Gertz

718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Allied Stores of New York, Inc., d/b/a Gertz and United Storeworkers, Retail Wholesale and De- partment Store Union, AFL-CIO. Case 29-CA-2400 June 19, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On February 24, 1972, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority 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 brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner on October 12, 1971, and, after a continuance, on January 13, 1972, on complaint of the General Counsel against Allied Stores of New York, Inc., d/b/a Gertz, herein called the Respondent or the Compa- ny. The complaint issued on July 22, 1971, based on a charge filed May 24, 1971. The sole issue of the case is whether the Respondent engaged in conduct which restrained and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Respondent, a New York State corporation, is engaged in the operation of retail department stores in various counties of the State of New York, including the County of Queens in the city of New York. During the past year, a representative period, the Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 in the course of its business. During the same period, it purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its Queens County places of business clothes, furniture, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were delivered to those locations in interstate commerce directly from States other than the State of New York. I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find that United Store Workers, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Setting of the Case In the spring of 1971, the Union started an organization- al campaign among the sales persons in the Respondent's Jamaica department store. The total employee complement there is about 1,500 and the Union sought to represent a unit of 607 employees. It filed a petition requesting a Board-conducted election on March 30, and on May 6 the Regional Director issued a Direction of Election schedul- ing the balloting for May 27. Over a 2-day period-May 12 and 13-Paul Dowd, the company president, read a prepared speech to all the employees included in the proposed bargaining unit, calling them in groups of about 30 or 40 into a conference room for that purpose. The purpose of his talk was to convey the thought that they should not vote for union representation. Dowd gave similar talks, again reading from a prepared text, on May 24 and 25. The election was not held as scheduled because the Union withdrew its petition and filed unfair labor practice charges against the Respondent instead. The major allegation of the complaint is that, in the prepared statements Dowd read to the employees, he unlawfully interfered with their freedom to engage in self- organizational activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. There are also more detailed allegations that Dowd departed from his prepared talks, adding intimidating statements, and that in three instances minor supervisors said things to individual employees which tended to coerce them unlawfully in violation of the statute. All the allegations of wrongdoing are denied by the Respondent. B. Formal Speeches by the President Dowd testified he read precisely the same speech-writ- ten in advance-six times on May 12 and six times on May 13; what he said he read was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. He also testified he did exactly the same thing about 2 weeks later, again reading from a prepared written document six times on May 24 and seven 197 NLRB No. 114 GERTZ times on May 25; this talk was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The exhibits read as follows: May 12 and 13 Talk Many of you have asked me when I would answer some of the claims which the union has been making, and when I would discuss the issues and facts concerning this election. That time is now. On Thursday, May 27th, you will be called upon to make one of the most important decisions of your working life. You must decide whether you will continue to work in the free atmosphere of our Jamaica store or whether you want to turn in your freedom-to surrender to a union the present independence you enjoy working directly with your Supervisors and myself. While the union would have you feel that everything is very complicated, the question at hand is very simple. You will be asked on a secret ballot, "Do you wish to be represented by the United Storeworkers Union," YES or NO. An "X" in the "NO" box will say that you do not need a union to speak for you. During this election campaign I am going to ask you to consider all the facts of the various issues. The facts concerning your job and working relationships as they now exist, contrasted to the very real disadvantages a union can bring. Let us consider some of these facts right at the outset. Consider the fact that the usual technique of paid union organizers and their adherents is to make big claims regarding pay, benefits and supposed job security. During an election campaign, such claims are very easy to make, but delivering on them after the campaign is another matter. Consider the fact that if a union represents you, they still cannot guarantee anything. The union and our store would be required to bargain in good faith, but there is no requirement that the store agree to anything which is not sound business management. And also consider the fact that if the store in good faith does not accede to the union's requests, the union can only agree, reduce their demands or call you out on strike. I would also like you to consider that a union brings with it a new set of bosses from outside out store, whose primary interest is that of the entire union, not that of you as a human being. Think about it-Do you want people who are employees of the union to have authority over you and your working life? With union and union contracts you may be subject to strike call and picket or demonstration duty, even though you personally may not favor the purpose of the strike or of the demonstration. You may be required to do picketing or organizing work at companies where you have no interest at all. How would you like that? You must seriously consider why this group of paid outside organizers has again chosen you as a target for their organizing tactics. First, let's look at a little history. This same union has been trying to organize our store for more than 6 years. In November of 1967 719 the Sales Associates of our store, and most of those Associates are still here today, dramatically rejected this union by an overwhelming majority. The results of that election were 428 for the Company and only 119 for the Union. Despite this resounding defeat, the paid union organizers are back again haranguing all of us with their endliss propaganda leaflets. Ask yourself why they are here again, and why they have such great interest in you? The union organizers are primarily interested in what you can do for them. A union has one primary source of income-dues money. Your money for special assessments, your money for union fines, your money for union dues. That is what you can do for them and that is what they want from you. The more members a union has, the more dues it can collect, and your dues are what it needs to pay its officers and organizers, to pay for the rent on its offices, and to pay the salaries of its own employees who do not even work side by side with you. This union is desperate for more dues money. Early in 1969, the union lost 1,300 dues paying members which represents lost income of about $75,000 a year when the Stern's 42nd Street store was closed perma- nently due to its unprofitability. Over the past 10 years this union has been unable to convince any overall group of department store Sales Associates that it would be in their best interest to vote for union representation. This union lost elections at Stern Brothers, Paramus, in 1960 and again in 1965. And just one month ago this union was once again rejected by the Associates at Stern Brothers, Paramus, in two separate elections. Both the Sales and Sales Supporting Associates voted NO to the proposition of union representation. You can see this union has an unenviable record of lost elections and store closings and now I trust you can better understand how desperately they need dues money to keep them going. A union thinks in terms of groups, not individuals, because, and make no mistake about this, a union is big business and must make a profit from you to continue to exist. I know there are some among you who feel that the union will help you, and that you are sincere in'that opinion. Yet, many of those who are speaking for the union are people who have personal ambitions because they want to be the shop stewards and represent the union on the job. In this way, they become bosses between you and your Supervisor. Do you realize that under a union shop steward system you would have to present your questions and problems normally raised with your Supervisors to the shop stewards first. They would be free to decide in their own judgment if your problem or question should be taken up with Management. Do you really want another party to decide if your problems, whether job related or of a highly personal nature, are worthy to be presented to your Management? Just think if this were the case, you in the Jamaica sales group would be alone in this respect. Your Associates in Sales Supporting and 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Associates in all the other stores would have the open door to Managment. But to the union you are just another source of monthly dues for their treasury. We strive to see that each one of your Supervisors prides himself or herself on the relationship they enjoy with each of you. With a union on the scene your Supervisors will be restricted from talking to you personally about the terms and conditions of your employment . With a union, you will lose your identity as a human being. You all know that the economy has not been going so well lately. The newspapers have been full of stories of layoffs and unemployment statistics. You know that Long Island has been especially hard hit by the increased unemployment. In times such as these, the retail business suffers greatly. But you really know that because you have seen it in our business, day in and day out for many months. Our business has suffered . 1970 was the first time in many years Gertz Long Island that the Company lost money. We lost about Three Quarters of a Million Dollars. Unfortunately, I must report that for the first Quarter ending in April we are behind in sales in Jamaica alone over $522,000. Yet, in spite of what I just told you, we have continued to grant substantial merit increases and have improved your benefits . As I said in my March letter to you, we felt we must face up to our responsibility to all of you, and I believe we have. Notwithstanding what the union would have you believe, we have made many improvements since 1967. You know I have personally written to all Gertz Associates on three separate occasions announcing benefit improvements. Your merit increases over the past three years have far exceeded any previously given by the store. This year the amount of money granted in salary increases to non-Supervisory Associates amounted to about Three Quarters of a Million Dollars. The union has been talking out of both sides of its mouth. First, they would have you believe that we have made no improvements in wages and benefits. When confronted with the facts they turn around and try to take credit for our past good relationship and improve- ments we have made in wages and benefits over the years. They infer that you are only getting attention now because of them but you know you have always been important to me and the Management of this store. I know you will not be misled by such union propaganda. With expenses increasing as I have pointed out, we need everyone of us pulling together as a team to serve our customers and to fight for sales. To bring a union in at a time like this can only be disruptive for you, for our business, for all of us. A union cannot bring customers into our store to buy. In fact, with their disruptive tactics they can hurt our business. An example of such disruption is that the union trying to divide up the store for their own purposes by having an election for Sales Associates only. Why not let all Jamaica Associates vote in the election. Just think, how difficult it could be to operate the store with only part of it unionized . We certainly ought to be all one team working together to serve our customers. Another example of disruption is the reports we have received from Associates complaining about threats made by union adherents. People have actually been threatened with loss of their jobs if they don't sign union cards now. This happened just last week. An Associate is told-if you don't sign up with us now and we win the election, we'll see that you lose your job. This is immoral, it is unethical and it is illegal and as President of this store, I personally assure you I would never allow this to happen. I am very disappointed to hear about some of the people who are making threats. This union claims that it will bung you job security. They cannot ! You know that job security comes from our customers purchases and from nothing else. Union contracts, in fact, always contain clauses providing for layoffs. No matter how many claims they make, no union can guarantee you job security. Where was this union's job security for the 1,300 dues paying employ- ees at Stern's 42nd Street? During the coming weeks, I will present many more facts to you. I will be available as always for any of you to talk with me, ask me questions , and discuss your feelings. I ask each of you to consider all the facts very carefully-the facts of your job, of your job security, of your wages, of your discount, of your vacations, of your total benefits package, of the pleasant work atmosphere and the working relationships you have with your Supervisors who understand and are sympa- thetic to your problems . You know it has always been my policy for me to be available to talk with you and listen to you. You know , too, that I give you answers, that I make decisions with you , that I change things which need changing, and that I am concerned about you as a human being. With a union, that personal relationship ends, it becomes mechanical and only the union leadership, whom most of you have never met, speaks for you. I am sincere when I say that you must make your decision based on what is best for you, your family and our store. Best for you not yesterday , not today, not just tomorrow, but best for you for as long as you are a part of Gertz-Jamaica. How you vote is entirely your personal choice. I do urge every eligible Associate to vote as the outcome of the election will be determined by the majority of those who actually vote and not the majority of those eligible to vote. So please vote. I am completely convinced and feel very deeply that after you have considered all the facts of your job as compared to the problems the union can bring, you will vote "NO"-that you do not want or need a union in our store. Thank you for your attention and have a pleasant day. GERTZ May 24 and 25 Talk This is my final opportunity to talk to you prior to the election this Thursday. I know you all recognize the importance of this election-the importance to your- selves, to your family and to our store. I have been working with you for almost 7 years and I must say they have been the most interesting, challenging and rewarding years of my entire career. It has been a great experience working with you to serve our customers better, to overcome problems, to create a spirit of teamwork and mutual respect. This has been deeply satisfying to me. Together, I feel we have developed a unity of purpose, a oneness. I hope you feel as I do. This brings me to the issue facing all of us in this election. As we have discussed, this union has been trying to organize our store for some 6 years now. So far, they have been unsuccessful and on Thursday, you will again be faced with a decision, to vote for your beliefs. Please weigh carefully and decide whether this union is trying in this store of ours, to create an air of disunity, dissatisfaction, an atmosphere of divisiveness. Gertz is a great store, well-respected in our commu- nity, and has grown because of the combined efforts of each person who has been a part of it from the days of the Gertz family. Thursday you will be asked to decide whether we will continue to work in close harmony with one another in order to carry on the great job that has been achieved here for many years or whether we will now relinquish our independence to outsiders who lack the proper concern for our ultimate welfare. As I have walked about the store, some of you have asked me some questions regarding this union. I have been asked for example, how am I so well-acquainted with the workings of the union. My answer to that question is that just as in tackling any problem, I felt obliged to be well-informed before expressing opinions about this union. So, among other steps, I have studied the terms of the constitution of this union. Here is a copy. Let me read to you several sections of this union's constitution so that you may better understand how it operates. In 1967, when this union was overwhelmingly rejected in an election in this store, their constitution and by-laws contained the following language: Every member is obliged to attend membership meetings . . . Members absent from a meeting shall be required to pay a fine of $1.00 for every such absence. Article C, Section 1.A of the present constitution provides: Every member is obliged to attend membership meetings. Members attending such meetings shall be credited with $1.00 towards monthly dues. [I understand their dues went up in the interim.] Whether they call it a fine or a credit-the effect is still the same. You must attend union meetings or else it costs you money. To illustrate just how this union is interested in 721 collecting dues money from you, let me quote several other sections of their constitution: Parenthetically (Remember in a recent letter from the union you were told that you had been hearing a lot of nonsense about dues. Well here is where it came from-the Union's Constitution.) Article C, Section 2.B: 1. A member who is in arrears on Inspection Day for more than one month shall not be regarded as in good standing (apparently, that is the day a dues book is inspected by the shop steward). He or she shall be notified by mail and within two weeks shall pay all dues owed and $1.00 arrears fee. 2. A member who has lost good standing and who, after written notice by registered mail to his or her last known address, remains delinquent for more than five(5) days after receipt of registered mail shall stand automatically suspended and, if employed in a Union or agency shop, shall be obliged to leave thejob. 3. A member who has been suspended may be re-instated after payment of all of his financial obligations and a re-instatement fee of twenty ($20.00) dollars. As a real life example of how this union has enforced the collection of dues money without regard to the individual, consider the case of a Stem's 42nd Street employee. The following letter was written by this union to the Management of Stern's 42nd Street: Quote: "The contract between Stern's and Dis- trict 65 provides that employees must be members of the union in good standing. To date, Miss Carter in the Addressograph Department has failed tojoin the union and has stated she will not belong to the union. Also, Barbara Rivera in the office division has failed to put herself in good standing. "Therefore, the union is requesting that both be removed from the payroll." Unquote. As a result of this union letter, Stern's was forced to fire Miss Carter. No further comment is necessary. Another section of this union's present constitution reads: Article C, Section 3.B Every member is obliged to comply with strike and strike support decisions of the Membership and all terms of Union contracts. Whether or not you personally voted against the strike at your store, you could be forced to follow the union leader's strike orders. I have been asked how the election is conducted. Agents from the Labor Board will supervise the voting. At the polling booths, they will have a table and paper ballots. You will be handed a blank ballot and told to step into a closed voting booth. In the privacy of this booth you will mark your ballot and fold it. The ballot will ask, "Do you want to be represented by the United Storeworkers Union?" If you put an "X" in the box marked "NO", it means you do not want the union. Upon leaving the booth, you will place the ballot 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD into a sealed ballot box. No one will ever know how you voted. Assisting the Labor Board Agents will be associates designated as Company observers and associates designated as Union observers. Now let me re-emphasize: This is a secret ballot election-NO ONE will ever know HOW YOU VOTED. The majonty of those who do vote will determine the outcome for all associates eligible to vote. It is very important that you vote. I emphasized this when I spoke to you last but it is necessary to repeat it again. Don't let someone else decide for you. Please make it your business to vote. In this regard some of you have asked, "If I signed a union card in the past, must' I vote for the union?" Absolutely not! Signing of a union card is merely an indication of temporary intent and can be cancelled at any time. The signing of union cards does not bind anyone to vote for the union in this election. You must decide what is best for you-and use that secret ballot to vote that way in the voting booth. Another question asked: "If the umon wins the election, must I join the union?" We have never attempted to suggest to anybody at Gertz that they would have to be a member of any club, group, church or association in order to work here. However, we are told that this question of whether we would have to have a umon shop is one that we would have to negotiate IF the umon should win the election. We assume that this umon would want to force you to join in order that they right have your dues and complete control of your working affairs. Even the President of this union said in one of his letters to you: "Of course, you will pay dues if the union wins." Another question which has been asked of me is: "If the umon loses the election, will the store fire all those employees who have signed union cards?" You know the answer. It is NO-of course not. We had a union election in our store before. For example, after the election of 1967, not one Gertz associate was fired or penalized because of umon activity. Some are still working in our store. The information about who signed union cards is known only to the National Labor Relations Board and to the umon. That is confidential information and we have no knowledge of it-nor are we interested. It is not important who signed union cards because we have always believed that if the majonty of the associates have the facts, they will vote against the union. Our past history affirms this. This is the last time I will speak to you as a group. I wish to express to you my appreciation for your attentiveness and for your patience in listening to me. I really enjoy being with you and rather feel that we ought to get together like this more often but not on this subject. I'm sure you share my feelings of "Thank goodness that Thursday is the election, and we can all get back to business very soon." In conclusion, I have three requests: 1. Consider carefully all that you have heard and read. 2. Be sure that you do vote. 3. I ask you-to vote NO. Thank you for your attention, and once the election is behind us, have an enjoyable holiday weekend. At the hearing Dowd explained that he interpolated four times in the course of his first speech. He detailed them as follows: (1) At one point he had occasion to say "We strive to see that each one of your Supervisors prides himself or herself on the relationship they enjoy with each of you." He added to this sentence the phrase: "We don't always bat 1,000." (2) The written talk says employees had been threatened with loss of their jobs, had been told by solicitors ". . . if you don't sign up with us now and we win the election, we'll see that you lose your job." The speech went on to say Dowd thought such conduct was unethical and illegal. Dowd testified that one day, as he was going to the meeting room in the store, an employee told him she had been so threatened. He then told the employees waiting to hear his talk and to the later groups, that an employee -whom he did not name-had that very day complained to him on the subject. (3) At another point, the prepared speech says that Dowd had always been available personally to hear employee requests, and would remain so. He added, off the prepared text, that he did what he did in such cases "if it is within my power." (4) Lastly, he added as an introductory comment to his last talk, in the evening, because now he was talking to part-time employees also: "You are a very important part of the store." As to the second speech, given on May 24 and 25, Dowd had heard before starting that the Union had filed, or was about to file, charges against the Respondent , and that therefore the election scheduled for May 27 might not be held. He therefore prefixed that speech with the comment that although the election might be put off, he was going to give the speech anyway. With these sole changes, Dowd testified unequivocally that he spoke to the employees the words as they appear on the two exhibits, with no other variations. He was convincingly corroborated by Kevin Tubridy, the vice president for personnel, who was present at every one of the many employee meetings. I credit Dowd. Four employees were called by the General Counsel in support of the complaint, and each of them conceded Dowd was reading from a prepared text. Two of them-Francis Tompkins and Ruth Barnes-put other words in the president's mouth. Tompkins quoted Dowd as saying, . . how the store cannot afford to have a umon come in with the possibility of the store closing if the union did come in," and that if "the union get [sic] in , that we'll be starting from scratch...." According to Barnes, Dowd said that the store would "disintegrate," and that the Union would "force" the employees to strike. Barnes admitted she was recalling the "gist" of the remarks, that she did not really remember the "words" that were spoken, that Dowd spoke as she remembered or "some words to that effect." Apart from an understandable interest these GERTZ witnesses must have , in the case, it is to be expected that they would paraphrase what they heard. Against the documents received in evidence, and their admission that the president was reading whatever he uttered, I must deem their recollection unreliable against Dbwd's direct testimony. I find unconvincing the General Counsel's contention that apart from any other consideration, the text of Dowd's written statements was per se coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1). The brief points to one, and only one, thought expressed by Dowd and characterizes it as a threat to deprive the employees of their statutory rights in retaliation if they decided to be represented by the Union in collective bargaining. Dowd explained how, when there is a union in the picture, "problems normally raised with your Supervisors" must be presented to the employer through the union steward, and not by individual employ- ees discussing their grievances directly with management. He called this a concession by the workers of authority over their "working life" to union agents. Dowd also reminded the employees of his past practice of talking with any one of them who brought his problems to him personally, and then added "that personal relationship ends" when replaced by collective bargaining under the law. The theory of illegality here urged is that because the provisos to Section 9(a) of the Act say that employees have a right to bring grievances to the employer so long as any adjustments made are consistent with an existing union contract, and so long as umon agents are permitted to be present, Dowd was that day threatening to deprive his employees of parties, viewed in the aggregate, do not establish the principle as a rule of law in every case. Each of the three cases cited by the General that statutory right. The decisional precedents cited by the opposing Counsel in support are divided decisions by Board panels, always with a dissent on the point in question. Saticoy Meat Packing, 182 NLRB 713; Winn-Dixie Stores, 166 NLRB 227; and Graber Manufacturing, 158 NLRB 244. And in each of these cases, the statement about direct dealing with the employer appeared in a context of other, more pervasive unfair labor practices, outright discharges, interrogations, threats of discharges, etc. And Henry I. Siegel, 172 NLRB 825, in which a three-member panel agreed, dealt with an employer respondent whose history of unfair labor practices was such as to reduce virtually every word he uttered to an implied threat. In contrast to the above, the Board found the following statement a protected expression of opinion: ". . . if the Union came in, the employees would have to go to a umon man . . . for adjustment of their problems." Skirvin Hotel, 142 NLRB 761. There the Board characterized the statement as "no more than a lawful prediction that if the Union were selected as the representative of the employees, the employees would have to work through their union representative in resolving their grievances." Accord: Worzalla Publishing Co., 171 NLRB 219, where the statement was that "employees would no longer be able to discuss gripes and troubles directly with management if the union got into the plant," although the employer had in the past "done everything possible to find jobs for employees 723 in other departments when work was slow, and had given valuable advice and assistance to employees." The Board found nothing wrong with that statement . And finally, there is Bostich Division of Textron, 176 NLRB 377, on which the Respondent here relies in its brief . The statement said to be illegal there read as follows: Up until now, you had the right to speak for yourself and settle with us personally any problems you have had. But if this Union were to get in here , this freedom and this right would be taken away from you and placed in the hands of the Union. And, who would be the stewards and committee people who would handle your affairs? Look around you and see who is active in pushing the Union. Are they individuals whom you consider capable of handling your problems , and into whose hands you would be willing to entrust your business and your affairs. The Board said these words did no more than state "a fact of industrial life." The written talks read by Dowd were obviously prepared by the Respondent's counsel, and on this point they remarkably parallel the speech appraised in Bostich. But if an employer may not look to a Board decision itself for guidance as to what it may or may not say to its employees , where can it look? That the very purpose of union life is to replace individual dealings between employees and management with group collective negotiations through employee spokesmen and the Company has been said too often to require citation of authority now. Significantly, the Union, which filed the charge, elected not to file a brief and argue that the employees must be reassured of their right to bypass an exclusive bargaining agent. There is no question in my mind that Dowd was not threatening anyone, but only reminding the employees of the substantive meaning of collective bargaining, and this is how the employees understood him. Beyond this, Dowd made clear he thought collective bargaining is not a desirable procedure and certainly urged the employees to vote against the Union ; he has a right to express these views . He read part of the Union's constitu- tion to them, on the subject of dues payments and membership obligations in the event of strikes, at this or any other location . There is no contention he misread the document. Discourse on why the many pages and many phrases appearing in the two speeches were not coercive could be unending, but would serve no useful purpose here. It is only when words spoken by management agents to employees do illegally interfere with their protected rights that analytical comment is justified, and indeed required, for there is no presumption that when the boss talks he of necessity coerces . I shall therefore recommend dismissal of the complaint with respect to the speeches given by Dowd. C. Further Allegations Two of the employee witnesses also testified about conversations with certain supervisors ; they related three incidents . One of these, of which Constance Velez spoke, occurred before the store opened on the morning of May 3, while six or seven employees were talking with Leslie Nagel, the assistant buyer of a section in the basement. The 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD point Velez tried to make at the hearing is that Nagel told them the store would close if the Union prevailed. Nagel denied having said this and I credit his denial. The other two incidents were related by the witness Tompkins and involve two other low supervisors-Robert Keyes, also an assistant buyer, and Margaret Szalay, an area manager also in the basement. Keyes and Szalay, too, contradicted the Government witnesses, and the question of credibility in those two incidents is a closer issue . But, even assuming Tompkins is to be believed, the so-called antiunion or coercive statements attributed to such low supervisors must be viewed, in the total context of this case, as too isolated and minor in nature to warrant any unfair labor practice finding or to justify issuance of any remedial order. It is a general practice, almost every morning, for sales employees to gather in small groups a few minutes before the public arrives to discuss special situations of the day with their immediate local supervisors. Velez testified that at one such gathering Nagel said "he was told to talk to us about the union, and he says that there was a rumor there was a union trying to get in Gertz. If the union-if we got a union in Gertz, the same thing happens in Gertz that happens in Stem's Department Store, they probably will have to close the doors, they will not be able to meeting the union demands, and we'll be out of a job." It seems this Umon had been the collective-bargaining agent for about 1,300 employees at a New York City department store called Stem's, which had discontinued business sometime before these events. The Union was also at the time actively representing employees of other New York City stores-including Gimbels and Macy's, and another Stern Company store at Paramus, New Jersey. There was talk about these other stores that morning, for Nagel also recalled the fact. His version, however, is that it was Velez who first mentioned the Umon, and that when. the employee said the Union was established at certain stores, he responded with the comment it had also recently lost an election at Paramus. He denied having expressed any opinion as to why the Stem store had been closed. Between the two witnesses, I deem Nagel to be the more reliable. Moreover, he had only recently been lectured by higher management officials to keep his mouth shut during the organizational campaign. Tompkins testified about certain other conversations that same week of May 4, with Keyes at one of the usual morning gatherings in the department, and with Szalay one evening when the two were alone. His first version of the Keyes talk was that the assistant buyer "said that he told the people upstairs that everything is satisfactory, and they would have no problems." Asked had the word "union" been spoken, he answered "I don't recall." Asked again to repeat what he had heard, it came out this way: ". . . that he [Keyes] had a meeting upstairs with the people, and they said everybody was satisfied the way things were down here, and that he said that I probably don't know about all the store's benefits because I was new there.... " The witness was then shown his earlier affidavit, and now stated the buyer's words as follows: "Mr. Keyes said he was upstairs and he told everybody that everybody was satisfied with the way things are, and that no one is supporting the Union, to his knowledge." Keyes, called in defense, simply denied having made any of these statements at all; he added he had no knowledge of which employees favored the Union. As to Szalay, Tompkins testified that one evening as she entered the department she said to him: "I heard from upstairs you happen to be a strong supporter for the union." He implied "upstairs" meant the offices of the Company, and then admitted it was an assumption on his part that Szalay had been to a meeting of some kind, based merely on the fact she had been absent for a while and someone was substituting for Szalay in the basement at the time. Szalay, like Keyes , simply denied having made the statement Tompkins attributed to her. The matter is of little moment. That there was talk about the union campaign among the employees, and even by the lower supervisors, is a very likely probability. After all, Dowd's speeches were intended to provoke thought and, presumably, even discussion among the people in the store. That somebody would discuss benefits, past and prospec- tive, was to be expected. Were it necessary to resolve -precisely the credibility issue between Tompkins and the two supervisors I would be inclined not to believe Tompkins in this case. He had to be prodded to get the word "union" out of his mouth. His memory is faulty at best and he attributed phrases to Dowd which the man never uttered. Tompkins' attempt to give credence to his testimony by saying he took notes while the president was speaking, only weakens his story, for he then admitted, without logical explanation, that he threw the notes away that very night. The store is 7 stories high and about 1,500 people work here. The Union was trying to organize 607 of them. It would indeed be straining at a gnat to find that by these minuscule passing remarks, even if they were made, by two of the lowest supervisors in the place, the Respondent violated the National Labor Relations Act. This is the classic case that the Board has often referred to as isolated incidents not warranting further action. Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the entire complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the record in its entirety, I hereby recommend that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed.