Blackstone Corp.

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Blackstone Corporation and James T. Kestler. Case 3-CA-6284 June 24, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On April 13, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Well issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached 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 the Re- spondent had discriminatorily discharged James T. Kestler and James A. Hutchinson' for engaging in union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. He also found that a supervisor for Respondent, Emmott, had interrogated employee White concern- ing the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The Respondent has excepted to the findings of the Administrative Law Judge and, more specifically, to the credibility resolutions upon which he based his conclusions. We find merit in these exceptions. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule the Administrative Law Judge's credibility resolu- tions unless the clear preponderance of all the rele- vant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.' Having carefully examined the record in this case, we have concluded that the credibility reso- lutions of the Administrative Law Judge are in many instances erroneous and, on the whole, cannot be re- lied on in determining whether the discharges of Kestler and Hutchinson were unlawful.' In finding that Kestler and Hutchinson were dis- charged in violation of Section 8(a)(3), the Adminis- trative Law Judge dismissed as pretextual Re- spondent's asserted reason for the discharges; i The Administrative Law Judge referred to this employee as James L Hutchison However, the record reflects that the above spelling of his name is correct 2 Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 183 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951) 3 We also note that the Administrative Law Judge stated that his findings were based not only on the record, but in consideration of the briefs filed with him by the General Counsel and the Respondent However, the Gener- al Counsel did not file a brief in this case namely, that Kestler and Hutchinson had abused the Company's sick leave policy by taking a day of sick leave when they were not sick but had in fact gone hunting. This finding of the Administrative Law Judge was to a great extent bottomed on what he characterized as the credited testimony of Hutchin- son. More specifically, he credited, inter aka, Hutchinson's testimony as to his union activities, his conversation with Quality Control Manager Walpole (which the Administrative Law Judge found showed Walpole's awareness of Hutchinson's union activity), and concerning Walpole's knowledge that other em- ployees abused the sick leave policy. However, Hutchinson did not testify as to any of this, and in fact did not engage in any union activities whatsoev- er. Rather, the testimony attributed to Hutchinson was given by Kestler. Although one might argue that in writing this De- cision the Administrative Law Judge merely con- fused Kestler and Hutchinson, this does not with- stand scrutiny. In other sections of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge correctly associates Kest- ler with conversations involving Tutmaher and Moore. Because of these not insignificant discrepancies in his findings, we are compelled to evaluate the evi- dence concerning the discharges without regard to such credibility findings. The record shows that union activity among Respondent's clerical employees began in late Sep- tember 1975 ° when Kestler arranged with the presi- dent of the IAM 5 (which also represented some of Respondent's production and maintenance workers) for an organizational meeting of the clerical employ- ees. Thereafter, Kestler engaged in various organiza- tional activities among the employees and set up a meeting to take place on October 29. On October 20, both Kestler and Hutchinson called in sick (whereby they would be paid for the day although not working) and went deer hunting. While hunting, they met with one of Respondent's lower level supervisors, Nelson, and Hutchinson told Nelson that they had called in sick. That same eve- ning Kestler bowled in the company bowling league, as did Walpole. The following day Walpole asked Bill Johnson, Kestler's immediate supervisor, to ascertain whether Kestler had in fact been sick the day before. Johnson reported back that it was common knowledge that Kestler and Hutchinson had gone deer hunting. Wal- pole then took up the matter with the assistant per- sonnel director, Brookmeyer, and the two of them All events occurred in 1975 5 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO 225 NLRB No. 25 BLACKSTONE CORPORATION 173 took the matter to C. A. N Johnson, Respondent's executive vice president.' Johnson made the decision to discharge Kestler and Hutchinson and the dis- charges were carried out on the morning of October 22. The Administrative Law Judge relied principally on three factors in determining that Respondent's as- serted reason for the discharges was a pretext used to cover up the real reason for the discharges-to get rid of the union leaders. First, he relied on statements made by Walpole at a meeting for employees held on November 6 to show that the Respondent did not welcome organiza- tion among its white collar workers. The second factor he relied on to show that the Respondent had knowledge of the union activities of the dischargees was the statement by Production Foreman Emmott to clerical employee White that he had heard that Hutchinson and Kestler were trying to start a union. This conversation supposedly oc- curred on October 20, the same day Hutchinson and Kestler had called in sick and gone hunting. Third, and most important, he found that manage- ment knew of and condoned abuses of the Company's sick leave policy, citing specific instances where supervisors had allowed such abuses in the past, and the failure of Respondent to show that other employees had been discharged for these abus- es. We do not agree with all of these findings of the Administrative Law Judge, nor do we believe that the General Counsel has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharges herein were dis- criminatory. First, although we agree that the statements made by Walpole at the November 6 meeting do show that management did not welcome the idea of its white collar employees organizing,' we do not agree that this amounted to a showing that Respondent wished to get rid of union adherents, especially Hutchinson and Kestler. It must be noted that this meeting took place some 15 days after the discharges had taken place and about 7 days after the first union meeting. There is also nothing in the record to show that any employees had signed authorization cards prior to the date of the discharges, or prior to the October 29 union meeting. We also believe that the evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent had knowledge of union activ- ities on the part of Kestler and Hutchinson. Al- 6 It is unrefuted in the record that Johnson was temporarily taking over though it is clear that Kestler had been instrumental in attempting to organize the employees , it is equally evident that Hutchinson engaged in no union activi- ties whatsoever, and had told Kestler that he did not want to get involved . Further, although the Adminis- trative Law Judge credited White's testimony that Emmott, a foreman of union-represented production employees, told him on October 20 that he had heard that Kestler and Hutchinson were trying to start a union, we note that it is unrefuted on the record that Emmott did not speak of this to other members of management, especially to Walpole or others in- volved in the discharge action. The Administrative Law Judge 's finding concern- ing management's condonation of abuse of sick leave is also not supported by the record, in our opinion. Although the record shows that some supervisors did allow employees to use sick leave when they were not sick, it does not show that any of the members of management involved in the discharge decision were aware of, or condoned, such abuses. The Administra- tive Law Judge found significant the fact that Kestler (whom he referred to as Hutchinson), had requested a leave of absence for November 19 to 21 , 1973, to go deer hunting. Although Walpole had denied approv- al of this leave, Kestler allegedly called in sick at that time and went deer hunting. Unlike the Administra- tive Law Judge, we do not believe this shows that Walpole knew of or condoned this abuse of sick leave, in that his denial of approval of the leave of absence occurred almost a month prior to Kestler's calling in sick, and there is no showing that Walpole had any reason to suspect that Kestler was other than sick when he later requested the sick leave. Fur- ther, although, as stated by the Administrative Law Judge, there is no evidence that others have been dis- charged for abuse of sick leave , there is likewise no evidence that Walpole had ever caught anyone in- volved in such abuse, or that such a matter had ever been brought to the attention of the personnel direc- tor, or to C. A . N. Johnson , who was performing the duties of the personnel director . The fact that lower level supervisors had the right to grant sick leave does not detract from the right of Johnson to impose the discipline of his choice for what he believed was a very serious infringement of company policy.8 Based on the foregoing , we believe that the record fails to show that Hutchinson and Kestler were dis- charged because of union activity, and we will dis- miss that allegation of the complaint. We also do not believe that the conversation be- tween Emmott and White amounted to interrogation the duties of the director of personnel, Brady, who was dying of cancer 8 It is also noteworthy that Hutchinson testified that although his immedi- r The record does show that Walpole probably did make some statement ate supervisor, Scalise, covered for employees on sick leave who were not at this time about Respondent's ability to learn who signed authorization sick, this was meant to be a well-kept secret from Scalise's superior, Dilling- cards However, there is no allegation concerning this talk ham 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD violative of Section 8(a)(1), as found by the Adminis- trative Law Judge. According to White's testimony, which the Administrative Law Judge credited, a pro- duction supervisor , Emmott, told timekeeper White that he heard that Hutchinson and Kestler were trying to start a union. White replied that he "knew nothing about it but something was going around; I wish he would tell me about it." Emmott then stated it probably had White's name on it, because he (White) was such a radical. The two parties laughed over the comment, and went on talking about Emmott's hunting trip. Under the circumstances, we do not consider the foregoing to amount to interrogation , but rather a casual conversation between friends carried on in a jocular vein . We will therefore dismiss that allega- tion. Having found that there was no conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) or (1), we will dismiss the com- plaint in its entirety. ORDER this case and in consideration of the briefs, I make the following- I FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a New York corporation which operates a plant in the city of Jamestown, New York , where it manu- factures, sells, and distributes automotive equipment, ap- pliances, and related products. Respondent annually pur- chases, and causes to be delivered to its Jamestown plant, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, transport- ed directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York and annually ships its products valued in excess of $50 ,000 from its Jamestown plant directly to points located outside the State of New York. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the complaint here- in be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PAUL E WEIL, Administrative Law Judge- On October 22, 1975, James T. Kestler, an individual , filed with the Regional Director for Region 3 of the National Labor Re- lations Board, hereinafter called the Board, a charge alleg- ing that Blackstone Corporation , hereinafter called Re- spondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the discharge of Kestler and James L. Hutchison because of their activities on behalf of a union . On December 10, 1975, the Regional Director of Region 3 on behalf of the General Counsel, issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(3) by the discharge of Kestler and Hutchison , and by the same acts and by an act of interrogation of an employee concerning union activity and by granting employees a general wage increase to dissuade them from union activity , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act Respondent duly filed an answer admitting jurisdictional facts, that the Union is a labor organization and that Kestler and Hutchison were discharged, but denying the commission of any unfair la- bor practices. On the issues thus drawn , the matter came on for hearing before me at Buffalo, New York, on Febru- ary 23 and 24, 1976. All parties were present and repre- sented by counsel and had an opportunity to call and ex- amine witnesses and to adduce relevant and material evidence . After the hearing , briefs were received from the 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background Respondent's Jamestown plant has about 1,400 employ- ees. The production and maintenance employees are repre- sented by various unions including the Union herein The clerical employees are not now nor have they in the past been represented by any union , although at various times it appears that they have sought representation by the Union, but on each occasion have changed their minds after the union organization commenced Each year when the represented employees in the plant received raises pursuant to their union contracts, the un- represented clerical employees received a raise, usually in the months of June or July. In the year 1974 this raise was not given until August, admittedly later than normal In 1975, the production employees received a wage increase during the summer, but by mid-September the clerical em- ployees had neither received a wage increase nor ascer- tained that they were to receive one. As a result of the unrest that ensued , the clerical or white-collar employees commenced talking about the need for union representation but no one took any positive steps in that direction until James L. Hutchison, a quality con- trol employee, decided that he would investigate the orga- nizational possibilities further. In late September he met with the vice president of the Union , an employee, and made an appointment to meet with the president, which he did The president of the Union told him that the white- collar workers had attempted organization in the past but that they always "chickened out" when it came to an elec- tion. He indicated that the Union would not be prepared to General Counsel and Respondent On the entire record in 1 Respondent's motion to correct transcript is granted in all particulars BLACKSTONE CORPORATION 175 go ahead again unless Hutchison was able to show a broad base of support among the affected employees . He agreed to have a union meeting, suggesting that it be conducted on a Wednesday, at which time cards would be handed out authorizing the Union to represent the employees, and left it to Hutchison to go forward if there appeared to be sup- port. Hutchison was also warned at this time not to con- duct any organizational activities on company time. The union president told him that this could lead to discharge and that it had in the past . Accordingly, during breaks and lunch periods, before and after work , Hutchison inquired among his fellow employees and found what he deemed to be widespread support for union organization . He then set up a meeting to take place on October 29, 1975, and com- menced making the rounds of his fellow employees advis- ing them of the forthcoming meeting. Respondent was apparently almost immediately aware of the resurgence of union talk among the white-collar workers. On or about October 8, James T. Kestler, talked about it with his immediate supervisor who admittedly told the lab manager , Bloomquist , about the Union . Bloomquist did not appear surprised at the information.2 On October 15, Dale Johnson, Hutchison's immediate supervisor, and Donald Walpole, his manager of quality control, came to Hutchison at his job and asked him whether he was happy with his job and told him that they had heard that he was not happy. He protested that he was not unhappy with his job , and they asked him if there was anything they could do to improve it . He said that he could use more money and Walpole said that he had been work- ing on that but that so far he had not gotten anywhere. Walpole on this occasion asked Hutchison whether there was any job in quality control that Hutchison would prefer and Hutchison answered, with some cheek , that he would prefer Walpole's job. Walpole also suggested that Hutchi- son try again as he had once in the past to be transferred to a toolmaker's job that Hutchison thought he wanted to learn . Hutchison pointed out that he had been informed, to Walpole's knowledge, that he could not be transferred un- der company policy to a job covered by a union contract, but Walpole suggested that nevertheless he try again. Walpole testifying about the same incident , stated that the conversation took place because the prior day Hutchi- son had been placed temporarily in a lower rated job be- cause the regular incumbent thereof was absent and had complained that no one filled his (Hutchison's) job when he was absent. This led to the confrontation between John- son and Walpole and Hutchison because Hutchison had expressed himself vigorously on the subject. I credit Hutchison's account of this meeting. If it had taken place as Walpole testified, Walpole must have been very well aware of the cause of Hutchison's unhappiness and would presumably have addressed himself to it rather than to the general conditions concerning which Hutchison might be disgruntled . Furthermore, the implied promise that if Hutchison tried again for the toolmaker apprentice job he would be given more consideration , suggests an at- tempt to remedy far more than Hutchison's alleged cause 2 According to Moore , he did not mention any names to Bloomquist, but simply asked him if he was aware of the union activity of resentment , i. e., being temporarily transferred to a less desirable job, and more an intention to remedy a general dissatisfaction on Hutchison 's part . I believe and find that the incident took place as Hutchison described it, that it revealed Respondent's awareness that Hutchison was lead- ing the Union organization and was an attempt by Respon- dent to head off union organization among the employees. On October 20, apparently the start of deer hunting sea- son, Hutchison arranged to go deer hunting with Kestler and called the plant stating that he was sick. He went hunt- ing and while there was seen by one Nelson , a lowgrade supervisor . That evening Hutchison bowled as was his cus- tom in a company bowling league of which Walpole was a member and was present . On October 21, Hutchison and Kestler came back to work and worked as usual. However, on October 22 when they came into work they found that their cards had been removed from the timecard rack and they were directed to go to the administrative offices where they were discharged for abuse of sick time. On this occa- sion, Hutchison protested that everyone abused sick time and that he had gone hunting on sick time in the past, which was well known to Walpole, and no one had ever said anything about it. He asked why he was being selected for discharge because of this, but was simply told that it was a matter of company policy. Hutchison and Kestler departed and Kestler filed the instant charges. On October 27, Hutchison and Kestler drove back to the plant to meet one of their fellow employees on the parking lot with regard to a part for a gun . On that occasion they met Joseph Tutmaker, the assistant superintendent of the radiator department, who had a short conversation with Kestler. According to Kestler, Tutmaker asked how things were and he answered "I'll be back here pretty soon" and said "it was a pretty rotten deal, them firing me." Tutmak- er answered something to the effect that the reason given him was not the reason he was discharged . According to Tutmaker's version, he asked Kestler what they were doing on the company parking lot and Kestler answered some- thing like "we are coming back " Tutmaker said he did not know about that and Kestler said "we are probably the only guys who ever went hunting," to which Tutmaker an- swered "probably you're right." The General Counsel contends that the Tutmaker-Kest- ler exchange amounted to something in the nature of an admission on the part of Respondent 's agent that the two men were discharged for reasons other than those given them. However , in view of the situation and the circum- stances of the conversation , I find in neither version a clear enough statement to warrant making such a finding. On October 20, Lee Emmott , foreman in the radiator division, had a conversation with Bruce White. According to the testimony of White, Emmott stated to him that he had heard that Hutchison and Kestler were trying to start a union . White answered that he knew nothing about it but if something was going around he wished Emmott would tell him about it. Emmott answered , according to White, that it probably had my name on it because I'm such a radi- cal." On the same day, White was given a week's discipli- nary layoff. When he came back to work, he went to his supervisor , Morrison, and told Morrison that he had been contacted by the National Labor Relations Board and 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would probably have to sign a statement and he was con- cerned about his job . Morrison answered that he had heard that White had talked to the Board and that if it were he, he would not sign anything and suggested then that White talk to John Landon , the timekeeping supervisor .3 White then went to Landon's office and told him that he felt that the 1-week layoff was somehow connected with the fact that his name had been linked with Kestler and Hutchison as a union organizer and he felt that he wanted to let Re- spondent know that he was not involved in the union orga- nization. Landon told him that it was just a coincidence that it all happened at one time , that the disciplinary layoff was given because he felt that White needed disciplinary action. In the ensuing discussion White stated that he felt it was wrong that they should fire someone for misuse of sick time when everyone else does it including management and pointed out that Landon had done it too. Landon agreed with him and said yes, he knew he had but it was a mistake. Landon finished saying it was just one of those things that happens, it is just a coincidence . They also discussed the fact that on two occasions in the recent past White had taken off half days and without being asked , Landon had put him on sick leave, although he knew White was engag- ing in personal business on those occasions. White testified he never requested sick time and when he was given it he never questioned it. With regard to the White/Emmott conversation , Emmott testified that he asked White how the Union was coming or something of that nature. White answered "What do you mean?" and that was all he re- called . When asked specifically whether he had mentioned the names of Hutchison or Kestler in a conversation, he testified "I may have but I wouldn't say positively ." Asked why he made the remark, he testified with a smile that he did it to harass White. He also testified that he was aware at the time that Hutchison or Kestler might be engaged in some union activity . He had heard rumors, he did not re- call where they were from. He also testified he did not communicate them to anyone . He also testified that neither Landon nor Walpole ever told him about the Union. I find in Emmott's testimony no denial of the remark attributed to him by White that he had heard that Hutchi- son, Kestler, and presumably White were involved in union organization . Indeed, I find support for my conclusion that he made that statement in his admission that he had heard, prior to that time , that Kestler and Hutchison were in- volved with the Union . I credit White .4 Landon was not called to testify. Accordingly , White's testimony with regard to the conversation with Landon stands undenied on the record and I credit it. On October 22, all supervisors were notified to tell the employees under their supervision that they were given an across-the-board raise of 15 cents an hour effective Octo- ber 20. 3 White is a timekeeper I generally credit White in all of his testimony While he obviously took some pleasure in his "radical" status in Respondent's employ, I felt that he testified frankly and openly to the best of his recollection B. Discussion and Conclusions The discharges The General Counsel admits that the two alleged dis- criminatees abused Respondent 's sick leave policy, but contends that their discharge was pretextual and that the real motivation was to get rid of the union adherents or leaders. The elements of a pretext discharge are all present here. Respondent certainly did not welcome organization among its white -collar workers. Respondent tried to meet this element by showing that it had good relationships with the Union and with other unions in its various plants, but there is no controversion of the testimony of White that Walpole, in a meeting conducted by management with em- ployees during the union campaign , stated that it was just as silly for the office hourly employees to want a union as it was for him to read a speech , and went on to say that he could have access to the union authorization cards and determine who among the employees had signed them. The second element necessary to a finding of a pretext discharge is that Respondent had knowledge of the union activities of the dischargees . This is clearly demonstrated by the testimony, again of White, that on the day the two men went hunting Emmott told White that he had heard that Hutchison and Kestler were trying to start a union, indeed Emmott testified that he had heard "rumors" that these were the men involved in starting the Union. Finally, we must determine whether the discharges were for the reason given or were not . It is clear that Respon- dent had a sick leave rule, that the employees were well aware that sick leave was not to be used for personal busi- ness, and that sanctions would be applied if sick leave were openly used for purposes other than that for which it is granted . On the other hand, it is equally clear that over the years sick leave has been constantly used for reasons other than the sickness of the employee and that the misuse of sick leave was no surprise to management. White testified that he had been placed on sick leave on two occasions by Landon, the manager of his department, on which occa- sions Landon was well aware that White was not sick but had taken time off for personal business . Hutchison in 1973, after having had a leave of absence disapproved for the avowed purpose of going hunting, went hunting any- way, called in sick , and was paid for the day without com- ment Walpole professed to have never considered the in- crease of the use of sick leave during the hunting season, a rather amazing statement for top management to make, especially in a plant where parallel management were very well aware of the misuse of sick leave and joined in it. No discharge for the misuse of sick leave had ever been seen at Respondent's plant, as far as the record reveals . Respon- dent had at its disposal other sanctions such as the discipli- nary layoff levied on White. No explanation was given for the failure of Respondent to consider such sanctions with regard to the two men here affected, other than the testi- mony of C. A. N. Johnson, a corporate officer who stated that he was the one who ordered the discharge because he considered that it was akin to theft from the Respondent to use sick leave for the purpose used by the discriminatees here. BLACKSTONE CORPORATION A clue to Respondent's action in this can be taken from the testimony of Walpole, who testified that he saw Hut- chison at the bowling alley the night he was reported to have been sick. The following day, he testified, he asked Bill Johnson to ascertain whether Hutchison had been sick and Johnson reported back that it was common knowledge that Hutchison and Kestler had gone hunting. Walpole then, apparently without making any decision, took the matter up with his superior, Brookmeyer, who took the matter to the highest officer, C. A. N. Johnson, for deci- sion. There is no evidence that decisions of this sort had ever gone so high in the Company's hierarchy before In- deed, Landon apparently had authority to grant sick time to White for personal business without checking any high- er. The explanation tendered by Respondent, that the per- sonnel manager was dying and that Johnson was taking over his duties, is hardly tenable in the absence of any indication that Johnson had changed the ground rules, as it were, among lower supervision. There is no such evidence. Since no explanation was tendered, I infer that the reason the action was taken to higher and higher authority by Walpole, is because of the union activities of Hutchison and Kestler of which Walpole was well aware. Whether Johnson, as he testified, was dead set against the misuse of sick leave is really irrelevant if but for the fact that the issue was brought to him for discriminatory reasons the discharges would never have occurred. This is not a situa- tion where, aware of a problem, Johnson chose to tighten up Respondent's reaction to the problem. I conclude that but for the union activity of Hutchison and Kestler, the discharges would not have occurred. Accordingly, all ele- ments of a pretextual discharge having been shown to exist, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) by the discharge of these two men. The wage raise I conclude that the wage raise was not shown by the General Counsel to have been motivated by the union ac- tivity of the employees . The record reveals clearly that each time the production employees got a raise under their con- tract, the white-collar workers got one too and it is clear that the production workers got a raise in June or July 1975. It is also clear that all of the conditions for a raise were present ; an increase in the cost of living, and the increased wage rates paid to the production workers The only explanation for the failure to give the wage raise in a timely fashion is that offered by Respondent that Brady, the personnel manager, was sick and indeed dying, and that Respondent , in the person of C. A. N. Johnson, hoped that Brady would be able to return to the plant as he had been doing, long enough to be consulted about the wage raise before it was granted When Brady took a turn for the worse and died on October 22, Johnson immedi- ately released the wage raise that had already been decided upon and promptly announced it to everyone in the plant through supervision . Granting Respondent's union animus, I find insufficient evidence to infer that this wage raise was granted for the purpose of defeating the union organiza- tion . It is clear that it would have been granted whether or not a union organization existed, and no explanation other 177 than that offered by Respondent for the delay appears. Accordingly, I shall dismiss this allegation. The interrogation General Counsel contends that the interrogation of White by Emmott which Emmott characterized as harass- ment of White, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I agree. There is no question that the conversation as reported by White, whom I credit, amounted to interrogation and I believe that the interrogation of White was a rather shrewd move on the part of Emmott, since White is the type of outspoken person who would be most likely to react to such interrogation by disclosing what he knew of the union organization. Accordingly I find that the interrogation vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, occurring in connection with its operations set forth above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Blackstone Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2. The Union, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Kestler and Hutchison because of their activities on behalf of the Union , Respondent has discriminated against employees in regard to the hire and tenure and terms and conditions of employment of its em- ployees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor orga- nization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the discharge of Kestler and Hutchison and by the interrogation of White, Respondent has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act Among other things, the recommended Order shall require Respondent to reinstate and make whole James T. Kestler and James L. Hutchison in accordance with the rule in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]