speech Bernard went on to say that once the Union matter was disposed of, conditions would or could get better, and that the employees' prospects for wage increases would be enhanced. We have noted above our agreement with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent thereby vi- olated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, inasmuch as this was an implied promise of possible economic benefits once the Union matter was terminated. In the context of such promise, the Respondent's action concerning the statement was unlawful. The offense here lies in Ber- nard's coupling of the posting and the request that the employees sign the statement, with his implied promise of wage increases. Thus, the employees were not only asked to express their views as to the validity of the Union's objections, but they were also asked to sign the statement, eliminate the Union,' and open the door to possible future wage increases. We find no merit in the position that, because here the election had already been conducted, this case is distinguishable from those in which employees were requested to wear tags, buttons, or badges indicating their preference for or against a union! The fact that the statement herein, and the request for employee sig- natures thereon, postdated the election is immaterial for the election results had been challenged by the Union's request for a second election predicated on its objections to which the statement was specifically di- rected. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, it is also of no sig- nificance that, if the Respondent had chosen rather to conduct noncoercive interviews of individual em- ployees as to the truth or falsity of the Union's objec- tions, it would not have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Contrary to the Respondent's argument, Bernard afforded no specific assurance against reprisals, the re- quest was accompanied by a promise of benefit, and the signatures were subject to the inspection of manage- ment, supervisors, and employees alike. In these circumstances, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by posting the state- ment and soliciting- the employees' signatures thereon while promising benefits as a result. ' We see no distinction between an employer's seeking demonstrations of opposition to a union, as against opposition to the Union's objections, under the circumstances here For rejection of the Union's objections would preclude representation by the Union, and signing the statement was tan- tamount to rejection of the Union itself. Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South Carolina, Inc., 170 NLRB 821, Kawneer Company, 164 NLRB 983; BeiserAviation Corporation, 135 NLRB 399; The Chas. V Weise Co., 133 NLRB 765 195 NLRB No. 119 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Centralia Container Corporation and Chauffeurs and ,Helpers, Local No. 50, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America .' Case 14-CA-6178 February 29, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On September 7, 1971, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and in opposi- tion to the General Counsel's 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order except as modified herein. 1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating an im- pression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees and by giving those employees the impres- sion that an end of the union problem would enhance their prospects for a wage increase; he also found that the Respondent did not threaten to discharge or in fact constructively discharge employee Myers in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. For the reasons fully expressed in the Trial Examiner's Decision, to which no exceptions were filed, we adopt the Trial Examiner's Decision with respect to the foregoing. 2. The Trial Examiner further held that the Re- spondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by posting and requesting employees to sign a statement in opposition to the Union's objections to conduct affect- ing the results of an election in a related representation case.' We find merit in the General Counsel's excep- tions to this conclusion. An election was conducted by the Board in the afore- mentioned representation proceeding on February 18, 1971. Thereafter, timely objections to conduct affecting the results of that election were filed by the Charging Party herein. On or about March 1, 1971, Respondent's president, Bernard, made a speech to the assembled employees in which he told them he was posting a statement on the bulletin board which they could sign Hereinafter referred to as the Union or the Charging Party. Case 14-RC-6662, not reported in bound volumes of Board decisions 195 NLRB No. 119 if they wished and which he would send to the Board no matter how many signed. The statement, set forth in full in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision, was subsequently posted and thereafter signed by 17 of the approximately 30 employees. Essentially it constitutes a refutation of the Union's objections to the election. As found by the Trial Examiner, in this same speech Bernard went on to say that once the Union matter was disposed of, conditions would or could get better, and that the employees' prospects for wage increases would be enhanced. We have noted above our agreement with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent thereby vi- olated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, inasmuch as this was an implied promise of possible economic benefits once the Union matter was terminated. In the context of such promise, the Respondent's action concerning the statement was unlawful. The offense here lies in Ber- nard's coupling of the posting and the request that the employees sign the statement, with his implied promise of wage increases. Thus, the employees were not only asked to express their views as to the validity of the Union's objections, but they were also asked to sign the statement, eliminate the Union,' and open the door to possible future wage increases. We find no merit in the position that, because here the election had already been conducted, this case is distinguishable from those in which employees were requested to wear tags, buttons, or badges indicating their preference for or against a union 4 The fact that the statement herein, and the request for employee sig- natures thereon, postdated the election is immaterial for the election results had been challenged by the Union's request for a second election predicated on its objections to which the statement was specifically di- rected. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, it is also of no sig- nificance that, if the Respondent had chosen rather to conduct noncoercive interviews of individual em- ployees as to the truth or falsity of the Union's objec- tions, it would not have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Contrary to the Respondent's argument, Bernard afforded no specific assurance against reprisals, the re- quest was accompanied by a promise of benefit, and the signatures were subject to the inspection of manage- ment, supervisors, and employees alike. In these circumstances, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by posting the state- ment and soliciting the employees' signatures thereon while promising benefits as a result. ' We see no distinction between an employer's seeking demonstrations of opposition to a union, as against opposition to the Union's objections, under the circumstances here. For rejection of the Union's objections would preclude representation by the Union, and signing the statement was tan- tamount to rejection of the Umon itself Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South Carolina, Inc., 170 NLRB 821; Kawneer Company, 164 NLRB 983, BeiserAviation Corporation, 135 NLRB 399, The Chas. V Weise Co., 133 NLRB 765. CENTRALIA CONTAINER CORPORATION 651 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Re- spondent, Centralia Container Corporation, Centralia, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as modified herein: 1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, and reletter 1(b) as 1(c). "(b) Requesting our employees to make public decla- rations of their positions concerning Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 50, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, or any other union." 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Ex- aminer's notice. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency' of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated Federal Law by creating an impression of surveillance of the union activities of our employees and impressing them with the idea that an end of the union problem would enhance their pros- pects for a wage increase: WE WILL NOT create an impression of surveil- lance of your union activities. WE WILL NOT request our employees to make public declarations of their positions concerning Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 50, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other union. WE WILL NOT impress you with the idea that an end of the union problem will enhance your prospects for a wage increase. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union activities. CENTRALIA CONTAINER CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning, this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a pro- ceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as, amended, herein called the Act, was tried before me in Salem, Illinois, on July 7, 1971,' with all parties participat- ing pursuant to due notice upon the complaint' issued by the General Counsel on May 18. The complaint, in substance, alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in that Re- spondent by its president , Louis Bernard, (1) created an im- pression that it was engaging in surveillance of employees' union activities by stating to assembled employees at the plant (a) about January 10 that he knew employees attending a previous union meeting had taken a strike vote, and (b) about January 17 that he knew how the employees as a group had voted at a previous union meeting; (2) on several occa- sions since December 16, 1970 , threatened to discharge an employee unless he stopped supporting the Union; (3) about March 1 , stated to assembled employees that Respondent would post a notice on its bulletin board, which the em- ployees could sign if they agreed that the objections to the representation election filed against Respondent were not true, thereby requiring employees to state publicly their sup- port for Respondent as opposed to the Union; (4) about March 1, promised employee-economic benefits by stating to assembled employees that when the election matters were settled they could expect increased earnings; and (5) in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3), constructively discharged employee John R. Myers about March 5.3 Respondent in its duly filed answer denied engaging in any of the alleged violations. All parties were represented and were afforded an oppor- tunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: All dates hereafter refer to the year 1971 unless otherwise noted. Based on charges filed by Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 50, affi- liated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America , hereafter referred to as the Union, on March 26, May 3, and May 11, respectively. ' During the hearing Respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss par. 5F of the complaint was granted. 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COI4IMERCE Respondent, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, at all times material herein , has main- tained its principal office and place of business in the city of Centralia, Illinois, and has been engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of corrugated boxes and related products. During the year ending December 31, 1970, which is repre- sentative of its operations at all times material herein, Re- spondent in the course and conduct of its business operations manufactured, sold,. and distributed at its Centralia , Illinois, plant products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant directly to points located outside the State of Illinois. Re- spondent admits, and I find , that at all times material herein, that it has been engaged as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material herein the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background On January 25, the Union filed a representation petition4 for an election of a bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. Following an election held on February 18, which the Union lost, it filed timely objections to Respondent's election conduct. On May 12, the Board issued an order setting aside the previous election and directing that a second election be held. On May 25, the Regional Director approved' the Union's request to withdraw its representation petition. B. The Alleged Impression of Surveillance Richard Kirgan, a company employee for the past 4 years, testified that he attended company-sponsored employee meet- ings at the plant about January 13 and 17, respectively, and that Louis Bernard, the company president, addressed the employees at each meeting. At the first meeting Bernard stated he had heard that the employees at a union meeting had voted 9 to 2 to strike and if they did strike he would bring workers in by the busload and the employees could do noth-' ing about it. At the second meeting Bernard stated he had heard that at a union meeting the employees voted 15 to 5 to unionize. John Myers, the alleged discriminatee herein, also testified that Bernard told the employees at the first meeting that they took a strike vote and he knew who' voted for and against it and that at the second meeting he told the em- ployees he knew they voted on unionizing the plant and he knew who voted for and against it.' Bernard testified that he did not recall. telling the assembled employees at the January 10 meeting that he knew how they voted and denied telling them at the January 17 meeting that he knew how they voted. Based on the positive and persuasive manner in which Kirgan testified, corroborated by Myers, as contrasted with Ber- nard's testimony, I credit their testimony. Case 14-RC-6662. Two other employees, Gerald Beniaman and Paul Loepher, who also attended the meetings, testified that they did not recall whether Bernard announced the results of the voting Conclusions Respondent contends that Bernard 's remarks concerning the outcome of the employees' votes at union meetings did not, in fact, create an impression of surveillance of the em- ployees' union activities. Whether or not Bernard's state- ments to the assembled employees had any discernible effect on them, disclosures of this nature, if they tend to create such an impression, restrain and interfere with the rights of em- ployees to self-organization during a union organization cam- paign. I find that the statementsmade by Bernard reasonably tended to create such an impression in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See International Typographical Union, 183 NLRB No. 60; and Precision Products and Controls, 160 NLRB 1119. C. The Alleged Threats to Discharge Myers It appears that Myers was discharged by the Company in December 1970 while he was the plant superintendent.- Dur- ing the following month, he contacted the Union for the pur- pose of organizing the Company's employees and then suc- cessfully solicited union authorization cards from about 25 employees. At the end of January he was rehired by the Company as a shipping clerk. According to Myers, a few days after he was reemployed, Bernard asked him whether he was still pushing the Union, and, when he admitted it, Bernard said, "Well, you know the Company or I'll have to get rid of you if you don't quit pushing the Union." Two or three days later Bernard told him the same thing after stating that he (Myers) was getting into a lot of trouble in connection with his debts. On a third occasion he approached Bernard while he was talking on the phone to the Company's St. Louis office about the Union. Bernard interrupted his telephone conversa- tion to ask him if he wanted the Union. When he replied that he did; Bernard told him he would let the Union in but would get rid of him. Bernard denied ever telling Myers to stop pushing the Union, otherwise he would have to get rid of him and stated that he did speak to him on two or three occasions in connection with calls he had received from Myers' credi- tors about his debts but never spoke to him about any union activities. Bernard testified further with regard to Myers' activity concerning the Union as follows: In December 1970 Myers visited his home and, after stating that he had been offered a $500 fee to swing the union election, he, asked Bernard whether he would match the fee to swing the election either way. Bernard refused to consider the proposal and stated he was confident that the employees would reject the Union as they had done on several prior occasions.' Myers testified that he could not remember having approached Bernard at his home and telling him he could control the election either way and denied ever asking him for $500 to sway the election either way. Conclusions Myers' inability to recall visiting Bernard's home for the purpose attributed to him by Bernard hardly suffices to rebut Bernard's corroborated testimony, which I credit. As a result of that incident, Bernard undoubtedly became aware of My- ers' deep involvement in the Union's prospects. It also would not be unreasonable to assume that the rejection of his proposal influenced Myers to cast his support in favor of the Union. Thus, it appears that soon thereafter Myers initiated the campaign to organize the plant and became its most active 6 Bernard's former wife corroborated his testimony. CENTRALIA CONTAINER CORPORATION 653 adherent.' When Myers was rehired as a shipping clerk in February, Bernard in all probability had some intimation of his union support. 'In these circumstances it would appear unlikely that after rehiring Myers, Bernard would question him about his union support and threaten to discharge him for it. Based on these factors and a distrust of Myers' credibil- ity, I credit Bernard's denial that he either questioned or threatened to discharge Myers. D. Bernard's Request to the Employees To Sign the Statement Repudiating the Election Objections Filed by the Union andpHis Alleged Promise of Economic Benefits ,It is undenied that about March 1, following the election, Bernard in a speech to the assembled employees told them that he was posting a statement on the bulletin board which they could sign if they wished and that he would send it to the Board regardless of how many signed. The statement subsequently posted and signed by 17 employees stated as follows: I was employed at Centralia Container Company, and voted in the election held February 18, 1971. I have read the charges (Case 14 RC 66,62) against my employer, and I find no truth in any of the accusations made by the Teamsters Union. Mr. Bernard openly stated in several of his speeches that he was giving us plenty of time to discuss this with Mr. Nitkis [sic] or anyone else of the teamsters Union, in order that they (the Teamsters) may respond to any of his statements. I had plenty of time to discuss anything prior to the election. I therefore con- sider that this was a very fair election, and at no time did I receive any promises of increased wages, nor did Mr. Bernard state that he would only agree to a contract such as Tiffany Industries had in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, nor did he state that they would close the plant in Cen- tralia, nor that wages paid here were the same as any competitors in St. Louis. Kirgan testified that, at this meeting, Bernard also told the employees that upon signing the posting everything would return to normal and if things got better he would raise the wages of the lower paid employees up to the level of the higher paid employees. According to employee Gerald Benja- man, who also attended the meeting, Bernard stated that when the whole mess was out of the way and settled (referring to the Union) and business improved, 'then wages would be increased. Myers testified that Bernard,told the employees at the meeting that, when the whole thing was over with, refer- ring to the Union, there would be more money and the em- ployees could talk to him individually about higher wages. Bernard asserted all he said was that due to the lack of business they could not afford any pay raises until things improved. Conclusions The General Counsel contends that, by complying with the request to sign the posting, the employeeswho did so thereby publicly declared their support for Respondent as opposed to the Union, whereas those who declined to sign impliedly evidenced their support for the Union and a second election. Respondent claims that, by signing or declining to sign the posting, the employees merely commented on whether the election was fairly held and not on their union positions. The General Counsel cites Garland Knitting Mills' and BeiserAviation Corp.' in support of his position. In these cases the employees were requested prior to an election to wear a tag or card declaring themselves for the Union, which the Board held to be coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(1). I find these cases to be inapposite . In the instant case, the election had been held, and an employee could have disagreed with the Union over its objections without necessarily revealing his union support. Furthermore, had Bernard uncoercively inter- viewed each employee individually as to the truth or falsity of the Union's objections1Qin preparing his defense to the objections, for which he intended to use the posting, it would not have constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Moreover, according to Kirgan, the employees regarded the statement as a means of terminating the conflict over the Union which they were all tired of and wanted to forget. I accordingly conclude that General Counsel has failed to establish that Bernard's request to the employees to sign the posted state- ment constituted a violation within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As for the alleged promise of benefits, the record contains testimony that Bernard tied a wage increase to a disposition of the union affair, that it was tied to an improvement in Respondent's business, and that it was tied to both contingen- cies. I find that Bernard coupled the termination of the union problem with wage increases dependent on business improve- ment and that the employees so construed it. There was no apparent compelling business purpose for doing so unless Bernard desired to impress the employees with the idea that an end of, the union problem would enhance their prospects for a wage increase. Moreover, this impression was given at a time when the Board had to determine whether or not to set aside 'the first election and direct a second election. I accordingly conclude that Bernard's statement about wage increases violated Section 8(a)(1) because it contained an implied promise of possible economic benefits once the union matter was terminated. E. The, Alleged Constructive Discharge of Myers The evidence relating to the circumstances leading up to Myers' termination of his employ at Respondent on March 12 and beginning work on March 15 for Lear-Siegler, another employer in Centralia, Illinois, abounds with contradictions. Myers' version of these circumstances is as follows: About March-1 Bernard summoned him to his office and told him that Credit Thrift of America, Inc., had filed a wage assign- ment against him and stated, "Now I have got a legitimate reason to fire you," to which Myers replied,"Go ahead, if that is what you want to do, if you think that is a legitimate reason." Bernard then commented that Plant Superintendent Sharp wanted to keep him because he was a good worker and said, "I just want to go ahead and fire you." At this point Sharp appeared after being summoned by Bernard and joined the conversation. Bernard then remarked that Myers had a Babe Nitka (the union organizer) attitude, and he thought that he ought to go ahead and fire him. He (Myers) then left Bernard's office and returned to his work in the plant. The next day Sharp came into the plant and told him he, thought they were going to fire him. A day or two later (about March 4 or 5), Sharp told him that Bernard had talked to Lear- Siegler about a job for him, that he should go there for an interview, and that he had no choice. He then went to Lear- ' According to Clement A Nitka, a union representative, Myers con- tacted him about organizing the plant and thereafter successfully solicited about 25 union authorization cards, and was responsible for 99 percent of the campaigning 170 NLRB 850. 135 NLRB 399. 10 The objections were not offered in evidence, nor was it shown that the employees were in a position to pass on the truth or falsity of all the objections. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Siegler for an interview and accepted the job. The following day he filled out an employment application for Lear-Sie- gler." ,He then advised Sharp that he was going to work for Lear-Siegler but would continue for another week on the job until Sharp could replace him. According to Sharp he 'attended part of the meeting with Bernard and Myers ; Bernard said he had received several calls from Myers' creditors, in particular one from Credit Thrift, and asked Myers whether he was going to take care of them; Myers said he would when he could; no reference was made during the conversation relative to discharging Myers; and about 2 weeks before Myers left the Company he asked whether he could use him (Sharp ) as a reference. Sharp also denied that he ever brought up the matter pertaining to Lear-Siegler as testified to by Myers. Bernard corroborated the testimony of Sharp concerning the conversation with Myers and testified further that about March 25 he received a telephone call from John E. Harrison, Jr., the treasurer of Lear-Siegler, concerning a Larry Swartz- lander, whom they had to discharge; that Harrison said he was interested in finding a job for Swartzlander and suggested that Bernard hire him; that he (Bernard) then recalled that Sharp had told him Myers was going to work for Lear-Sie- gler; and that he mentioned it to Harrison , adding that he (Myers) was a very good worker. Conclusions The General Counsel contends that Respondent , desirous of getting rid of Myers because of his union support, gave him no choice but to quit his job and accept employment at Lear- Siegler in view of his repeated threats to fire him. Respondent claims that, prior to the March 1 meeting with Bernard and Sharp,'Myers had decided to quit his job and had already made arrangements for employment at Lear-Siegler and that, accordingly, he was not, in fact, forced to quit but did so voluntarily. In appraising the evidence as to what transpired immedi- ately before, at, and after the March 1 meeting, Myers' indeci- siveness and vagueness as to the dates of the events during this period leave much to be desired . It appears that his application for employment at Lear-Siegler dated March 1 was filed on that day. According to his testimony , he filed it the day after being interviewed at Lear-Siegler . Inasmuch as February 28 was a Sunday, his alleged interview would have occurred on Friday, February 26. The complaint states he was constructively discharged about March 5. According to his own testimony he continued on the job for another week until March 12, to give Sharp time to obtain a replacement for him . It appears unlikely that an employee who is being forced to quit under hostile circumstances would be so con- siderate of his employer as to give him a week's time to hire a replacement, especially when he already had obtained em- ployment elsewhere. Such consideration would more likely be given by an employee who was voluntarily leaving his job under amicable conditions. It also appears that about 2 weeks before Myers left Respondent 's employment he asked Sharp whether he could use him as a reference on his application to Lear-Siegler, which would place that request prior to the March 1 conversation. Also, in Bernard's conversation with Harrison, which took place on February 25, he mentioned that one of his employees, a good worker, had made arrange- ments to work for Lear-Siegler. I also find it significant that even in Myers' testimony regarding his, conversation- with Bernard, there was no reference to the Union as a cause for getting rid of him. The foregoing observations are consistent with, and support, Respondent's position that Myers volun- tarily decided to quit sometime prior to the date of the alleged constructive discharge. In addition, I was neither convinced nor impressed by Myers' uncorroborated testimony ` concern- ing this conversation. I, therefore, conclude that the General Counsel has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that Myers was constructively discharged because of his union support rather than for some other undisclosed reason. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, occurring,in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,- and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev- eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all times material herein, the Company has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. At all times material herein, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By creating an impression of surveillance of the union activities of the employees and giving them the impression that an end of the union problem would enhance their pros- pects for a wage increase, the Company interfered with and restrained the employees within the meaning, and in viola- tion, of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Except as found above, the Company has not engaged in any other unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:12 ORDER Respondent, Centralia Container Corporation , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Creating an impression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees and impressing them with the idea that an end of the union problem would enhance their pros- pects for a wage increase. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with , coercing, and restraining its employees in the exercise of their statutory rights within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 1' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of Subsequent to the close of the hearing , Respondent moved to admit the the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the application in evidence, which had been identified as Resp Exh. 1 during findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in the hearing but inadvertently not offered in evidence By order of July 23, Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and the exhibit was admitted in evidence , excluding however any handwritten become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall notations not in the handwriting of Myers be deemed waived for all purposes. CENTRALIA CONTAINER CORPORATION 655 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Centralia, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. " 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 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF "Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN OR- the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD." herewith."