CPD Industries, Inc.

CPD INDUSTRIES, INC. CPD Industries, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 2254. Case 21-CA-13915 October 6, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On May 26, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Her- man Corenman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions, the Respondent filed exceptions, and both parties submitted supporting briefs. 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 and to adopt his recommended .Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, CPD Industries, Inc., Santa Ana, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take'the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.2 i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 Based on the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, par 1(b), it is apparent that the recommended "Notice to Employees" omitted any reference to Respondent's-"threatening to close the plant or import work from overseas for the purpose of discouraging employees from engag- ing in union activity or support." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which both sides had the opportu- nity to present their evidence , the National Labor 271 Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT ask you anything about your union activities, or the union activities of your fellow employees, or solicit you to report to us on the union activity of your fellow employees. WE-WILL NOT threaten--you with discharge, lay- off, or other punishment, or threaten to close the plant or import work from overseas for the pur- pose of discouraging employees from engaging in activities in behalf of International Brother- hood- of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 2254, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT announce and grant wage in- creases or threaten to withdraw profit-sharing plans or other employee benefit plans for the purpose of inducing you to reject a union or abandon union. activity. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or ac- tivities on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 2254, or in any other labor organization, by dis- charging employees, or in any other manner dis- criminating in regard to hire or tenure of em- ployment or any terms or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act, which are as follows: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a represen- tative of your own choosing To act together for collective- bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things, Since it has been found that we unlawfully discharged William Buck, Mark Tepner, and James Crowe, WE WILL offer them back their reg- ular jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, WE WILL give them substantially equivalent jobs; and WE WILL pay them for the earnings they lost because of the discrimination against them, plus 6-per- cent interest. All our employees are free to remain or refrain from becoming or remaining members of a labor or- ganization. CPD INDUSTRIES, INC. 226 NLRB No. 35 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN CORENMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me in Santa Ana, California, on February 10 and 11, 1976. The complaint, which was amended at the hearing, was issued on November 20, 1975, pursuant to a first amended charge filed on September 30, 1975, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 2254, herein called the Union. The complaint alleges 8(a)(1) and (3) violations in connection with Respondent's, CPD Industries, Inc., discharge of four employees and 8(a)(1) violations in connection with vari- ous acts of the Respondent; to wit: announcing and grant- ing wage increases to employees to persuade them to aban- don their support of the Union; interrogating employees concerning union activities; `threatening to discharge or take reprisal against employees who engage in union activi- ties; threatening to close the plant because of employees' union activity or support; and soliciting employees to en- gage in surveillance of the union activities of fellow em- ployees. The Respondent's answer denies that it engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witness- es, to argue orally on the record, and to file briefs. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and counsel for the Respon- dent have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing citizen band antennas, with its principal place of business at Santa Ana, California; and in the normal course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent annually purchases and receives goods and products valued in ex- cess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. I find that the Respondent has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in com- merce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED In. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent manufactures citizen band radio antennas. Its business has grown rapidly in the past 3 years. In July 1, 1975,1 it moved its manufacturing facility to larger quarters in Santa Ana. Because of the shortage of floor space, it operated two shifts previous to its move on July 1. After the move, it combined all its operations into one shift. At the time of the move, -Respondent employed approximately 60 employees. In March, with the increase in the employee comple- ment, the Respondent selected five employees to act as leadmen in their respective production departments. The leadmen were under the direct supervision of John Marchiorlatti, Respondent's vice president and plant man- ager, who in turn was responsible to Charles Dillow, Re- spondent's president. B. Union Activity and the Course of Events The record shows that in March employees-began to dis- cuss among themselves the desirability of having a union in the plant. In May, after the discharge of Ted Hofstetter, a union organizational meeting was arranged by Arthur Or- tiz, president of the Union, at the union office. Attending this union organizational meeting were William Buck, Mark Tepner, James Crowe, Leonard Ortiz, the Kramp brothers, and several other of Respondent's employees. Union President Arthur Ortiz explained what was neces- sary to start a union, and authorization cards were passed out. Subsequently, several union meetings were held at the union offices in Santa Ana. Theodore Hofstetter, who began working for Respon- dent on April 3, noted shortly after his employment that employees were discussing the desirability of union repre- sentation. Hofstetter, who was opposed to the idea of a union, sometime in April approached Plant Manager Mar- chiorlatti and told him that unless conditions changed in the relationship between the Respondent and the employ- ees the Respondent was going to have a union problem on its hands. Marchiorlatti inquired if Hofstetter knew who was behind it; Hofstetter told him Bill Buck and Leonard Ortiz. On April 24, Charles Dillow, Respondent's president, conducted a meeting of all the employees in the plant to report to them progress on a new insurance plan being offered to the employees. Maas, the insurance broker, was present, and he explained the insurance policy to the em- ployees and passed out insurance enrollment cards. After Maas had completed what he had to say, Leadman Wil- liam Buck stood up and made a formal apology to employ- ee Tom Talon for accusing him of telling Respondent about the union organizing plans being discussed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- Local 2254, herein called the Union, is a labor 1 All dates hereinafter referrred to occurred in 1975 unless otherwise stat- organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ed CPD INDUSTRIES, INC. employees.' When Buck made this apology to Tom Talon, Dillow in surprise and astonishment, and in anger, let the assembled employees know that he would not tolerate a union in the plant. Buck's recollection, which I credit, of what Dillow told the group is as follows: Dillow spun around and he yelled, "Do you guys real- ly want a union in the shop? I want to know how many people want a union in the shop." Of course nobody said anything or raised their hand or anything. And he said, "I'll tell you what you are going to get if you get a union; you are going to pay half your paycheck for dues, and I am not going to have a union in the shop. If it comes right down to it, I am going to close the place down and import my parts from overseas." He said that there were plenty of people overseas just dying to make his parts, but he made an American product and he wanted it made in the U.S.A. Buck testified that he then left while the meeting was still in progress. Other employees' who were present and heard Dillow's angry speech corroborate Buck's version in substance and add other remarks which I find were also made in the course of Dillow's speech. Among other things, Dillow told the assembled employees that he had been planning a prof- it-sharing plan but would have to discard those plans now; that before he let a union in, he would close the plant down and import the parts from the Philippines, Japan, or Mexi- co; he would have "wet-backs" to make the parts; if he found out which employees were behind the Union, they were going out the door. According to Buck's testimony, at some point in the course of Dillow's speech, Hofstetter stepped forward and said he wanted to say something, and he said he thought they didn't need a union; he thought there was a gap in communications between employees andmanagement, and if they just got together and talked and'settled our differences they wouldn't need a Union .3 2 A day or so prior to the April 24 insurance meeting, Buck approached Marchiorlatti during a lunch break to- learn what Marchiorlatti personally felt about a union, and also to fmd out who, if anyone, had talked to Marchiorlatti about a union, as there was talk circulating through the shop to that effect. Buck asked Marchiorlatti what he thought about a union in the shop Marchiorlatti replied that he didntt think it was needed, the shop was too small. He also said that Dillow would not go for it-that Dillow would close up shop before he would let a union in his shop-that Dillow had been fighting unions for years and there was just no way he would go for it. Buck asked who it was who had told Marchiorlatti about the Union and ventured the opinion it was Tom Talon. At this point, Marchiorlatti told Buck that it wasn't Tom Talon, it was Ted Hofstetter. I find that Marchiorlatti's remarks to Buck violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act 3 Dillow testified he was quite shocked to learn of union activity among the employees, and admitted that he expressed his opposition to the Union He testified he told the employees that with a union he would not be able to compete effectively in the market, that he was working to get the employees the benefits of a larger company and he was shocked that his efforts seemed to be unheeded; and that,he would have to stop his efforts on the employ- ees' behalf at that point if'the Union intervened. In view of the overwhelm- ing testimony to the contrary, including Respondent's own witness, insur- ance broker Maas, I do not credit Dillow's testimony that in the course of his April 24 speech he did not say, in effect, that he would fold up and get his parts from overseas ' or other countries, or his denial that he told the employees, in effect, that if they did not work for him he would not work for them, or that he would shut the doors if the Union came in. Nor do I credit Dillow's denial that he said anything about firing employees who brought 273 I find that Dillow's April 24 speech to the assembled employees containing threats to close the shop and to dis- charge union supporters, and to have parts made overseas, coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Oahu Refuse Collection Co., Inc., 212 NLRB 224 (1974); Plastic Composites Corp., 210 NLRB 728, 730-731 (1974). C. The Discharge of Ted Hofstetter It is not in dispute that Dillow was a harsh taskmaster and expected that his employees give their best efforts to the job at hand. This fact is made manifest in the testimony of Bill Buck, a dischargee, who testified that in a talk he had with Plant Manager Marchiorlatti on the day preced- ing the general meeting of April 24 he told Marchiorlatti that he personally was interested in the Union for the fact of job security because Dillow "was kind of infamous for getting upset and flying off the handle and screaming at people and firing people." 4 I have taken note of this proclivity of the Respondent to discharge employees in connection with my consideration of the discharges of Hofstetter , as well as the three other employees whom the General Counsel's complaint alleges were discharged in violation of the Act. Hofstetter was hired on April 3, worked as a probation- ary employee during the 6-week probationary period, and was terminated on May 19. Hofstetter testified that Plant Manager John Marchiorlatti called him into his office and told him that Dillow had been watching him and had told Marchiorlatti that Hofstetter was slacking off and that he should be let go; that it wasn't his decision. Marchiorlatti testified that in firing Hofstetter he told him that he had been keeping an eye on him and had warned him about talking; it was disrupting his work; he had heard from Dillow himself that he had warned Hof- stetter about talking and had also heard from Rick Young, Hofstetter's leadman, that he had warned him for talking, and Hofstetter wasn't doing very well and they were going ahead and let him go. Marchiorlatti testified further that Hofstetter said that he had to admit the last couple of days he hadn't been feeling very good and had not been working very well, to which Marchiorlatti replied it was more like the last couple of weeks and told him they were letting him go, at which point Hofstetter arose and said, "Okay, thanks," and shook Marchiorlatti's hand and walked out. On cross-examination, Hofstetter admitted that his lead- man talked to him about his talking, that Marchiorlatti may have also, and that Dillow also had warned him about his talking. Marchiorlatti testified that the decision to terminate was his own but that he did consult Dillow beforehand. He testified that he observed Hofstetter talking too much "once or twice," and he verbally warned him on one occa- the Union in Marchiorlatti testified that he heard dust the first part of Dillow's speech-he missed the rest because he was talking to Tom Talon at the time 4It is also noted that on September 30, 1975, the Union filed a charge that the Respondent discharged 12 employees, including the 4 employees named in the complaint herein 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sion less than a week before Hofstetter's termination. In this connection, Marchiorlatti testified that after he warned Hofstetter he went to his leadman and told him to "watch Ted, he seems to be talking quite a bit and disturbing the guys,"_ and "--Rick [the leadman] told me that he had al- ready'•warned him." Marchiorlatti testified further that while Hofstetter was talking he was disturbing other em- ployees and he was not doing his job; he was not getting enough product out.' Marchiorlatti testified that he spoke to Dillow about his intention to discharge Hofstetter the day before his termi- nation. At that time, Marchiorlatti testified, he told Dillow that he had been noticing Hofstetter, that he wasn't work- ing very well; and then Dillow told him that he too had warned Hofstetter about "talking too much and not doing his job." Marchiorlatti testified further that on the follow- ing day he noticed that Hofstetter "was up to the same old thing; talking'and not doing his job, and walking around some." While the record shows that Hofstetter was against the Union, a fact which was well known' to the Respondent' the General Counsel nevertheless contends that the Re- spondent terminated Hofstetter in the belief that he was in fact a union leader. To support this conclusion, the Gener- al Counsel, among other things, points to the testimony of Robert Kramp, a former employee, who testified that with- in the hour afterHofstetter was terminated he approached Marchiorlatti on the job and asked him why Hofstetter had been fired, and Marchiorlatti replied that "Chuck [Dillow] thinks that Ted, had something to do with the Union." Op- posed to Kramp's testimony is that of Marchiorlatti who denied that he had ever had any conversation with Kramp concerning the termination of Hofstetter and denied that he ever told Kramp, or anyone else, that Hofstetter had something to do with the Union. Moreover, Dillow credi- bly testified that he never told Marchiorlatti that he thought Hofstetter was a troublemaker or an instigator of the Union. The truthfulness of Kramp's testimony is fur- ther impugned by the fact that in a previous affidavit given to a Board agent he could not identify the employee he talked about with Marchiorlatti. Bearing in mind Hofstetter's well-known attitude against a union and his conduct in alerting management to the threat of unionism and informing management with the names of the union leaders, I am disposed to credit Dillow's testimony that he never told Marchiorlatti that Hofstetter was a troublemak- er or instigator of the Union and to credit Marchiorlatti's testimony that he never told Kramp or anyone else that Hofstetter had something to do with the Union. It follows 5 Marchiorlatti testified that employees could talk, but not to where it would disturb their work 6 Thus, in April, as is recited earlier in this Decision, Hofstetter alerted Marchiorlatti that the Respondent had a union problem on its hands and that Will Buck and Leonard Ortiz were behind the union drive Also, in the course of Dillow's antiunion speech to the employees on April 24, Hofstetter interrupted to venture his opinion that "we didn't need a union " Addition- ally, Marchiorlatti testified credibly that he did not consider Hofstetter to be a union leader, or in favor of the Union, and Dillow testified credibly that he felt very strongly that Hofstetter was not active in the Union, basing this feeling on reported conversations between Marchiorlatti and Hofstetter that were conveyed to him by Marchiorlatti after the April 24 insurance meeting therefore that I do not credit Kramp's testimony that Mar- chiorlatti told him' that Dillow thought that Hofstetter had something to do with the Union. To further support his contention, the General Counsel also points to the testimony of Buck that a day or two after Hofstetter's termination he attended a meeting of leadmen with Dillow and Marchiorlatti. Buck testified that Dillow made a "pep talk" with the encouraging news that a lot of new orders were coming in and production was picking up. Buck testified further that Dillow told the leadmen "that things were really picking up, that the Company was really going places, and he kind of leaned forward and said that we were all company men now and he wanted us to keep our ears to the ground for any loud noises. And he leaned forward and said, `You-know what I mean'--,we just got rid of one trouble maker and we don't want anymore road- blocks in front of us." Buck testified that as he walked out of this meeting he asked Marchiorlatti "if what Chuck [Dil- low] meant by a roadblock and trouble maker, was Ted Hofstetter, and he said, yes." Buck testified further that he told Marchiorlatti that that was ridiculous-as Ted (Hof- stetter) was, the one who came up and told him about the Union in the first place. Buck testified further that Mar- chiorlatti then told him "that Chuck [Dillow] seemed to think that he [Hofstetter] was the main instigator and trou- ble maker, and there was just nothing that could be done about it." Marchiorlatti, in contradiction of Buck's testimony con- cerning this leadmen's meeting, testified that he did not recall such a meeting where there, was conversation about a "roadblock" or an "instigator." Marchiorlatti denied that he had a conversation with Buck following a leadmen's meeting where Buck talked to him and asked if Dillow meant Hofstetter during the course of the meeting. Aside from the fact previously alluded to in this Deci- sion, namely, that management was fully aware that Hof- stetter was antiunion and an informer against the union leaders, and from my opinion, in view of Respondent's hostility to unionism, that Respondent would be more like- ly to retain rather than discharge Hofstetter, and in the absence of any concrete evidence that Respondent's man- agement was aware of or suspected that Hofstetter, was a union activist, I am inclined to place a different interpreta- tion on Dillow's remarks made at the leadmen's meeting, as testified'to by Buck, concerning having `just got rid of one trouble maker, 'and we don't want any more road- blocks in front of us." It must be pointed out that Dillow was giving a pep talk to his leadmen, stressing production efficiency, and such terms as "trouble, maker" and "road- block" in the context of the pep talk could very well have had reference to the conduct of Hofstetter in interfering with production by his conduct for which he was terminat- ed. Dillow conceded that something similar to the term "roadblock" might have been' said in the course of one of the leadmen meetings where he talked to them about the Company and its growth and what Dillow felt that "we had to do to meet that growth and to be able to produce our products to fill the needs that were out there." In summary concerning Hofstetter's discharge, I am of the opinion that the General Counsel has not satisfied his burden of proof necessary to establish that the Respondent CPD INDUSTRIES, INC. 275 discharged Hofstetter because they believed he was a union activist. To the `contrary, the evidence establishes that Hofstetter was discharged'for cause. It also establishes that the Respondent's managerial representatives, namely Dillow and Marchiorlatti, were fully aware of Hofstetter's antiunion feelings and, in view of the Respondent's marked hostility to unionism, it defies commonsense to conclude that the Respondent terminated Hofstetter because they believed him to be a union activist. I would therefore find that Hofstetter's discharge did not violate any provisions of the Act. D. The Discharge of William Buck Buck was hired by the Respondent on November 22, 1974, and, together with Mark Tepner and James Crowe, other alleged discriminatees, was discharged on August 11. Buck was hired as an assembler trainee. In March he was promoted-to leadman in the metal fab department. He re- mained a leadman till his discharge. When Buck was pro- moted to leadman, his pay was increased from $2.75 to $3 per hour. There were three employees in the department in which Buck served as`leadman. Buck testified credibly con- cerning his duties and responsibilities as follows:- As leadman in my department, at the .start of the day I would tell which man which machine they were to run until the next' break-I would try to switch the men around, so they would have a variety of work and wouldn't get bored. Priorities and work assignments were determined by Chuck Dillow, John Marchiorlatti and Danny War- ren. Concerning my function of training men in my de- partment, I was this most experienced man in my de- partment. About 90 percent of my time was devoted to production work, 10 percent of my time as lead- man. I had no authority to hire or fire, no authority to discipline, just yell at them; no, authority to suspend or lay off. John Marchiorlatti<instructed me that if any- body gave me a hard time-I was to send them over to talk to John [Marchiorlatti]-after I would verbally yell at them-I had no authority to promote, or to grant raises. But I could recommend a raise to John [Marchiorlatti] who then -would talk it over with Chuck, and John would check out how the guy was working-his attendance-his attitude-to determine whether he should be granted a raise. I had no author- ity to recommend hiring or firing and I did not adjust employee , grievances. The procedure on employee complaints was that I either went up and talked to John about it-or I sent the employee to John. I had no authority to grant time off. If there was overtime, John would walk around and ask different employees whether they wanted, to workxovertime. I was paid by the hour and I punched a time clock. Dillow and Marchiorlatti were, salaried. I enjoyed no benefit 'that other employees did not have also. My responsibility and authority as a leadman was no dif- ferent than other leadmen.7 I credit Buck's-description of his duties, and I agree with the General Counsel that William Buck was not a supervi- sor within the definition of Section 2(11) of the Act. At most he served as a more experienced worker expediting the flow of work by routinely assigning men to machines, and by serving as the eyes of management so that he was in a position to report on the three men in his department and on production progress. Buck was essentially a production worker receiving $3 an hour who devoted approximately 90 percent of his time to operating a machine and engaging in the other production processes. Wirtz Manufacturing Com- pany, Inc„ -215 NLRB 252 (1974); Pre-cast Manufacturing Co., 200 NLRB 135, 140-141 (1972); Risdon Manufacturing Company, Inc., 195 NLRB 579, 581 (1972). I find that Buck at no time during his employment by Respondent pos- sessed or exercised the authority of a supervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.8 Buck attended union meetings at the IBEW union office in Santa Ana which were held in May, June, July, and August. On the day preceding April 24, the general meet- ing of management with the employees, Buck approached Marchiorlatti during lunch hour to learn what Marchior- latti personally felt about a union. Buck credibly testified that he asked Marchiorlatti what he thought about a union in the shop. Marchiorlatti replied that he didn't think the shop needed a union-that the shop was too small-and no way Dillow would go for it that he would close up the shop before he would let a union in the shop;9 he had been fighting unions for years, and there was no way he would go for it. Buck told Marchiorlatti that he was personally interested in a union for the fact of job, security, because Dillow was infamous for getting upset, flying off the ban- 7 Marchiorlatti's testimony concerning the duties and responsibilities of the leadmen does not in most respects substantially differ from the testimo- ny of Buck He testified that at the time of the move in July to the new building the leadmen were in charge of their men, and they took over in their departments. Marchiorlatti testified that before the move the leadmen had no authority to fire a man without discussing it with him I do not credit the inference that might be drawn from this last statement that the leadmen had authority to fire In fact, I find that they had do authority to fire before August 15; they could recommend such action, but Marchiorlatti would make the decision on the basis of his own investigation. I also do not credit Marchiorlatti's testimony that the leadmen had authority-at least before August 15-to discipline a'man by sending him home or by giving him time off I have found that the leadman's authority in the matter of discipline was confined merely to verbally bawl him out. It is true, and I so find, that about August 15, a date after Buck's dis- charge, Marchiorlatti enlarged the authority of the leadmen . He called a meeting of all the employees and, standing the leadmen behind him , he told the employees as he so testified-"These are your leadmen; you are to do what they say They can fire you, and they can recommend to me to fire you if they can't They don't have the power in other departments, just their departments." However, it is clear that on and prior to August I 1 the leadmen did not possess the additional authority that was granted to them and announced to the employees on or about August 15 8 The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge. assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of indepen- dent judgment 91 find that this statement made by Marchiorlatti to Buck , that Dillow would close up shop before he would let a union in, violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL dle, screaming at people, and firing people. Buck asked Marchiorlatti who it was who had told him about a union-was it Tom Talon. Marchiorlatti told Buck that it wasn't Tom Talon; it was Ted Hofstetter.10 In addition to attending union meetings at the IBEW union offices in Santa Ana, Buck talked to other employ- ees, trying to encourage them to attend meetings. He also passed out union authorization cards. Buck testified credi- bly that other employees who were active in promoting the union were Mark Tepper, Jim Crowe, and Bob and Tom Kramp. On August II Marchiorlatti went to Buck's department about 8:45 a.m. and discharged him. Buck's testimony con- cerning the exit interview, which I credit, follows: John called me over and he told me that he didn't think things were working out and he was afraid he was going to have to let me go. I asked him_ what he meant by that, and he said he didn't think I could handle the responsiblity anymore. I told him, John, what do you mean?, I have been handling the responsi- bility. We have been working hard. My department has been doing good-and he said' that he needed somebody to be there all the time. I had missed a day the week before, and I reminded him that was the first day I had missed since I had been out of the hospital. And he said that he needed somebody to work overtime all the time. And ^ I re- minded him again earlier that same morning, I had talked to him. I had too many things to do after work the previous week to work overtime, and that I was going to work overtime all the present week. And he said that I had two good workers in my department and I had gotten one of them so upset that he had quit, a guy,' gamed Steve' And I reminded John that the morning that Steve had quit he was one of the people that,was working on the night shift, and when, they 'disbanded the night shift he came into my de- partment. The first thing he said- to me when he walked in was he wished he had gotten fired or laid off so he wouldn't have to come to work that morning. The second thing he said to me, he wanted to know if he could go out to his car and get a beer so he could drink a beer while working. When I told him I didn't think that Chuck Dillow or John would appreciate it, he got up and walked out. When he walked out, I went over and told John and Bud, who was the former fore- man of the night shift, what happened, and they said it was fine, it was all right. I-also told this to John [Mar- chiorlatti]. Then John told me I had gotten into an argument with Mike Smith and had gotten him all upset and was causing him trouble. Now, I told John that was the only argument I' have ever had with anybody since I had been working there. And he said I had gotten Mike so upset that he wanted to transfer. And I told John that Mike and I have talked about it; we had gotten things settled; that he didn't want to transfer 10 Hofstetter a few days earlier had told Marchiorlatti that Buck and Leonard Ortiz were the leaders in the union movement LABOR RELATIONS BOARD anymore, and I didn't want him to transfer, and I told him to go over and talk to, Mike about it. And John then said - that Chuck. [Dillow] just didn't want me around anymore and that he wanted to give Mike a chance on my job. He said he really didn't want to fire me, but it was his job or mine. I couldn't seethe-guy losing his job over me, so I said, well, if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. That-ended the conversation. 1 Buck credibly testified further that before he left the plant he walked up to Chuck Dillow and the following conversation ensued: I said, "Chuck, you don't think I can do my job any- more," and he said, "No, I don't," and I asked him, "What do you mean, Chuck? I have been doing my job. I have been working darn hard. My department has been doing great," and .he turned around, red- faced, and he said to me, "Bill, one of these days, you are going to grow up and you are going to learn that when you work for a company, it does things for you; but-when you work against it, you are out the door," and he turned around and started working on a ma- chine, and I thought it was useless to carry on a con- versation, so I said, "Thanks a lot Chuck," and turned around and walked out. Buck testified credibly that he had never been criticized as a leadman. He had received a 25-cent-per-hour raise when he became a leadman, and had received a 10-cent raise about I month before his discharge. After Buck left the plant, he went to the IBEW local union office and called Dillow on the phone, at the, sugges- tion of Union President Arthur Ortiz, to learn why he was fired. During this phone call, Ortiz listened on an extension phone when Dillow, came on the line. Buck credibly de- scribed the phone conversation between Dillow and him- self'as follows: I told Chuck that I had been to the Unemployment Office that day and they wanted to know why I was terminated and I didn't know what to tell them, and he told me to put down "lack of work" or anything else that I wanted to. And I told him that I knew that wasn't the real reason I was fired, and that I, myself, wanted to know why. And he said that he didn't think that I cared enough about the Company and was willing to work for it. And I asked him what he meant, because I had been working hard all the time. I couldn't understand. I had been working my butt off. And he said, "Well, to be blunt I have heard rumors that there are people trying to organize a union in [the] shop and I heard that you are one of them." The disagreement with Mike Smith was about Buck's girl friend with whom Buck had been living 2 years, and whom he intended to marry. In that connection Buck testified further as follows: And Mike had been going out with Cathy, and I was asking him about it, and he kept on telling me no. And one day be came to me and said, "k am going to tell you the truth," and he told me that he was, and I got all upset about it and we had an argument and started yelling back and forth, and this went on for a couple of days, and then finally we sat down and talked about it and decided we were just going to have to be professional while we were at work. CPD INDUSTRIES, INC. 277 And I asked him if that was why I got fired and he said no. He said that John Marchiorlatti didn't think I was solidly behind the Company; was working against it. And I told him that I had been nothing but behind the Company ever since I started working there. I was working my tail off. I was glad to have e-a job. And he told me that if that was so why didn't I come to him in the first place when this whole union thing got started. And I told him I didn't think it would get that far. And he got all upset and he said, "What do you mean this far? They have been having meetings, haven't they? You have attended them, haven't you? And they have filed, haven't they." And I told him that I had been to the meetings but I didn't know anything about them filing. And he said, "Well, why don't you just let it cool for a couple of days and come in and talk to John." And he said, "I will tell you the truth, I won't have a union in my shop. If it comes right down to it I will fire everyone. I will clean the shop and hire a bunch of wetbacks." He said, "They're cheap and they are will- ing to work," and he kind of chuckled when he made the remark. And I asked him if I was fired because of the Union again, and he said I was fired for a number of reasons; one of them was my involvement-at the top of the list was my involvement in this union thing. And I told him it was all a misunderstanding and I asked him if I could have another chance, and he said to come in and talk to John and convince him that I was sincere about what I was saying. Then he said, "You might as well tell me the truth. I know that you have been to those meetings." And I told him that I went to the meetings just to hear another person's point of view and to express mine when ' they -were done, whether they wanted to hear it or not. And he just said, "Well, come in in a couple of days and talk to John." And I said, "Thanks," and hung up the phone. Union President Arthur Ortiz who was listening in on the phone conversation gave testimony corroborating Buck's testimony as follows: Mr. Buck then asked him the reasons he was terminat- ed. Mr. Dillow's response was that he had heard ru- mors to the effect that there was a union campaign going on in the shop and that Mr. Buck's attitude wasn't right. And Mr. Buck asked him what he meant by that. Mr. Dillow's response was, "Well, have you attended any of those union meetings?" And Mr. Buck denied that at first. Through the course of the conversation Mr. Buck then admitted attending the meetings, and Mr. Dillow said, "Well, there isn't very much about the meetings that I didn't know anyway." "As a' matter of fact," he said, "I know you have filed." And Mr. Buck then asked him, "Well, was it because I attended the meetings I was fired?" Mr. Dillow's response was, "No, and you would never get me to repeat that or admit that you were fired because of union activity, to anybody." Through the course of the conversation, Mr. Buck was very insistent in asking him reasons why he was terminated, and at the end of the conversation, Mr. Dillow said, "There were many reasons you were ter- minated, Mr. Buck but at the top of the list was this union thing." Marchiorlatti conceded by his testimony that Buck was a good worker, but brought his personal problems to work, such as on one occasion about 1 year previous to Buck's discharge where Buck confided to him that he was upset at work because his girl friend had contracted a social dis- ease, and another occasion where he had an argument with Mike Smith because Smith had been dating his girl friend; that he yelled at another employee named Tim Bailey and had caused another employee, Steve Poppinick, to quit his job. With respect to Tim Bailey, Marchiorlatti admitted that he, himself, fired Tim Bailey because he could not get along with employees and was constantly shouting at other employees and in general disrupting the shop. With respect to employee Poppinick, Marchiorlatti ad- mitted that he had been informed by Buck that Poppinick had a hangover and did not want to work that particular morning. And with respect to Mike Smith's request to transfer, the record shows that about 2 weeks before Buck's discharge, on an occasion where Mike Smith had been temporarily assigned to another department because work was slack in Buck's department and had refused to return when requested, with the excuse that Marchiorlatti had okayed the transfer, Marchiorlatti directed Buck to tell Mike Smith that if he wanted to work at that plant he was to work in Buck's department and if he didn't want to work in Buck's department, he knew where the door was. E. Analysis and Conclusion Concerning William Buck's Discharge I have concluded that Buck's discharge constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and discriminated against him because of his union activity. The reasons advanced by the Respondent as the basis for Buck's discharge are clearly pretextual and do not con- stitute the true or underlying reason. I am satisfied, and I find, that Buck was an extremely conscientious worker who took his job seriously and made every effort to make his, department a success, as he credibly testified and as was conceded on the record by Plant Manager Marchior- latti. The reasons advanced by Marchiorlatti for Buck's discharge were petty and, in most cases, without any genu- ine basis in fact or were so remote from the time of the discharge on August 11 as to confirm the fact that Mar- chiorlatti was having a very difficult time to conjure up reasons to justify the discharge. In this connection, it must be noted that at the close of Marchiorlatti's exit interview with Buck on August 11 Marchiorlatti could contain the truth no longer, and when Buck by his answers destroyed the various reasons assigned by Marchiorlatti as the basis of the discharge Marchiorlatti, appreciating the pretextual 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nature of his assigned reasons for discharging Buck, then told Buck that Chuck (Dillow) just didn't want him around anymore and that he wanted to give Mike a chance on the job, and Marchiorlatti told Buck that he really didn't want to fire Buck, but it was his job or Buck's. Moreover, Buck's exit interview with Dillow before he left the plant on Au- gust 11 and his telephone conversation with Dillow on that same day reveal the true cause for his discharge. There at the plant, Buck passionately pleaded for his job and point- ed out to Dillow how hard he'had worked and how great his department was doing. Dillow made it plain to Buck that he had committed the unpardonable sin of organizing a union with these words, "Bill, one of these days, you are going to grow up and you are going to learn that when you work for a company, it does things for you; but when you work against it, you are out the door." If there was any doubt what Dillow meant in the exit interview at the shop it was clarified in the later telephone conversation that same day between Dillow and Buck where Dillow told Buck, "I will tell you the truth.' l won't have a union in my shop. If it comes right down to it, I will fire everyone. I will clear the shop and hire a bunch of `wet backs.' " In answer to a question put to him again by Buck as to why he was fired, Dillow told Buck he was fired for a number of reasons-at the top of the list was Buck's in- volvement in "this union thing." It is clear from the record that Buck was a leader in the union organizational drive and that management was aware of it. Dillow informed Buck in the August 11 tele- phone conversation that he was aware that Buck was at- tending union meetings, and the Union had already filed its petition for an election. It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent's 'precipitate action on August 11 in dis- charging Buck as well as two other union activists, namely Crowe and Tepner, was calculated to defeat the Union.12 F. The Discharge of Mark Tepner Mark Tepner was hired by the Respondent in mid-April, to work on the night shift. Most of his work was in the coil department, soldering coils. He started at a wage rate of $2.50 per hour and was raised to $2.75 per hour in May. At that time, according to Tepner's credible and undisputed testimony, Dillow told him that he was giving him the 25- cent raise because he liked the way Tepner worked. Tepner testified that about 1 week later, Dillow approached him and told him that effective June 1 he would be made a leadman and get 'another 25-cent raise. It appears that, with the move to the new building about July 1, no lead- men were designated on the night shift according to Dillow's testimony. In any event, the record shows without dispute that Tepner was assigned to the packaging depart- ment on the day shift and was not made a leadman. Tepner testified credibly and without contradiction that, about I week before he was terminated, Bud McKinnon came to him with a pay-change slip and he signed it, authorizing 12 I have earlier in this Decision, contrary to the position of the Respon- dent, held that Buck was not a supervisor within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act. As an employee he was therefore entitled to the' benefits and protection of the Act the Respondent to give TTepner another 25-cent raise, to make his pay 33 per hour, but he did not receive this last raise. When Tepner began work on the day shift in the new building in July, he learned of the union activity in prog- ress when fellow employee James Crowe took him to the umon hall. Tepner signed a union authorization card and solicited union authorization signatures from other em- ployees. On August 11, Bud McKinnon, who had previously been Tepner's foreman on the night shift, informed Tepner that he was laid, off. McKinnon told Tepner that the Respon- dent had just lost a few big contracts and that he was going to have to lay Tepner off because he had not come in to work a few Saturdays when he said he would, and he had been gone a few days. Ten or 15, minutes later, Tepner spoke to Marchiorlatti in the shop. Tepner asked Mar- chiorlatti why he had been fired, and Marchiorlatti replied that they thought he was too slow on the packaging ma- chine. But Tepner testified credibly that theretofore no one had warned him about his attendance, or about his work speed. Marchiorlatti testified that, as he had in the cases of Buck and Crowe, he had talked to Dillow on the morning of August 11 about his plans to discharge Tepner. Mar- chiorlatti testified that Night Foreman Bud McKinnon had reported to, him that Tepner was a good worker, but that the leadman in the packaging department reported to him that Tepner was slow on the skin-packaging machine. Be- cause of this, Marchiorlatti testified that he approached Tepner and told him that he was slow on the machine and that he felt Tepner could do a better job on the antennas. Marchiorlatti testified that Tepner became a bit upset and said he wasn't going to work in antennas anymore; he said he had worked his butt, off, and he wasn't going to work in that department anymore; and Marchiorlatti testified he replied, "Well you are better in that department than you are up here in the skin-pack machine-you are too slow and I want to put you back in antennas," and he says, "Well, if you put me back there, I am not going to do a very good job for you." Marchiorlatti testified further that Tepner said he had earned the packaging job. Marchiorlatti testified that this conversation with Tepner occurred about 3 or 4 days before he discussed the matter of his plans to terminate Tepner with Dillow. He testified he recommended to Dillow that Mark be let go because he wasn't going to do a good job in antennas, there was no sense of having him around; and Dillow agreed. Tepper agrees that about 2 weeks before he was termi- nated he was approached by Marchiorlatti who asked him if he would be interested in going back to the coil depart- ment. Tepner told him "no," that he liked it over in the packaging department. Tepner testified that Marchiorlatti then started "ribbing" him, saying, "Well, you know, you are the only one that can work on the coils ; we need some- body over there that knows what they are doing." Tepner testified he replied, ".I would much rather prefer the pack- aging area." Tepner testified he also told Marchiorlatti that when he went on the day shift McKinnon told him that he would be permanently on packaging machines and that he really did not wish to go back over-.into the coil section and CPD INDUSTRIES, INC. 279 that was the extent of the conversation- Tepner denied that he told Marchiorlatti that he would do a bad job if he were transferred to another machine. G. Analysis and Conclusion Concerning Tepner's Discharge It is clear from the record that Dillow, who was intensely hostile to the unionization of his plant, and who had threatened to clear the plant of union supporters to the point that he would close down if necessary, was aware, obviously through informers, of the identity of those who were attending union meetings and the extent of their union support and activity. This fact was made manifest by Dillow's August I1 phone conversation with Buck where Dillow in the course of the conversation told Buck that he had heard rumors that there were people trying to organize a union in the shop and that Buck was one of them. Dillow also told Buck in that phone conversation that he knew "they have been having meetings, haven't they? You have attended them, haven't you? And they have filed, haven't they?" It is significant that, when Tepner was on the night shift and did not engage in any form of union activity, he was praised by Dillow himself and given a 25-cent raise with a promise of a leadman's job; and only 1 week before his discharge, Foreman Bud McKinnon had him, sign for another 25-cent raise. This praise and these wage increases granted to Tepner attest to the fact that management was pleased with Tepner's work until they learned of his union activity whereupon Dillow and Marchiorlatti, I find, con- trived to rid themselves of a strong union supporter on the pretext that Tepner told Marchiorlatti that he would do a poor job if they put him back on soldering coils, In view of the fact that no supervisor had previously warned Tepner that he was too slow on the packaging machine, and the further fact that McKinnon ,had begun the processing of another 25-cent raise for Tepner only 1 week before Tepner's discharge, I further conclude that Marchiorlatti's claim made to Tepner at the time of his discharge that he was too slow on the packaging machine was pretextual and not supported by fact. Additionally, I have noted that Foreman McKinnon, who first notified Tepner on August 11 that he was terminated, gave Tepner an entirely differ- ent reason for the termination, namely, that Respondent had just lost a few big contracts. I find, therefore, that Respondent's termination of Mark Tepner on August 11 discriminated against him because of his union activity and violated, Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. H. The Discharge of James Crowe James Crowe was hired by the Respondent in early April and together with Tepner and Buck was discharged on Au- gust 11. Crowe's job was to solder antennas in the cable department. His leadman was Mike Roach. Crowe attended union meetings and at work he passed out cards for union representation. His union activity last- ed up until the date of his discharge. Crowe was present at the April 24 general meeting in the plant concerning group insurance where Dillow in surprise and shock made his antiunion speech to the employees in which, according to Crowe's testimony , which I credit, Dil- low, among other things, told the employees that he would withdraw his plans for profit sharing if the people wanted a union ; that if the employees were not going to cooperate he could have the parts done elsewhere , have them shipped from overseas, and have the employees' jobs wiped out. On August 11 while at work, Marchiorlatti called Crowe off to the side and told him the following: "Well, the big boys of the industry are buying us out, so we are not going to need so many people in your department anymore, so I'm afraid we are going to have to let you go." Crowe testified he was shocked , and he testified as fol- lows: I asked him if I deserved a chance. You know, I wasn't warned or nothing, and was I working bad; I thought I deserved another chance. I didn't think I deserved to be fired. And he just wouldn't talk to me; he wouldn't face me. That was about it. Before Crowe left the plant, he talked to Dillow. Crowe relates the conversation between himself and Dillow as fol- lows: I was pretty upset and I looked at him with tears in my eyes and said, "I don't deserve to be fired; I worked hard for this company," and he says "You may be right"-and he turned around and walked into his office. That was the end of the conversation." Marchiorlatti denied that at the time he terminated Crowe on August 11 he made reference to "the big boys buying the company." He testified that, in consulting with Dillow on the morning of August 11 about his plans to terminate Crowe, he told Dillow that Mike Roach, Crowe's leadman, "came in and was telling me that Jim would not do what he said, and that Jim was not working up to his ability. He was slacking off and wasn't doing his job very well. And I told Mike, you know, had he warned Crowe, you know, about such and he said, `yeah,' he told him he was talking too much and such. And I told Chuck of this and we decided if a man did not work in one department, we weren't going to move him to another." Marchiorlatti testified that when he notified Crowe that he was terminated he told him that his leadman, Mike Roach, had reported he was not doing a very good job and that he wasn't doing what he was able to, and that they were going to have to let him go. Crowe testified credibly and contrary to Marchiorlatti's testimony that he was not slow-in fact he was way ahead of the other men in his department. He also testified that Roach did not reproach him about his work. Mike Roach, called as a rebuttal witness by the General Counsel and whose testimony I credit fully, especially be- cause by giving testimony adverse to the Respondent by whom he is still employed he has "placed his neck on the line," 13 testified that as Crowe's leadman, he had never complained to Marchiorlatti that Crowe was a slow work- er. Roach testified that Crowe worked across the table from him "when we were very, busy, and all the time I saw, 13 See Federal Envelope Company, 147 NLRB 1030, 1036 (1964), and Bush Hog, Inc, 161 NLRB 1575, 1580 (1966) 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he was always working-he was not any slower than any other employee in my department." Crediting the testimony of Crowe and Roach, as I do, which directly contradicts Marchiorlatti's testimony that Crowe was slow and that it had been so reported to him by Roach, I perforce must discredit Marchiorlatti's testimony as to the reason he discharged Crowe. I find in fact on the basis of the testimony of Crowe and Roach that Crowe was not a slow worker and that the reason advanced by Mar- chiorlatti for terminating Crowe is false, and that the true and underlying reason for the discharge was Crowe's union activity. Agreeing with the General Counsel, I find that Crowe was discharged by the Respondent because he engaged in union activity and that, by discharging Crowe on August 11, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Cascade Coach Co., Inc., 206 NLRB 874, 886 (1973). I find, for the same reasons that I articulated earlier in this Decision with respect to Buck and Tepner, that the Respondent was aware of Crowe's union activity and the discharge was motivated by the Respondent's extreme hos- tility to the unionization of its plant. I. The 15-Cent-Per-Hour Wage Increase A few days after receiving a copy of the Union's petition for an election in the mail, on August 13, Dillow called a meeting of the employees and announced that he was plan- ning on giving a cost-of-living raise to the employees, but because of the union activity he could not give the raise, and his lawyer had advised him not to. One week later, Dillow called another meeting of the employees . There he told them that he didn't care what his lawyer said , that he was going to give the 15-cent raise anyway as he felt the employees deserved it. The raise appeared on the employ- ees' next paycheck. It is clear from the record, and I find from the record testimony of Marchiorlatti and Dillow, as well as others, that the Respondent had no policy of giving across-the- board, cost-of-living raises, and previously the Respondent had never granted an across-the-board, cost-of-living wage increase to its employees. The announcement of the 15- cent cost-of-living raise after the physical receipt of a copy of the Union's election petition was obviously timed to de- feat the union organizational drive. I find that the Respondent's announcement of and granting of the wage increase in August interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Ex- change Parts Company, 375 U.S . 405 (1964). Emery Air Freight Corporation, 207 NLRB 572, 575-576 (1973). J. Interrogation of Employees Kenneth Stout, a former employee of the Respondent who had worked in the base load department, testified credibly and without contradiction that in August, while at work, he heard Dillow talking to an employee named Mike. Stout testified he heard Dillow ask Mike how he felt about the Union and if he knew anybody who was actively involved. Mike told Dillow that he agreed with the Union but did not know who was involved . Stout credibly testi- fied further that in August he heard Marchiorlatti behind him talking to an employee . He couldn't tell who Mar- chiorlatti was talking to and didn't hear the entire conver- sation, but he heard Marchiorlatti asking how this person felt about the Union ; did he think it ought to come into the shop. When Marchiorlatti inquired as to who was bringing the Union in, the answer was "I don't know." By the above-described interrogation of employees con- ducted by Dillow and Marchiorlatti as testified to by Stout, I find that the Respondent coerced and restrained employ- ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Kay Corporation d/b/a Holiday Inn of Chicago - South, Harvey, 209 NLRB 11 (1974). When employee Hofstetter approached Marchiorlatti in April during a luncheon break and warned him that the Respondent had a union problem on its hands, and Mar- chiorlatti questioned him closely concerning the identity of the union leaders to the point where Hofstetter told him the leaders were Bill Buck and Leonard Ortiz, I find that Marchiorlatti's interrogation of Hofstetter concerning the identity of the union leaders violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Benner Glass Co., 209 NLRB 686, 688 (1974); Monroe Manufacturing Company, Inc., 200 NLRB 62 (1972). Buck testified that a few days after Hofstetter's termina- tion in May Dillow called a meeting of the leadmen and gave them a pep talk informing them that 'the Respondent had received a lot of new orders and that production was picking up, that "we were all company men now and he wanted us to keep our ears to the ground ' for any loud noises, and he leaned forward and said `you know what I mean.' " The General Counsel contends that Dillow's re- marks to the leadmen were intended as a solicitation' of the leadmen to inform on the union activities of the employees in their respective departments . In the context of the Re- spondent's antiunion campaign and'subsequent illegal dis- charges and other unfair labor practices , I have found herein an inference could very well be drawn that the lead- men were being solicited to inform on their men . However, other evidence by General Counsel's witnesses in the rec- ord shows that at other meetings of the leadmen as well as all employees, Dillow consistently, before the union activi- ty as well as afterwards, warned that employees who did not produce would be weeded out; that he was not running a charity organization ; that he was interested in employees who were willing to work hard and who were honest; and he urged the leadmen before moving into the new plant that they would have to get more work out of their men. Concerning the leadmen's meeting testified to by Buck above, Dillow testified that in urging the leadmen to keep their eyes and ears open , he used that terminology only in the sense that he wanted the leadmen to be sure the em- ployees in their department were producing and doing a good job. It appears to me that Dillow's remarks in the leadmen's meeting as testified to by Buck are susceptible to the mean- ing that the leadmen were being solicited to inform on the union activity of employees rather than to report on poor workers. I so find. Exhorting the leadmen to keep their ears to the ground for loud noises, "you know what I mean," to CPD INDUSTRIES, INC. 281 my mind, is not a request to increase production. This so- licitation by the Respondent of the leadmen to inform on the union activity of employees violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. FMC Corporation, 211 NLRB 770, 774 (1974). IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's op- erations described in section 1, above, have a close and intimate relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. ployees, the Respondent coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and the Respon- dent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. By announcing and granting a wage increase to all employees and by threatening withdrawal of profit-sharing plans and other benefits, for the purpose of inducing em- ployees to reject the Union and abandon union activity, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 8. By discharging Ted Hofstetter, the Respondent did not violate the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent discharged William Buck, Mark Tepner, and James Crowe for reasons which violate the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent offer them immedi- ate reinstatement to their jobs and make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Compa- ny, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, computed in the manner prescribed in his Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, CPD Industries, Inc., is an employ- er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 2254, the Union herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging William Buck, Mark Tepner, and James Crowe, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By threatening to close the plant and to discharge employees because they engaged in union activity or sup- ported the Union, the Respondent coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By interrogating employees concerning their union sympathy and support, and the union activity of other em- ployees; and by soliciting employees to inform on the union sympathy, support, and union activity of other em- ORDER 14 Respondent, CPD Industries, Inc., Santa Ana, Califor- nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities or those of their fellow employees. (b) Threatening discharge or other reprisal against em- ployees or threatening to close the plant or import work from overseas for the purpose of discouraging employees from engaging in union activity or support. (c) Threatening to withdraw profit-sharing plans or other employee benefit plans for the purpose of discourag- ing employees from engaging in union activities or support. (d) Announcing and placing into effect general wage in- creases to discourage employees from engaging in union activity or support. (e) Discouraging membership in International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 2254, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees, or in any other manner, discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of em- ployment. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer William Buck, Mark Tepper, and James Crowe reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earn- ings in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. 14 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, 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. 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at its Santa Ana, California, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by an authorized repre- sentative of the Respondent, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and be main- 15 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board," shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order of the National Labor Relations Board." tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it here- by is, dismissed insofar as'it alleges Respondent discrimi- natonly discharged Ted Hofstetter.