G. R. I. Corp.

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD G. R. I. Corporation and Its Division and Cynthia Holmes and Darlene Allen. Cases 13-CA-12967 and 13-CA-13005 January 3, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On May 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief as well as cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof. 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. The Administrative Law Judge found that on December 11, 1973, James Rehak, Respondent's clerical manager, accosted employee Cynthia Holmes, telling her that she could not give him one good reason why they needed a union. The Adminis- trative Law Judge concluded that because this incident is "not interrogation in the normal sense of the word, rather it is an attempt to enter into an argument concerning the advocacy of a union in Respondent's plant," it is not violative of the Act. We disagree. On December 11, the day before the election, Rehak approached Holmes outside the mail opening department, and, in the presence of several people said, "See Cindy, you can't even give one good reason why we need a union in." Holmes walked away toward the cafeteria, but Rehak followed her and continued the harassment telling her that she "couldn't give him a good reason about the union." When they reached the cafeteria, Rehak stated, "Anyway, I know about your mission." Holmes replied that she didn't know what he was talking about and left. We find, contrary to the Administra- tive Law Judge, that Rehak's continuing remarks to Holmes, 1 day before the election and in the presence of others, as to why she favored the Union, constitute unlawful conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' Indeed, we have held that 1 McCann Steel Company, Inc., 184 NLRB 779 (1970). s Gates Air Conditioning, Inc, 199 NLRB 1101 (1972). s The Administrative Law Judge incorrectly stated that the date of the comments and remarks of this type need not be cast as a query in order to be unlawful.2 Considering all the surrounding circumstances, including Respon- dent's demonstrated union animus, the seeking out of Holmes by Respondent's clerical manager, and the implicit inquiry as to her union sympathies, constitutes interrogation as to union activities, which was calculated to, and would reasonably be inter- preted by the employee involved as an attempt to, interfere with her organizational rights. Such interro- gation was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed two additional allegations relating to interrogations of Holmes, on the basis that they are of minimal coercive impact and are isolated incidents that took place before union organization became overt. We disagree. In the fall of 1973, the Union commenced an organization campaign among certain employees of the Respondent, and a representation petition was filed on October 4, 1973.3 Holmes played an active role in promoting the Union. She spoke with employees about the Union, distributed authoriza- tion cards, and passed out literature. In response to the organizational efforts, Respondent engaged in a vigorous campaign to defeat the Union. According to the credited testimony, Harriet Schlenker, a supervi- sor, asked Holmes if she (Holmes) had heard any rumors about a union trying to get in. Holmes responded that she had not. Sometime around the middle of October, according to the credited testimo- ny, Rehak asked Holmes the same question, and she again responded in the negative. However, Rehak replied, "I know you know about it because everybody talks to you." Such an inquiry is clearly violative of the Act .4 Where, as here, Respondent refused to accept the answer given by the employee, but instead insisted that she did know about the Union because everybody talks to her, Respondent's continuing interrogations are even more repugnant to the Act. Rather than being isolated incidents which do not require a remedial order, we find that these interrogations, especially when considered with the unlawful interrogation of Holmes by Rehak on December 11, Respondent's repeated harassment of Holmes, and Respondent's antiunion campaign, are blatantly coercive in nature and violative of Section 8(axl) of the Act. We shall therefore order the appropriate remedial action. filing of the petition was April 4, 1973. 4 Amon International, Inc., 205 NLRB No. 157 (1973). 216 NLRB No. 14 G. R. I. CORPORATION AND ITS DIVISION 35 THE REMEDY We have found, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We shall therefore order that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole, we make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 3 In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Bakery and Confectionery Workers Interna- tional Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Local No. 552, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees concerning union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint which are not specifically found herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, G. R. I. Corporation and its Division, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies, and the union membership, activities, and sympa- thies of other employees. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies, and the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. G.R.I. CORPORATION AND ITS DIVISION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PAUL E. WELL, Administrative Law Judge: On January 30, 1974, Cynthia Holmes filed with the Regional Director for Region 13, of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, a charge alleging that G.R.I. Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging Cynthia Holmes. On February 12, 1974, Darlene Allen filed with the said Regional Director, a charge alleging that G.R.I. Corporation and its Division violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) by discharging her. On March 22, 1974, Martin H. Schneid, the Acting Regional Director for the Board's Region 13 issued an order consolidating the two cases and a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing. The complaint alleges that Respondent discharged employ- ees Allen and Holmes because of their union membership and activities in violation of 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and that Respondent further violated Section 8(axl) of the Act by various acts of interrogation by Respondent's superviso- ry employees. By its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. On the issues thus joined, the matter came on for hearing before me in Chicago, Illinois, on April 24 and-25, 1974. All parties were present or represented by counsel and had an opportunity to call and examine witnesses and to adduce relevant and material evidence. At the close of the hearing the parties 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD waived oral argument. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent. On the entire record in this matter and in consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION • Respondent, a corporation operating a plant and facilities in Chicago and Countryside, Illinois, is engaged in the, distribution and sale of cosmetics by mail. Respondent annually purchases and receives materials and supplies valued in excess of $5,000,000 from points directly outside the State of Illinois and annually ships directly to enterprises located outside the State of Illinois goods valued in excess of $5,000,000. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II.' THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL-CIO,CLC, Local No. 552, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background Respondent operates a mail-order cosmetic business from its Chicago plant. In the fall of 1973 the Union commenced an organizational campaign among certain employees of Respondent, which culminated in the filing on April 4, 1973, of a petition seeking an election among certain of Respondent's employees. On November 15, 1973, the Regional Director directed that an election be conducted and it was duly conducted on -December 42, 1973. The Union lost the election by a vote of 46 to 136 with 7 challenged ballots. . Cynthia Holmes was one of 20 employees employed by Respondent to open mail from its customers , sorting out cash and checks accompanying customers' orders or paid on account. She commenced her employment in April or May 1973, and was discharged on January 16, 1974. During the union organizational period Miss Holmes was an active union adherent, which was known to her supervisor, Harriet Schlenker. Darlene Allen was employed by Respondent on January 31, 1973, as a proofreader and continued in that job most of her employment. She apparently took a small part in the organizing campaign , other than attending meetings .and .was one of the Union's observers at the election held on December 14, 1973. Mrs. Allen was discharged on January 14, 1974. The General Counsel contends that the discharges of Cynthia Holmes and Darlene Allen resulted from. their union membership and activiEy. I Unscheduled days appear to be days in which an employee is asked by the employer to take off because of a shortage of work. - Darlene Allen Respondent contends that Darlene Allen was discharged for absenteeism . Respondent has a personnel policy which is posted on the employees' bulletin board laying down rules for attendance and tardiness which , it is uncontro- verted, are rigidly followed . The general rule provides that an employee will receive a verbal warning if he has two unexcused absences during any 8-week period. If an employee has four unexcused absences in his latest 8-week period of employment , he is placed on probation for the following 8 weeks . While on probation an employee may not have more than three unexcused absences and an employee who has more than three unexcused absences while on probation will be discharged . An employee who has fewer than three unexcused absences while on probation will be taken off probation at the end of the 8- week period. No employee may have more than two probationary periods within any 12-month period regard- 'less of the reason for the probation . If an employee having two probationary periods within a 12-month period during that period has four more unexcused absences he is automatically separated. The personnel policy defines an excused absence as an absence due to death in the immediate family , jury duty, paid vacation, leave of absence for 1 week or more, any sick leave with a doctor's certificate, unscheduled days,' and finally days on which the employee reports in on time, works a minimum of 2 hours and is excused by the manager if he (1) becomes ill while at work (2) receives a -telephone call at work pertaining to an emergency which must be handled immediately such as a senously ill child or relative etc., (3) has official verifiable business by appointment which cannot be handled during regular working hours, provided the employee notifies the manager the day before. There is no- question that Darlene Allen had had ,probationary periods on two occasions, one in April and one in July. Gertie Powell, who had been a group leader, a nonsupervisory position, became the supervisor of the department in which Mrs. Allen worked on November 5. About a week later she was going over the records and saw that Darlene Allen had had two probationary penods. She called ' Mrs. Allen to her desk, discussed the probationary period -with her and reminded her that she had only one more within 12 months before - she would be let go. Mrs. Allen had been absent without excuse on November 5 and 7 and was again absent on December 17. At this time Miss Powell again spoke to Mrs. Allen reminding her that she was in the danger zone for her absences and that one more absence within the 8-week period would lead to her discharge. ., On, January 9, Miss Powell received a telephone call .from a person who stated she was Darlene Allen's mother and asked that Darlene come home -because her baby was very ill. Mrs. Allen was given the message and shortly thereafter, at about 3 :30, in the afternoon left Respon- dent's plant. Mrs. Allen testified that she telephoned on the following day,_Thursday, and told Gertie Powell that she G. R. I. CORPORATION AND ITS DIVISION could not come in because her child was still ill and that he had the mumps. She did not call Friday and on Monday evening Miss Powell called Mrs. Allen and told her that she had talked to her bosses and they said it was no excuse for Mrs. Allen to be off work because her child was in. Miss Powell testified that after Mrs. Allen left on Wednesday she did not call Thursday but called on Friday to inform Respondent that her child was ill with the mumps and that she had to take the child back to the doctor on Monday. On Monday Miss Powell called Mrs. Allen and reminded her that this was her third consecutive day of absenteeism and Mrs. Allen said something to the effect that she was keeping her baby in . Thereafter, on Tuesday, January 15, according to Miss Powell, she called Mrs. Allen and told her that her "bosses" had decided that an absence because of a sick child was an unexcused absence and that accordingly Mrs. Allen was discharged. Under the strict order of the rules posted by Respondent with regard to absenteeism, it is clear that Darlene Allen, with two prior probationary periods during the last preceding 12 months and with an unexcused absence on December 17, was slated for discharge if she had three more unexcused absence. Under the letter of the rule the absence of Wednesday, January 9, was excused. She had worked more than 2 hours and she left for home in an emergency situation precisely like that posted in Respon- dent's rule. However, there is nothing in the rule that provides that the absences of Thursday, Friday and Monday would be excused. The General Counsel pro- duced no evidence that Respondent customarily waived its rules with regard to absenteeism. The only evidence on the record resulted from the cross -examination of Cynthia Holmes by Respondent's counsel which adduced evidence that she was terminated in 1973 after a period in the hospital and was reinstated only after presenting a doctor's certificate which brought her within the letter of the rule that personal illness becomes an excused absence with the presentation of a doctor's certificate . The testimony of Respondent's witnesses that the absentee rules are rigidly enforced is therefore unrebutted and it is clear that under the rule Mrs. Allen was subject to discharge. Nevertheless, the General Counsel contends that Mrs. Allen was discharged because of her union activities. The record does not reveal that Mrs. Allen took part in union activities to any greater extent than any other employee except that she was an observer for the Union at the election. Other union observers at the election, however, were not discharged and I do not believe that the inference that the General Counsel would have me reach is sufficient to overcome the proof of Respondent that Mrs. Allen would have been discharged for cause under any circum- stances. Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has not sustained its burden of proof in this regard and I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as the discharge of Darlene Allen is alleged to be a violation of the Act. Cynthia Holmes Cynthia Holmes testified that in September, while she 37 was discussing a holiday with her supervisor, Harriet Schlenker, Mrs. Schlenker asked her if she had heard any rumors about a union trying to get in and she answered that she had not. After the union organization became overt the Respon- dent met the organization with a flurry of letters containing Respondent's argument against the union organization of its employees with particular emphasis on the possibility of strikes. In addition, Respondent's supervisors read some material to the employees individually or in small groups. On one occasion Cynthia Holmes and Prenie Patterson were being talked to by their supervisor, Mrs. Schlenker. The two employees raised arguments against the Compa- ny's position and Mrs. Schlenker got a little disturbed and cut them off, telling them that they were adults and could make up their own minds. Apparently the argument waxed heated because it ended up with Mrs . Schlenker telling Cynthia Holmes that she knew she had not initiated the petition for the Union because she did not have enough guts to do so.2 After the election, in the week after Christmas, Mrs. Schlenker approached Cynthia Holmes in the presence of Mrs. Patterson and asked her to take a no- workday because work was slow . Mrs. Patterson told her that she needed the money because she was going on a vacation the following week. Mrs. Schlenker responded that she did not see why Miss Holmes should have money problems, asking her if she did not get paid by the Union. As Miss Holmes was preparing to go on a vacation, Mrs. Schlenker asked her if she remembered promising that after her mission was over she would be quitting and asked her if she intended to keep her promise. Miss Holmes answered that she had never made any such promise. On the day before the election James Rehak, Respon- dent's clerical manager, accosted Miss Holmes in the hall going toward the cafeteria, telling her that she could not give him one good reason why they needed a union. As they got to the cafeteria door, Rehak said that he had witnesses that she had made a statement about having a mission. She answered that she did not know what he was talking about. On January 16 Rehak called Miss Holmes into his office and said that it had been almost 6 weeks since she told him about her mission and that he had accepted that as her resignation and had hired a replacement for her. She answered that the replacement could go out and find a job just as she had. He reiterated that he had to have a definite date for her resignation and she said she would not give him a definite date because she never made any such statement. The conversation ended when Miss Holmes said to Rehak "look you're holding me up as far as me doing my work, so, unless you can come up with a pretty dam good excuse for firing me, I'm going back to my desk and finish my work." Rehak's version of the conversation was similar. He testified that he called her into his office and asked when she was going to leave because previously she had told him that she had a mission and upon her completion of the mission she was leaving. She told him that she had decided to stay and he answered "Cindy that isn't fair since we did have a girl to replace you I accepted your resignation." She 2 This is taken from the tesmnony of Mrs. Patterson, whom I credit. 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD answered "well let her go out and find a job just like I would have to." Rehak answered "Cindy that's not fair because she would have to go out and look for a job, I would like to know definitely when you are going to leave." He testified she gave him no definite answer and left. Rehak was not asked to testify where he got the impression that Miss Holmes was going to leave. On the completion of his examination and cross-examination I asked him about it and he testified that sometime in November he called her into his office and said that he understood that she was going to leave and she said "yes she had a mission to accomplish and when the mission was over that she would leave." I asked him where he achieved this understanding that Miss Holmes was going to leave and he testified that Harriett Schlenker told him. Mrs. Schlenker was never asked anything about any conversation in which Miss Holmes said anything about a mission. On the other hand Miss Holmes never denied in terms that she had made a statement about having a mission, although she testified that she denied to Rehak that she had made such a statement. Within half an hour of her interview with Rehak, Miss Holmes was called back into his office , told to bring her wastebasket, informed that she had failed an honesty test, and was discharged. Honesty tests are constantly administered to all employ- ees whose jobs require them to handle payments to Respondent from its customers . Normally the supervisor, Mrs. Schlenker, takes customers' letters in which checks or currency are enclosed and replaces the payment with certain currency of Respondent which is marked or otherwise identified . The envelope then is placed in the workbox of an employee . When the workboxes are picked up, at frequent intervals during the day, the group leaders are warned by the supervisor that they should contain the identifiable currency, if they do not the employee who handled the currency is called into Rehak's office and told to bring her wastebasket . The wastebasket apparently is searched and the employee discharged. There is no evidence that any employee who failed to pass a test in the past had not been discharged. Mrs. Schlenker testified that she tries to administer the test at frequent intervals so that each employee is tested at around 10-day intervals, however inasmuch as the tests are only given with a certain type of work, the employees handling that type of work are more frequently tested than other employees. She writes in a looseleaf notebook the name, address, amount, and the clerical employee involved in each such test and thus is readily able to go back through her notebook and ascertain when tests were given specific employees .3 On January 16, 1974, according to Mrs . Schlenker's testimony she arranged tests for several employees includ- ing Miss Holmes. She did this during the morning coffeebreak at 9:30 a.m., before the first interview of Miss Holmes by Rehak. When the boxes were collected between 10 and 10:30 the group leader informed Mrs. Schlenker that Miss Holmes' tests had not shown up. Mrs. Schlenker 3 Apparently sometimes the tests are vaned, according to the testimony of one of the group leaders, but by and large the system outlined above is followed. told her to wait for the next collection of boxes and check them because Miss Holmes might not have completed all the work by the time the boxes were first collected. When the boxes were collected the second time the test had still not shown up and Mrs. Schlenker reported to Rehak that Miss Holmes' tests were missing, Rehak exclaimed about the coincidence of this occurring just after he had talked to Miss Holmes about quitting. All of the boxes were taken to Rehak's office, the two group leaders were called in as witnesses to the transaction, and Miss Holmes was called into Rehak's office. On her arrival with her basket, according to Miss Holmes' testimony, she placed the basket by Holmes' desk, turned around and faced the wall and said "search me because I don't have it."4 Rehak answered "Cindy you know it is company policy where we give an employee an honesty test and it comes up we have to discharge the employee." Miss Holmes again suggested he search her and stated that she did not have it. Rehak searched the trash can and the cashbox. Miss Holmes suggested that it might be in somebody else's cashbox and told him that she believed that this was a frameup. He sent Group Leader McGill out to check the other cashboxes. She reported that she could not find the test and Rehak said "Cindy you have to give me an explanation of where it is." Miss Holmes again said she did not know where it was, she had never seen it. She was thereafter discharged. According to Rehak's testimony when Cynthia Holmes came into his office he told her that a test case was missing and wanted to know if she had an explanation, she answered "well I knew it was a test case and I gave it back to sign-out" he answered "what did you say?" and she answered "forget it." He agreed that she asked him to search her, which he declined to do. He testified that he and the two group heads went through all the cashboxes without finding the test case and that at noontime when the employees left for lunch Miss Holmes commented "I bet your test case is punching out now." He answered, "what do you mean by that, Cindy, are you telling me we've got thieves working for me?" and she answered "no." Accordingly Miss Holmes was discharged. According to Group Leader Shirley McGill who was in the office when Miss Holmes arrived, Rehak told her that her tests did not show up and she answered "I knew it, I just knew it, I knew I was going to test that day and I passed it on" Rehak asked her to repeat that and she took it back and said that she was not saying anything. Miss McGill said that sometimes employees pass to some of their friends some of their work when they get behind, it is not unusual and they could easily pass on a test as well. Therefore according to Miss McGill on this occasion, they checked the other cashboxes but did not find the test. Shirley Muldrow, the other group leader who was called in to Rehak's office on this occasion testified that she did not recall Cynthia Holmes saying anything about passing on the test, however her general recollection of the incident was so poor that her failure to recall any particular part of it leads me to no inference whatsoever. 4 It is obvious that all the employees knew the significance of being sent to Rehak's office with their wastebaskets. G. R. I. CORPORATION AND ITS DIVISION 39 Discussion and Conclusions Respondent presented no evidence and made no contention that Miss Holmes stole anything, she was discharged for failure to follow the procedure laid down by Respondent. If Miss Holmes was in fact administered an honesty test on January 16 and failed the test, in the normal course of Respondent's business she was bound to be discharged. The only explanation in view of her denial that she took the money is that she passed on the test to someone else who then stole it. It might be inferred that her silence in this regard resulted from her reluctance to "put the finger" on a fellow employee. The General Counsel argues that Respondent was motivated by antiunion considerations and that the test was not validly administered. I believe that Respondent's antiunion animus is amply demonstrated by the letters, both those sent to the employees and those read to the employees and explained by supervisors. I further believe that Respondent recogniz- ed Miss Holmes as an ardent union advocate and picked up some expression she had used regarding her mission as an indication that she was working for Respondent for the purpose of organizing it for the Union and would leave Respondent's employ after the election. There is no evidence that in fact Miss Holmes ever said that the union organization was her mission or that she would leave after the election. It is equally inferrable that her mission was to complete her college education after which she would leave Respondent's employ. Nevertheless Rehak attempted to use her statement about her mission to force her to resign on January 16, a month after the union election. There is no question that the issue is close and that Respondent's actions arouse a suspicion with regard to the validity of the "honesty test." However Miss Holmes did not deny the statement attributed to her by Rehak and McGill that indicated that she had recognized the honesty test and passed it along. I therefore find insufficient evidence on the record as a whole to convince me that no honesty test was given or that she had not in fact failed it. This being the case, although it is clear that Respondent, for reasons connected with her union activity, was anxious to terminate Miss Holmes, I cannot find that the General Counsel has sustained his burden of proof that in fact her termination resulted from Respondent's antiunion motiva- tion. Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as her termination is alleged to be an unfair labor practice. Union asked her if she really knew if the girls wanted a union, to which Mrs. Allen answered "yes." After further conversation about the pros and cons of organization, Miss Powell told Mrs. Allen that she really wanted her girls to vote no because she did not feel that they needed a union. The General Counsel alleged that Gertie Powell interrogat- ed employees on October 19 and on an unknown date in November 1973, presumably this was the first of those allegations and there is no evidence to support the second. The record reveals that Miss Powell was not a supervisor until November 3, 1973. Miss Holmes testified that in early September, her supervisor, Mrs. Schlenker, asked her if she had heard any rumors regarding the Union and that sometime in October Rehak asked her the same question. Miss Holmes also testified that on the day before the election Rehak asked her to give him one good reason why she should vote for the Union in the conversation in which he told her that he knew about her mission. This too is alleged as a violation of Section 8(a)(1). I find that the last allegation, Rehak's December 11 badgering of Miss Holmes to give him one good reason why the employees should be represented, is not violative. It is surely not interrogation in the normal sense of the word, rather it is an attempt to enter into an argument concerning the advocacy of a union in Respondent's plant. I believe that the remark of Gertie Powell to Darlene Allen was equally argumentative and not interrogative. It took place during a conversation when Powell was debating with Allen about the benefits the Employer offered versus those that the Union promised during the course of which Allen had clearly demonstrated her union adherence. At any rate, at this time Miss Powell was a nonsupervisory group leader. With regard to the two occasions when Mrs. Schlenker and Mr. Rehak asked Miss Holmes if she heard any rumors regarding the Union, these constitute interrogation within the meaning of the Act, however they are of minimal coercive impact and are isolated incidents that took place before the Union had even filed its petition and before organization became overt. I do not feel that a remedial order is warranted under all the circumstances herein. Accordingly I shall recommend that all the allegations of interrogation be dismissed.5 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: The 8(a)(1) Allegations Darlene Allen testified that on some day in October her supervisor, Gertie Powell, in a conversation about the S 1 specifically credit Miss Holmes and Mrs. Allen that the statements they attributed to Mr. Rehak, Mrs. Schlenker, and Miss Powell were made by those individuals 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, ORDER6 The complaint is dismissed in its entirety. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 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