General Dynamics Corp.

334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Dynamics Corporation and Aluminum Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA- 6418 December 16, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On June 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Elbert D. Gadsden issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 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 Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, General Dynam- ics Corporation, Charleston, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili- ty 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 (CA. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and fmd no basis for reversing his findings, noting in particular that such findings primarily rest on his opportunity to judge the demeanor of each of the witnesses, and on the reasonable probability of the truthfulness of their respective testimony considering the totality of the evidence received. In sec III, B, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge erroneously referred to certain facts involving statements attributed to Respondent's supervisor, Burnett, as pertaining to subpar 8(d) of the complaint, rather than to subpar 8(b). He further erroneously referred to certain facts concerning statements attributed to Respondent's industrial relations man- ager, Black, as pertaining to subpar 8(b) of the complaint, rather than to subpar. 8(c). Additionally, he incorrectly used a pronoun of the female gender in referring to witness Vahs Craver, a male These apparently inadvertent references, however, do not affect the results, as on their face they are unrelated to any substantive matter 2 The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the statements made by Respondent's supervisor, Hoppmann, to employee Crawley on December 22, 1975, constituted unlawful interrogation in violation of Sec. 8(axl) Respondent has excepted to this conclusion on the ground that such conduct was not specifically alleged in the complaint . While contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's findings, such conduct was not specifically 227 NLRB No. 51 alleged, the matter was fully litigated at the hearing Accordingly, as the evidence clearly supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion, we adopt his finding of a violation in this regard. See, a g., Lizdale Knitting Mills, Inc, 211 NLRB 966 (1974) DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ELBERT D. GADSDEN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon an original and an amended charge filed on January 21, 1976, and on March 3, 1976, respectively, by Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Charging Party, against General Dynamics Corporation, herein called the Respondent, a complaint was issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer on April 16, 1976, denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices in violation of the Act. The hearing in the above matter was held before me at Charleston, South Carolina, on May 11, 1976. Briefs have been received from counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Repondent, respectively, and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with a facility in Charleston, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture of aluminum tanks for liquid natural gas. During the past 12 months, a representative period, Respondent received goods and raw materials directly from points outside the State of South Carolina, valued in excess of $50,000, and it shipped to points outside the State of South Carolina products valued in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Charging Party, is now, and has at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent, a Delaware corporation with a facility in Charleston, South Carolina, is engaged in the manufacture of aluminum spherical tanks to be installed in eight ships in which to deliver natural gas from Indonesia to Japan on the GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. first run. Respondent is building the first three ships to deliver Burma Oil and it will be part owner of the ships. Prior to December 1974 when Respondent purchased the Charleston facility from World Southern Corporation, it had previously subcontracted the performance of such work to World Southern. However, when World Southern started experiencing severe production problems and was unwilling to invest the money needed to complete the project, the Respondent purchased it from its parent company, Pittsburgh-Demoines Steel Company, in Decem- ber 1-974. At the time Respondent made its purchase, the United Steel Workers of America were in the process of organizing World Southern production employees and the Respondent admitted that it ,was aware of such union campaign. Apparently there was a lack of momentum in the Steel Workers campaign,-- until it was joined on the same objective by Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, about October 1975 . At that time, both Unions commenced an all-out organizing campaign during which the Steel Workers subsequently abandoned its organizing efforts. The Aluminum Workers Union continued its campaign which included holding meetings with the employees of Respondent in November 1975., B. Employees' Union Activity and Respondent's Alleged Interrogation About Such Activity Louis Ellington, also known as Duke Ellington, was employed by Respondent-as a weld repairman in the weld maintenance department from March 1975 until January 23, 1976. In November 1975, Ellington and five of his fellow employees attended a union organizing meeting at the Knights Inn with John Murphy, representative for the Aluminum Workers_ Union. Ellington signed a union authorization card in mid-December 1975 and, in early January 1976, distributed about 30 such cards to fellow employees. With respect to the alleged interrogation by, Respondent as set- forth in paragraph 8(a) of the complaint, Ellington testified that his- conversation with Gregory (Greg) Black was as follows: A. Mr. Black asked me if anything was wrong with the guys; he said the guys seemed to-be unhappy. And I told him, everybody seemed- to be happy they were working. And they seemed to be happy. And he asked me if, if it's money,-or-what it is. I told him, everybody seemed to be happy, and he said, well, if it's the union. I tell him that I receive a letter from the steelworkers. And he said he know that everybody receive a letter from the steelworkers. Ellington said the Steel Workers apparently sent the letter in December 1975 as a last effort to organize Respondent's employees, even though the Aluminum Workers were also trying to organize them. ' The testimonial versions of the December conversation of Louis Ellington and Supervisor Gregory Black are relatively consistent except for Ellington's allegation that Black asked him were employees unhappy about the Union. On this testimonial conflict, I credit Ellington's version not only 335 In responding to Ellington's testimony about the conver- sation carried on with Gregory Black, industrial relations manager for Respondent, Black testified as follows: I asked him how things were going. He said, fine. I asked him how long he had been back with the company. I asked him if he had worked with World Southern before, and he said yes. Well, are you aware of any people that are unhappy? Are they unhappy with the benefits or the wages? He said, he didn't think so. He wasn't unhappy. And I said, well, there seems to be a lot of uneasiness. And he said, well, he thought there might be some uneasiness because he - and he stated to me that, I believe he had just received a letter from the steelworkers. And I said, yes, I know that, because several of our supervisors, who were' hourly under IWorld Southern, are salaried supervisors under us, had received letters also from the steelworkers and they returned them over to us.... Q. Go ahead, with your conversation. A. So Ellington said that he had received a letter. And I said, yes, I was aware that several letters - they probably had a mailing list of all the old employees, and that they sent them the letters; to everybody. And I said, you know, we have to expect it. But that's exactly why we came down here; we tried to give them the same wages and salaries and benefits, as much as we could, because we did not want a union in. And he said he understood, the wages and benefits were good. Q. O.K. Was anything else said in that conversa- tion? A. Not that I can recall. Q. O.K. A. I did tell him that my door was always open, if he wanted to come up and talk to me at any time, feel free. Q. Did you ask Mr. Ellington if the union was the problem? A. No. Q. Was the subject of the union discussed in any other way, other than -what you've testified in this conversation? A. . No. - He denied that he asked Ellington if the Union was the problem but said he did tell Ellington his door was always open if he wanted to talk with him. They did not have any further conversation.' With respect to Respondent's, interrogation of its employ- ees as alleged in paragraph 8(b) of the complaint, Elvira Crawley testified that she was_ first employed by Respon- dent in June 1975, and last worked as an aluminum welder in the pipe and skirt shop under. the supervision of Mike Duckworth, until she voluntarily terminated her employ- ment on January 26, 1976. She further testified that in November 1975 she hosted a union organizing meeting at her house with union representative, John Murphy, and because of the unpersuasive manner in which Black testified, but also because of his subsequent coercive interrogation of employee Elvira Crawley, infra, in late December 1975. 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD several fellow employees. Thereafter, she said she attended three or four union meetings at the Knights Inn in December 1975. She signed the union authorization card in late December 1975 (G.C. Exh. 2) and she distributed about 100 union authorization cards to different fellow employees during the first work shift. Elvira Crawley further testified that a day or two before the last union meeting, on or about December 19, 1975, Supervisor William (Bill) Burnett, for whom she was working that day, called a brief safety meeting and, upon concluding the meeting, Burnett said, "he heard scuttlebutt was going around about the union - there were union meetings and union activity. That the union could not do anything for us. . . . And that, if we were caught partici- pating or being active in the union whatsoever, we would be fired. Legally, they could not fire you for being active in the union, but there were so many other things they could fire you for." Valis Craver was employed by Respondent from July 3, 1975, to March 10, 1976, and worked under the supervision of Bill Burnett. In part she corroborated Crawley's version of Burnett's remarks. That is, Craver testified that Bill Burnett stated during the December safety meeting that "if anyone was caught signing the union cards, and was talking about the union during the Company's time or on Company property, there at General Dynamics, that they would be fired"; and that "the ones that's signing the cards that we could write to some place up in New York, I think . . . request you get a card back, if you wanted it " William Burnett, Jr., testified that he was employed by Respondent in July 1975 and worked as a supervisor in the fabrication building. He further testified that he had a safety meeting during the week of December 19, 1975, but that employee Elvira Crawley was not present. He recalled, however, that one employee did ask him during the meeting how the Company felt about the Union, and he said he did not know, they should ask some people from the manage- ment office up front. He continued to testify as follows: A. OK. I went further to tell the people that, if they were interested in unions, to make sure that they understood what the union was for, that they were interested in. Make sure that these unions would be representative of their own feelings and their own needs, and what they needed. Also, I had a discussion with one of the employees about the same thing, about the talking to the front management. And, he said, well, if you go up front - this was Vallis [sic] Craver, by the way - he said, if you go up front they'll find a way to get rid of you. Q. Who made this statement? A. Vallis [sic] Craver. One of my leadmen. Q. All right, what else was said? Was anything else said about unions in this meeting? A. In general, some of the other employees asked about the union cards, and I told them that the union cards were normally a device used to get access to a company. And that they should be careful as to what they sign, and when they sign them, to make sure that they were doing this sort of thing, to make sure that they did not use company time to distribute or solicit for these cards. It could lead to a dismissal by the company' rules on distribution and solicitation. On cross-examination, Burnett admitted that Elvira Crawley could have overheard or walked up to his safety meeting since it was held in an open area near her work station. He denied that he told his employees that he did not think the Union was a good idea but, instead, said he told them he didn't think it was good for him. He also admitted that he had been a union member and he denied that management had ever instructed supervisors what not to say to the employees. He denied that he knew the union meetings were in progress during the months of November and December 1975 and he stated that his employees had approached him concerning the Union in the plant on more than the first occasion which occurred during the Decem- ber meeting.2 With respect to the allegation that Respondent interro- gated an employee as described in paragraph 8(c) of the complaint, Elvira Crawley further testified that on Decem- ber 22, 1975, while in her work area, Personnel Manager Harry Hoppmann told her he had been through quality control and had been informed by employees there that a union meeting was held on the previous night. He then asked her if she knew anything about it and she told him she did not, although she did in fact know there had been such a meeting. Harry Hoppmann, Respondent's employment supervisor, testified that in early December 1975 during one of his occasional tours of the plant to see if employees were having any problems, Gregory Black accompanied him. They stopped at Elvira Crawley's work station to inquire about the operation of her plasma arc machine which she operates. Black asked her if she had any problems and she replied she did not, but that some of the employees down at the other end of the shop did. The conversation continued as follows: I said, oh. H'ummm. No real response to that. And she said the union was promising higher wage and benefits, more benefits to the employees. And Mr. Black, in turn, replied that any time a union was trying to enter a plant, they did promise usually more benefits and higher wages, too. To employees. And he also stated that the union could promise, you know, promise these things. And that if the employees really wanted a union, then they were going to have one. Then, Ms. Crawley in return, I think it was the last thing she said, replied back to him, that she wasn't a part of the union, and she didn't want anything to do with it. 2 I credit Elvira Crawley's testimony, which is corroborated in part by the testimony of employee Valis Craver , because I received the distinct impression from the manner in which they testified that they were telling the truth At the same time, I do not credit the testimonial version of Supervisor William Burnett because I was not persuaded by his demeanor that he was telling the whole truth Moreover, Burnett's own unqualified testimony overstates the law, by telling the employees they could not solicit for the Union on company time or on company property, if indeed he said anything about a valid prohibition against solicitation GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. 337 Elvira Crawley asked him to call her on the telephone. On the first occasion she proceeded to advise him that people were being approached by the Union. On the second occasion she proceeded to tell him that the Union had a meeting at one of the motels off 1-26. About mid-January 1976 Mr. Hoppmann said Crawley came to his office and told him people were passing out union cards in the plant during working hours. He advised her that the Respondent had a solicitation rule which prohibited such distributions during working hours and that a supervisor would give a warning for solicitation and distribution of such literature. Around the latter part of January 1976 he said Mrs. Crawley came to his office and advised him that she could not work the second shift because she had babysitting problems which she and Respondent could not resolve, and she voluntarily terminated her employment. Crawley re- turned to the plant several days later to pick up her check and at that time advised him that the Union had planned to pay some sailors to come out during the working hours and put stickers and union literature on the cars of the employees. He simply advised her that such sailors would be trespassing and the Respondent would have them removed. Hoppmann denied that he ever asked Crawley about union meetings and said she did not tell him wny she did not want to get involved in the Union. On cross-examina- tion Hoppmann admitted that he was against the Union coming into the plant and he knew that Respondent was against it. He also acknowledged that he knew that Respondent was against it. He also acknowledged that he knew the employees were talking about the Union and that, during the course of interviewing applicants for employ- ment, he advises the applicant that the Company does not want a union in the plant.3 With respect to the allegation under subparagraph 8(e) of the complaint, Carl Binnarr, an overhead crane operator who is working under the supervision of John Franklin, testified that he talked to several of his fellow employees in the plant about the Union in November and December 1975 and January 1976, and that he signed a union authorization card on February 10, 1976. Binnarr said that during the first part of February 1976, while undergoing his 90-day performance evaluation by Supervisor John Frank- lin, the following conversation ensued: A. He handed me my evaluation, told me to read over it. And I was reading over it, and he asked me if anybody from the union had come up and approached me, and asked me to sign a union card. And I told him, no, i don't know what you're talking about. He said, anybody like Clarence Marshall come 3 1 do not credit Employment Manager Harry Hoppmann 's denial that he asked employee Elvira Crawley ifshe knew anything about a union meeting held on the previous night because his testimony is inconsistent with the tenor of all of the evidence of record In discrediting said denial I considered the fact that Hoppmann admitted he and the Respondent were against unionization of the plant and such an admission establishes a motive for his asking such a question . I also considered the credited testimony that Hoppmann accompanied Black on a tour of the plant to find out if the employees had any problems, and I can hardly deem such a curious inquiry, during a period when the witness and other company officials knew there was union activity in the plant , did not succumb to satisfying that curiosity, especially when they had a motive (opposition to the union) to do so up and ask you to sign a union card? And I told him, no. Hadn't seen Clarence. He was on the third shift. And then he asked me if I signed the union card, and I told him I hadn't signed one yet. He asked me if I was for the union, or against it. I told him, I was just setting back to see what happened. I hadn't signed the union card, yet, and I didn't give him a definite answer, whether I was for it or against it. Supervisor John Franklin acknowledged his giving the performance evaluation to Bmnarr during the last part of January 1976 but denied discussing the Union. On cross- examination he acknowledged that he personally was against the Union and did not want one in the plant. He said he first learned about the Union in December 1975 when flyers were distributed, although he did not know for which union or whether Binnarr was involved in union activity.4 With respect to the interrogation alleged under subpara- graph 8(c) of the complaint, Elvira Crawley testified that, in late December 1975, Supervisor Gregory Black, accompa- nied by the Respondent's safety inspector, standing about 30 feet away, approached her and the following conversa- tion ensued. A. Well, he asked me if I had heard about a union meeting the night before. I told him, I didn't know what he was talking about. And he also asked me if I had attended a union meeting. I also told him, again, I didn't know what he was talking about. He wanted to know if I knew why the people were so unhappy; why they wanted a union; and I told him, no, I didn't. He asked me if I had heard anybody complaining about anything. I told him, the only thing I heard them complaining about was the extreme cold in the plant. He said, if I heard anything, would I please let him know. I told him, I didn't know anything, I didn't want to get involved, I didn't want to jeopardize my job. Q. And what did he say about that? A. He said I didn't have to worry about that. Safety Inspector Gregory Black testified that he, accom- panied by Mr. Hoppmann, approached Crawley at her work station in early December 1975, and asked her how was her machine operating and she said fine. He then asked her how was everything going and she said very well except there was a slight problem in that (pointing) end of the shop. Black continued to testify as follows: So I said, "Well, what do you mean by that? She said, "Well, there's a lot of talk about unions coming in." And the employees are listening. a I credit the testimonial account of the late January conversation Carl Binnarr stated he had with Supervisor John Franklin, not only because I was persuaded he was telling the truth but also because my observation of Franklin did not receive such an impression and because Franklin admitted he was opposed to unionization of the plant. When Franklin's opposition to the union is considered, along with the credited testimony of Binnarr and the general pattern of conduct of Respondent's supervisors (Burnett and Hoppmann) to discourage union activity, I am comfortably persuaded that Franklin made the inquiry as alleged 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I said, well, they're going to listen. I would listen, myself. And she said, "Well, the major-" I said, "What are the major complaints of the employees?" She said, "Benefits and salaries." She said, "My daughter works here. And she just started here, and she makes almost as much as I do." I said, "Well, your performance review-each perfor- mance review, you'll be going up the ladder more and more so." And I asked her, how long she had been there, and she told me. I don't recall the answer. But she told me how long she had been there, and when her reviews were coming up. So I said, "Well, I don't understand what the problems are." She said, "Well, the unions are talking sick leave and increased pay." And I said, "Well, they always talk increased benefits and increased wages to get their foot in the door. But I guess if that's what the employees want, that's what they're going to get." And she said, "Well, I'm not for the union anyway. it's all those people down at the other end of the shop. And I'm not for the damn union anyway." So, I said, "Well, fine. You know-it's your own choice." Gregory Black further testified that while walking the plant with the new safety engineer, David Malchano, he did not discuss employee problems or the Union with Elvira Crawley or any other employees. He said he first learned about the Aluminum Workers organizing campaign in late December 1975 when the Union showed up at the gates and distributed literature. He denied that he heard Respon- dent's employees were engaged in union activity, but instead said he heard: Q. Didn't you hear that they had gone to union meetings? A. But, I did not hear that. I heard-Ms. Crawley told me that peo-they were very unhappy, and the union had promised them-no one mentioned to me that they had been to union meetings. Black admitted that Crawley told him the employees were very, very concerned about wages and benefits, and that concerned him. However, he denied he asked Ellington if he was upset about the Union. He did tell Hoppmann, after talking with Crawley about some problems at the end of the shop, that something was happening, and that Respondent had better find out what it was about. He said he meant he wanted to find out about the problems. He did not know about any employees being upset until he talked with Crawley who told him what the problems were. Black's testimony was corroborated by that of Safety Engineer David Malchano. Under intensive examination by the General Counsel regarding his knowledge about union activity of the employees, Black testified as follows: Q. And I believe it was your testimony that she said, there's a lot of talk about unions coming in here? A. There's a lot of problems; I think-there's a lot of unhappy people, down in the other end of the shop. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Well, I copied down what you said pretty carefully, and I think you said-correct my recollection, if I'm wrong-quote-" a lot of talk-she said that there was a lot of talk about unions coming in to this plant." A. She basically said that, yes. If I can recall. Q. Now, as an industrial relations manager, you know that when people in a plant start talking about unions, then you've got some problems. Because you don't talk about unions if they're satisfied and happy, correct? A. Well, I guess we can get into a philosophy, but these are very, very young people we employ out there. And if somebody offered carrots, you know, I'd listen. If somebody offers me a whole bunch of carrots, I would listen. Q. But you were concerned at that point, when you found that she made that statement to you, "there's a lot of talk among the employees about the union coming in. Black further testified as follows: Q. So that when you heard, again, from Ms. Crawley, on that day in December, there was a lot of talk among the employees about the union, that naturally caused you some concern? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, what did you do about it? Did you call a meeting of the employees? To find out? A. No. Q. You did not? A. No. Q. Did you call employees individually, or meet them at their work stations, and ask them- A. No. Q. -individually? A. Well- Q. "What's your problem?" A. -"how's everything going?" Usually I start off, "How's everything going?" Q. You mean, you didn't ask them, "Are you satisfied with your salary?" "Are you satisfied with your fringe benefits? Are you satisfied with your working conditions?" You didn't ask those questions? A. Yeah. Q. I thought you said you didn't? A. No, I said I did. I asked Mr. Ellington how things were going. Was he happy with his benefits; was he happy with his compensation? Q. O.K. A. "Where did you work before?" He told me, a hospital, making $2 and something an hour. I said, how much are you making here? He told me, $4 and something an hour. Q. How many employees did you have in the plant at that time, Mr. Black? A. Approximately 300. Q. 300. And Mr. Ellington-other than Ms. Craw- ley, Mr. Ellington was the only employee that you asked, "How are things going?" Whether "you are satisfied with your finges and wages and conditions?" A. No. I'm in the shop a lot. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. Q. Answer my question. How many other employ- ees did you ask that? A. Several. Q. Several? Several, out of 300? A. Yes. Black said he was confident his employees were not dissatisfied with wages because he believed they-were well paid. Malchano admitted on cross-examination that, when he looked into the machine, Black was not right with him while -he was talking to Crawley, and that he could not guarantee he heard every part of their conversation. Harry Hoppmann further testified that he talked to about three people in. the plant that day he went on the tour with Black. He said he first learned about the Aluminum Workers around the first of January when a stack of literature was, left at the plant gate and that he had, first learned-that union meetings were being held on January 5 when Crawley told him. - Mike Duckworth, supervisor in the pipe and skirt shop under whom Elvira Crawley worked, testified that Craw- ley's timecard indicated that she was not assigned to Bill Burnett's Big Mig department on December 19, 1975, as she testified. Analysis and Conclusions A determination of the validity of the allegations with which Respondent is charged, and the corresponding defenses asserted by it in response thereto , depends largely on the determination of the veracity of the several witnesses whose testimony is highly conflicting. While it is difficult in some instances to resolve such vexing questions of fact to which the parties alone bear witness, I am nevertheless compelled' to consider . the relationship of each witness to the party on whose behalf he testified, the readily respon- sive, nonselective, nonexaggeratmg, consistent, and straightforward manner in which he testified, the reasona- bleness of efforts made , by the parties to bring essential witnesses and appropriate documentary evidence before the court, as well as how such testimony or other evidence relates to the logical consistency of all of the evidence of record and the sequence of events as they transpired. A decision on the issues presented for determination in the instant proceeding is governed largely by a resolution of the credibility of the testimony of the respective witnesses as it relates to the specific allegations in the complaint. It is particularly noted that two of the principal witnesses, Louis (Duke) Ellington and Elvira Crawley, are no longer employees of Respondent and, therefore, their testimony should not be affected by a motive to favor or disfavor the Respondent. Thus, in evaluating the evidence of record this factor is considered along with the other variables in resolving the credibility of the several witnesses. Ordinarily, Supervisor Gregory Black's query to employ- ee -Louis (Duke) Ellington, as to whether the employees were unhappy about the organizing efforts of other employ- ees and the Union, would not, ipso facto, constitute coercive interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, when Black's managerial position as industrial relations manager for Respondent is taken into consider- ation -along with his admitted opposition• to the idea of 339 unionization of the plant, his knowledge of the organizing efforts of the employees, and his subsequent unequivocal coercive interrogation of employee Elvira Crawley, infra, the evidence of record is more than ample to conclude and find, as I do, that Black's conversation -,with Ellington constituted coercive interrogation violative - of -Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The testimony of record establishes that on December 22, 1975, coinciding with the organizing efforts of Respon- dent's employees, Harry Hoppmann, employer service administrator for Respondent, asked employee Elvira Crawley if she knew anything about the union meeting held on the night prior thereto. Again,, management's (Mr. Hoppmann's) question to employee Crawley, when consid- ered alone, appears to be innocent and of little significance. However, when said question is considered along with the fact that Mr. Hoppmann was high in the managerial hierarchy of Respondent ; that he had knowledge of the Union's campaign among the employees ; that he admitted that he was against unionization of the plant; and that other supervisors (Burnett, Black, and Franklin) have all been found, herein, to have coercively interrogated employees about the Union, Mr. Hoppmann indeed appears to be a part of the jigsaw pattern ofmanagement's plan to identify and learn about the union activity of its employees. Such interrogation and its objective had to* have, as I find, an interfering, restraining, and coercive effect upon the exer- cise of Section 7 rights of the employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The credited evidence of record further establishes that during the week of December 19, 1975, Supervisor William (Bill) Burnett held a safety meeting during which time he acknowledged that they had heard about the union activity of the employees, and told the employees the Union could not do anything for them; that if the employees were caught engaged in union activity on company time and property they would be fired; that although Respondent could not fire them for union activity it could do'so for many other things; and that if there were any employees who had signed the union authorization card who wanted-to retract or revoke their authorization they could do so by a written request to a New York office. As alleged in paragraphs 8(d) and (e) of the complaint, such conduct on the part of Respondent (Supervisor Burnett) clearly constitutes an interference with; a restraint upon, and coercion against the exercise of employees' Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The evidence of record also demonstrates that, during the first part of February 1976, Supervisor John Franklin did ask employee Carl Binnarr "If anyone asked him to sign a union authorization card," if he (Binnarr) had signed a union card, and whether he was for or against the Union, as alleged in paragraphs 8(e) and (f) of the complaint. Such interrogation by a supervisor, in a plant where it is so well established that management is opposed to the Union, can have only an interfering, restraining, and coercive effect upon the exercise of Section 7 rights of the employees, as I find, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) ofthe Act. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ORDERS UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, 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 obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices warranting a remedial order, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees Louis Ellington, Elvira Crawley, Carl Binnarr, and other employees in the exercise of their Section 7 protected rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the recommended Order will provide that Respondent cease and desist therefrom. Because of the character of the unfair labor practices herein found, the recommended Order will provide that Respondent cease and desist from or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. General Dynamics Corporation, the Respondent, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By interrogating Louis (Duke) Ellington about his and other employees' past and current union interest or affiliation, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By interrogating Elvira Crawley as to whether there had been a union meeting on the night prior thereto, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By threatening employee Elvira Crawley and other employees with the loss of their job if they engaged in any union activity on company time and property, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. 6. By interrogating employee Carl Binnarr as to wheth- er anyone asked him to sign a union card, if he had in fact signed a union card, and whether he was for or against the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: The Respondent, General Dynamics Corporation, Charleston, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating its employees about their past and current union interest or affiliation. (b) Threatening its employees with discharge if they engage in protected union activities. (c) 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 necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at Respondent's plant in Charleston, South Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon- dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. S 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 6 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a hearing, that we violated Federal law during an employees' organizing campaign in December 1975 and January 1976, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees about their and other employees' union membership, activi- ties, and desires. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge from employment if they engage in concerted or union activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise and GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. 341 enjoyment of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of national Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent tion, except to the extent that such rights may be affected that such rights maybe affected by lawful agreements in by lawful agreements in accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refuse to GENERAL DYNAMICS become or remain members of Aluminum Workers Inter- CORPORATION