Lectron Products, Inc.

576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lectron Products, Inc. and International Union, Unit- ed Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA- 12401 December 23, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND WALTHER On September 16, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations -Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Detroit, Michigan, on April 6 and 7, 1976. The charge was filed by the Union on October 16, 19751 (amended November 3), and the complaint was issued on December 15 (amended April 7, 1976). The primary issues are whether the Company (Respondent) (a) discriminatori- ly discharged Karen Bedwell, a union supporter, and (b) coerced the employees by engaging in unlawful interroga- tion, threatening the loss of work, discriminatorily enforc- ing a no-solicitation policy, and engaging in other illegal conduct, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the oral arguments of counsel for the General Counsel and of the Charging Party, and the brief filed by Respondent (the only brief filed), I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION 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, Lectron Pro- ducts, Inc., Troy, Michigan, 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 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions that certain allegations in the complaint be dismissed. 3 The Respondent seeks in its exceptions to limit the remedy applicable to Karen Bedwell, who we find was unlawfully discharged on October 9, 1975. The Respondent contends that Bedwell is only entitled to a single day's backpay compensation, on the alleged ground that she was to be laid off for lawful cause on October 10, 1975. Respondent's supervisor, Glenn, gave the only testimony which affords a basis for concluding that Bedwell had been selected as one of the employees laid off in the week ending on October 10 for reasons predating and unrelated to any union organizational activities. Although the Administrative Law Judge failed to comment on this particular point, he generally discredited Glenn's testimony. We find that the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to limit his remedy in the manner requested by Respondent indicates that he had specifically discredited Glenn with respect to Bedwell's allegedly impending layoff and concluded she was not really scheduled to be laid off for cause on October 10. We adopt that conclusion. Accordingly, we shall adopt the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge. 227 NLRB No. 86 The Company, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of electronic and related products at its plant in Troy, Michigan, where it annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State. The Company admits, and I fmd, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background As previously noted, Respondent is engaged in manufac- turing electronic and related products in the State of Michigan. Among its customers are various automobile manufacturers. In the spring of 1975, Respondent received a large contract from a Chrysler division to make warning gauge lights for fuel gauges and temperature gauges. This I All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise stated. LECTRON PRODUCTS 577 contract caused, Respondent to expand greatly its work force by hiring new employees ' in subsequent months as follows: May, 27; June, 20; July, 38; August, 111; and September, 160. Karen Bedwell was hired on August 26, during which week 33 other employees were also hired.2 On October 8, at approximately 2:45 p.m. Leonard Montford, a vice president of the Union, appeared at Respondent's plant, and,,, together with two other union organizers, passed out ;union literature to employees of Respondent. Montford had been approached by several employees of Respondent in September to secure represen- tation for the employees, and this was his initial organiza- tional effort. The three organizers ceased handbilling at approximately 5 p.m., having covered the day-shift employ- ees as they left the plant, and the afternoon-shift employees as they entered. - Bedwell was discharged by Respondent at 1:35 a.m. on October 9, having completed the afternoon shift which commenced October 8. The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that she was discharged in order to discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act:. Respondent asserts that the discharge was for cause. We turn now to a- consideration of the evidence relating to this issue. B. The Facts Concerning Bedwell's Discharge Prior to her discharge on October 9, Bedwell worked for the Company for a period of 6 weeks on the afternoon shift, with regular hours of 4 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. During the first 2 to 3 weeks of her employment she had worked in the lock department, where locks were assembled for automobile doors. Bedwell was then transferred to the electronics department by Harold Glenn, the afternoon shift foreman for the lock and electronics department-3 In the electronics department Bedwell worked as a "bottom inspector," whose duties she described as follows "You look at the fuel gauges that they have, under a mirror, and you see if they have any bridges or holes in them, and if theii do, you put, them in a box to be repaired, and if they don't they go into another box to be tested." Basically, Bedwell inspected a small piece of what she termed "cardboard" about 2 inches wide by 2-1/2 inches long that contained soldered wires and a light bulb. On. October, 8, she arrived at the plant at 3:45 p.m. and saw men passing out union literature at the plant gate. She did not know-the men, not did she know that the UAW was going to handbill the plant, but she accepted the literature. The literature consisted of a pamphlet, a UAW authoriza- tion card, and a letter addressed to all employees inviting them to attend -a union meeting on October 12. After entering the plant, she testified "when we started work at 4 o'clock everybody was talking about the Union and discussing' their cards." Sometime thereafter, John Singer, a factory employee who -worked behind Bedwell, asked Glenn, who was walking through the department, if he was going to the union meeting, and when Glenn told him yes, Bedwell testified, "And I looked back and told him that he could not go to this union meeting because he was a foreman, and he turned all red in the face - and-he walked away. "4 Prior to the afternoon-shift lunch period, Bedwell talked to Richard Tobin, known to her as the "safety foreman," who to her knowledge had the duty of going around the plant to see if 'die employees had their safety glasses on. Tobin was also the supervisor of shipping, receiving, and stock, and although the day shift ended at 3:30 p.m., he usually worked until 5 p.m., and sometimes later than 5 p.m. Tobin asked Bedwell if she was for the Union and she told him that she was, and that she was going to try to get people to go to the meeting. Tobin told her good, to do so on her lunch and on her breaks. Tobin stated that he was going to' attend the union meeting, and Bedwell made no objection because she stated that he was only the foreman of the safety committee .5 Bedwell testified that during the lunch hour she talked to other employees telling them to go to the meeting and find out what the Union would offer them. When asked who she talked to, she recited the names of seven employees and stated there were also several others. On cross-examination, when asked how many employees she talked to she stated 10 or more in electronics, and about 20 in the lock department. When shown her prehearing affidavit which read "I spoke to about 10 employees about the Union and asked them to come to the union meeting," she still insisted that she talked to a total of 30 employees, 10 of them representing the employees in the electronics department. I do not credit Bedwell's testimony that she talked to 30 employees, as I regard her affidavit as factual, and also 2 These statistics are taken from an exhibit that appeared originally in Case 7-RC-13287, which involved the same parties as those herein. At the hearing in the instant case, Charging Party requested that the Administrative Law Judge take official notice of this exhibit, which contains voluminous statistics on the hiring and termination of employees, and such request was granted. Charging Party then supplied a copy of the exhibit, and it was marked as ALJ Exh. 1. General Counsel and Respondent acknowledged its authenticity, and official notice has been taken. 3 Glenn had been hired in August as a maintenance electrician , and after I week in this role was promoted to be the supervisor for the afternoon and night shifts, of both the lock and electronics departments The night shift (midnight shift) was terminated at the end of September. In October Glenn had approximately 90 employees under his supervision, 60 in locks and 30 in electronics. - 4 Glenn testified that he believed Singer had asked him if he was going to attend a UAW meeting; he was sure that somebody had asked him this question. However, he gave no testimony as to any reply -by him to the questioner or as to Bedwell's statement to him that he could not go to the union meeting, and I credit her uncontradicted testimony. 5 Tobin's testimony was substantially the same as Bedwell's about the conversations in the plant following the distribution of the union literature. In addition, he also stated that he heard many employees discussing the handbilhng that afternoon. Tobin did attend,the.union meeting and was in fact an active supporter of the Union, his mother being an employee of the Union. On October 9 he encouraged employees to sign authorization cards. On October 10 he was discharged for reasons that do not appear in the record. 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because at the hearing when- asked who she talked to, she named seven-employees, and_added that there were several others, which would closely approximate 10, not 30, employees. Bedwell continued- to work through the night, and worked 1 hour of overtime, just as she had done on the 2 previous nights .6 At the end of the shift, Glenn called her to the back of the shop, and notified her she was fired. When she asked him why, she testified he said "he didn't have to give me a reason and if I wasn't satisfied with his decision I could contact the owner the next day." When Bedwell's husband picked her up that night, she told him of her discharge, and he went in the plant and talked to Glenn: According to a prehearing affidavit of Glenn, when Mr. Bedwell wanted a further explanation, "I told him that she did not like her work, she had a bad attitude; and could not get along with other workers." Mr. Bedwell did not testify. Bedwell testified that she never did learn why she was discharged. On October 16, she received her last paycheck covering her work performed on October 6, 7, and 8. C. Respondent's Explanation for Discharging Bedwell Afternoon-shift Foreman Glenn testified that in Septem- ber the Company started to reduce its work force for two reasons, "One was we had hired a lot of employees on the initial start-up and they were weeding out the good employees and the bad employees - also there had been a substantial - drop in the production requirements that we were required to make, everyday.117' Glenn met with Foreman Mike Chase and Day-Shift -Foreman Robert Mack at meetings in September and the first partial week in October, where he was informed that the reduction in work force would be based on the merit system, that-those who produced better than others would stay, and those who had been problems as far as discipline and low production would go first. Since the Company did not have a seniority system, seniority was not, to be considered. In the meeting prior to Monday, October 6, Glenn reviewed the employees on his shift and designated those who would be terminated on specific dates, starting with October 6; some employees were to be terminated on Wednesday, October 8, and some on Friday, October 10. - Bedwell was scheduled to be discharged at the end- of the Friday afternoon shift (Saturday, 12:30 a.m.). Glenn, who had supervised Bedwell in the lock depart- ment, testified that she had been transferred from that department because she constantly complained about her job and did not get along with the people in that department. Bedwell, who testified extensively on rebuttal, did not contradict this testimony, it remains undenied on the record, and I credit it. During the 3 weeks Bedwell worked as an inspector in the electronics department, Glenn testified that she continued 6 Glenn testified that he did not assign overtime on the basis of merit, that it was a blanket assignment, those who wished to work, could work, and those who did not want to work did not have to work. This testimony was not contradictedand I creditrt 7 Vice President Schenck testified that after the Company took on the job of making the warning gauge lights from Chrysler, "We employed a great quantity of people. In fact, we employed anybody who walked in the door of her complaints: that- the job was boring, about -the wages, about the restrooms, and about the company insurance coverage,' among- other things. Glenn's' testimony about these complaints was uncontradicted, and .I credit- this testimony. Glenn also testified that while walking through the shop, he saw Bedwell three or four times; -after inspecting apart, throw it towards a container box; with-the part ending up on the floor. Several times he stopped by Bedwell's station and told her the-parts were not to be thrown, but were to be laid in the box. He also testified that -at times her work station was a mess with parts lying on the floor, and he would tell her-to pick up the parts, that they were delicate instruments. When asked what Bedwell would say after his reprimands, Glenn answered "She wouldn't say anything." Glenn did not recall seeing Bedwell throw any parts on the floor on October 6 or 7, but he testified that he did see-her throw one part on the floor on October 8,- at about 7:30 p.m. He did not talk to-her about it. Nancy McCubbin was called as a witness for Respon- dent. -She had,worked in electronics testing boards at a station about 5 feet from Bedwell, from the date of her hire, September 12, until the end of September, when she went on daywork. McCubbin testified that she saw Bedweil throw or flip parts in the box that was in front of her. She also saw Bedwell-throw parts on the floor four or five times in the 2-week period she worked near her, and she reported this to Glenn on two occasions. McCubbin tested about a thousand boards a day, and she did"not know how many parts were good or how many were bad. McCubbin further testified that in a conversation with Bedwell about the work, Bedwell stated that she did not like her job, or her salary, or the insurance, or the foreman. This testimony was undenied and stands uncontradicted, and I credit it. Gary Borushko testified for Respondent, stating that while he did not directly supervise Bedwell, "on a number of occasions [he] spoke to her about the handling of material from the standpoint of the items she was examin- ing should be placed in boxes and not'tossed in boxes, and et cetera - more -from the standpoint of explaining to her why the cost associated with not dropping those particular items in a box was very significant- to the company " Borushko, a law student, had been hired by Respondent in June as a security guard, and in late August Vice President Schenck had- personally employed Borushko as a CPA. Borushko testified as to his many duties at Respondent's plant: He was in charge of purchasing, spent a good deal of time in the hiring of employees, and helped Glenn to supervise employees. He was clearly an agent of Respon- dent. D. The General Counsel's Rebuttal Karen Bedwell was recalled by the General Counsel to testify on rebuttal. She testified that her work place was a 3- his own power, and maybe some who didn't even come in under their own power, and tried to make some semblance of order out of this group of people." The statistics of persons hued in May through August, as set forth in ALPS Exh. 1, corroborate Schenck's statement, particularly the months of August and September in which 111 and 160 employees were hired. Schenck testified that in August they had built up to about 260 or 270 employees, and towards the end of October they were down to 140 employees. LECTRON PRODUCTS foot wide table, on which to her left were four boxes for bad parts, and- on the floor were four boxes for good parts. While sitting on a chair, she examined each part under a magnifying glass for defects. She denied that "she was told to place them carefully in any box whatsoever." She freely admitted that she tossed the parts in the boxes, as it would take too much time to place them in the box, and she had to keep up with her work. Each box held 200 or 300 parts. She admitted that at times parts were laying around the boxes, but she considered the neatness of her work station about the same as the rest of the stations. She denied that she was - ever reprimanded for poor work, or warned about damag- ing company property. She denied that there was any discussion between herself and Borushko concerning the manner in which she was placing the parts in the contain- ers. She did testify as to a conversation with Borushko, whom she termed the personnel manager, during a break in late September when layoffs were occurring. "He had told me that there was going to be a- layoff and he said this was supposed to get rid of the poor workers. And I asked him did I have anything to be afraid of and he said no." Borushko denied any such conversation and testified that his function at meetings about layoffs concerned how many people had to go at a particular time because of financial considerations, andnot with the question of which employ- ee would be terminated. I credit Bedwell's testimony over Borushko's. Borushko was a very tense witness, contradict- ed himself several times, and impressed me as trying to answer questions so as to absolve the Company of any liability. E. Analysis and Conclusion as to Bedwell's Discharge It is well established that an employer may terminate an employee for any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, without running afoul of the Act, provided it is not motivated by unlawful considerations. The existence of justifiable grounds for discharge is no defense if the motivation for the dismissal was in part because of the employee's participa- tion in protected activities. With these principles in mind, and recognizing that the burden of proof to show the illegality of the discharge rests with the General Counsel, we now anlyze Bedwell's discharge. In support of the General Counsel's case, we have an employee fired precipitately, suddenly, and without warn- ing at the end of the shift on which Foreman Glenn learned that Bedwell was advocating the union cause, and without any reason being given for her discharge. Respondent knew of the union organizing campaign on the afternoon of October 8, when Glenn admitted that some employees informed him that "the UAW was outside the gates handing out handbills." 8 Respondent also knew that Bedwell was an active supporter a short time later, when she-had her confrontation with Glenn over his right to attend the union 'meeting that was set forth in the UAW literature. The straight-from-the-shoulder statement of the young, unskilled assembly line worker to him, the after- 8 Respondent admits such knowledge in its brief, "The evidence also shows that, Respondent had no knowledge of Mrs. Bedwell's position with regard to any union prior to October 8, 1975." Bedwell had contacted the 579 noon-shift foreman, that he could not attend the meeting, caused his face to :turn red, and he walked away obviously angry. Glenn did not deny Bedwell's, statement and did admit that Singer, or for sure somebody else, had asked him if he was going to the'meeting. At the next lunch hour, Bedwell spoke to 10 other electronic department employees and urged them to attend the meeting. Being an active unionist, of course, does not -shield her from being dis- charged for cause. But dismissing an outstanding propo- nent of a union often tends to discourage other employees - from becoming interested in a union. "Obviously, the discharge of a leading union advocate is a most effective method of undermining a union organizational effort." N.L.RB. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc., 346 F.2d 1003, 1006 (C.A. 5, 1965). Respondent's stated reasons for discharge do not stand scrutiny. When Glenn was first asked on direct examina- tion why he terminated Bedwell, he testified, "I terminated her on the eighth due to the fact that there were parts being thrown again in her area. Her area was a mess and I had had my fill of it." Asked a second time why he terminated her, he stated "I terminated her on the basis of her performance on the job and her area not being clean. That's how it was. And her attitude and her constant complaining about things in the shop." To yet a third inquiry he replied, "I terminated her earlier because of the incident on the eighth. When I walked past her work area there were parts laying on the floor and later I had observed her throwing parts." Thus, the crux of Respondent's stated reasons for discharging Bedwell was because she threw parts. However,, when Bedwell's husband came into the plant immediately after her dismissal and asked the reason for her discharge, Glenn did not even mention the throwing of parts. "I said that her work attitude was poor. She complained a lot and- she was bored with the job." One month later, Glenn gave an affidavit to a Board agent in which he again did not mention throwing parts as a reason for her discharge, but stated, "We had to cut back on the work force, so since Bedwell had a poor attitude we let her go." There is little` doubt that some of the parts Bedwell inspected ended up on the floor, but this was a natural byproduct of the nature of her job. I have credited Bedwell's testimony that four boxes were on her work table for bad parts, and four boxes were on the floor for good parts, over - Glenn's testimony that there were six to eight boxes on the table. ' Bedwell was precise and exact in describing the number of boxes and -where they, were located, whereas Glenn was vague and uncertain. When asked on cross-examination "Were there any on the floor at her workplace?", he weakly- replied, "As far as I can remember, no." I have generally credited Bedwell's testimo- ny over Glenn's based on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified. Bedwell impressed me with her straightforward testimony, sincerity, and prompt and uncontrived responses on cross-examination. On the other hand, Glenn's testimony was unimpressive, as he Teamsters in the middle of September, but there is no evidence that such action was ever known by Respondent. 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified in a soft , often faint voice, without conviction, and he tended to be uncertain, vague, and unresponsive. Bedwell sat in a company supplied chair and inspected approximately 2,000 boards a day , piece by piece, under a magnifying glass. McCubbin estimated that there would be 100 to 150 bad parts a day, which means Bedwell put 1,850 to 1,900 good parts in the containers on the floor per day. It would be absurd to contend that she was supposed to get out of her chair 1 ,850 times a day and lay each board in the containers. Even if Glenn's version that the six to eight boxes rested on the table was accepted , this would require Bedwell to get out of her chair hundreds of times each day. Glenn said the boxes were 8 inches long by 11 inches wide by 6 inches deep, which would place at least the three or four outermost containers out of Bedwell's reach, and would require her to get up out of the chair to place each of the 200 to 300 parts in the outermost containers. Actually, Glenn testified as to only one occasion that he saw Bedwell throw parts on the floor, and that was one part on October 8. In his prior testimony, he testified that he saw her throw parts, but did not say, on the floor. "She'd pick up a part and she'd inspect it and then throw it," and again, "I saw her throw parts a third time, but as for parts actually hitting the floor, I could not tell you." Obviously, he saw Bedwell toss parts into the containers, which is what she was required to do under the realities of the industrial worksite that the Employer had established for her. Also, when Glenn's statement that he saw her throw parts four or five times over a 2- to 3-week period is measured against the 2,000 parts a day that Bedwell inspected , it is readily apparent that the number of thrown parts Glenn objected to was a miniscule amount of the 20 to 30 thousand parts that she handled during that 2- to 3-week period. On the evening of the discharge , when Glenn said he saw Bedwell throw one part on the floor , he admitted that he did not say anything about it to her. He also admitted that he never warned her that she might be discharged for throwing parts . Thus, the evidence is overwhelming that Glenn's asserted reason for discharge , the throwing of parts, was an afterthought conceived after Bedwell's discharge and was a pretext for the real reason. Glenn's other asserted reasons for discharge, poor attitude, complaining about things in the shop, inability to get along with other employees, also do not stand scrutiny. Inspecting and handling 2,000 boards a day was undoubt- edly a monotonous and tedious job and may have chilled Bedwell's attitude. However, these alleged shortcomings were never serious enough deficiencies to cause Glenn to warn Bedwell that she might be discharged for them. Also, if we assume that Bedwell had these traits , Glenn's testimony was that he had scheduled her for layoff at the end of the week, not in the middle of the week , and he did not allege any incidents of bad attitude in the week of October 6. Bedwell worked an hour of overtime on October 6, 7, and 8, which Glenn admitted was the voluntary act of the individual and is indicative of a good employee attitude during that week rather than a poor one. Respondent contends in its brief that no union animus has been shown by General Counsel and accordingly an inference of illegality should not be drawn . In section F, infra, I have found Respondent in the mid-evening of October 8, before Bedwell was discharged, violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with more onerous working conditions if they chose the Union as their collective-bargaining representative, which illustrates that Respondent had union animus . Also, the suddenness of Bedwell's discharge without any warning, and without any reason for her discharge, is also some evidence of union animus. It is to be noted that it is not essential in order to find Bedwell's discharge discriminatory, that her union activity was the only motivation . Her dismissal will be found to be discriminatory if her union activity was a substantial or motivating ground for her discharge , notwithstanding that a valid ground may also have existed for it. Sinclair Glass Co., and Sinclair Glass Division, David B. Lilly Co. v. N.LR.B., 465 F.2d 209, 210 (C.A. 7, 1972); N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883, 885 (C.A. 1, 1953). And I expressly find, on the basis of the entire record, that the motivating reason resulting in her discharge was the union activity of Bedwell , and the said "union activity weighed more heavily in the decision to fire [her ] than did dissatisfaction with her performance." Whitin Machine Works, supra at 885. I further find that the reasons presented by Respondent for discharge were a pretext to conceal the antiunion motivation for her discharge. Gould, Inc., 216 NLRB 1031 (1975); Poloron Products of Mississip- pi, Inc., 217 NLRB 704 (1975). F. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion The Complaint alleges nine specific incidents of violation of Section 8(a)(l). The evidence in respect thereto will be discussed below in the same order as the incidents are pleaded in paragraph 9 of the complaint , except for subparagraph (g) which will be reviewed in its chronologi- cal order. Subparagraph (a) alleges : On or about October 8, 1975, Respondent, by its agent Harold Glenn , threatened em- ployees with removal of their chairs and restrictions on their breaktimes if its employees chose to be represented by the Charging Party. Bedwell testified that on the evening of October 8, while working on her job, Glenn talked to several employees about working conditions as follows : "Well, before lunch, around eight o'clock, he told us all that if the union got in, he was going - they would take away our chairs and that we would have to be back at the time that the bells would ring and that things would be more stricter in the shop." Bedwell stated that Glenn was standing 3 feet to her right when he made this statement . Glenn's sole testimony on the incident was that it was not true that he had made the statement . I have previously credited Bedwell's testimony over that of Glenn, and I do so in this instance. Glenn was clearly threatening that Respondent would make working conditions more onerous for the employees if the Union became the employees' collective-bargaining representa- tive. Plainly, such a threat following so closely the Union's commencement of an organizing campaign has an inhibito- ry effect on employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. No evidence was presented to sustain the allegations contained in subsections (b) and (c). In the absence of LECTRON PRODUCTS 581 evidence, I fmd that-subsections '(b) and (c) have not been established, and accordingly I recommend that these allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Subparagraph (d) alleges: On or about October 13, 1975, Respondent, by its agent Michael Chase, interrogated an employee as to said employee's support for the Charging Party and threatened to have said employee discharged in retaliation for that employee's sympathy for the Charging Union. Pamela Betea was a young, attractive worker in the electronics department on the day shift. Michael Chase was her immediate supervisor, and Chase worked under Dewey Mobley, the plant manager. Betea testified that on the morning of October. 13 while at her work station, "I was approached by Mike Chase and he asked me if I was pro- union or not. And I answered him why and he said that Gary Borushko had told Mike to warn me that Dewey Mobley was going to try to get me fired by convincing either Mr. Schenck or Mr. McPhail that I was pushing strongly for the Union in the plant." Betea told Chase that she would give him her answer at breaktime. At the next break she approached Chase and,"I asked Mike if he still wanted to know if I was pro-union or not. And he replied Yes. And I said okay, yes, I am pro-union." Chase did not reply. On cross-examination, Bet ea answered in the affirmative when asked if she and Chase were fairly good personal friends and if they got along fairly, well. She also admitted that she and Mobley did not get along very well and that this was due to personal matters, not business. Chase did not testify and Betea's testimony was uncon- tradicted. I found her to be a completely sincere, fair, straightforward witness and I credit her testimony. Chase's inquiry as to whether Betea was prounion or not was a clear invasion of her Section 7 rights to support or not support the Union, and her right to keep her views to herself. The fact that Betea and Chase were fairly good personal friends did not alter the fact that he was her foreman questioning her on her jobsite, seeking to ascertain her support or nonsupport for the Union. Respondent contends in its brief that there was no evidence that Chase threatened to have her fired, that he was only warning her of retaliation by Mobley, and with this I agree. However, the heart of the allegation is Chase's interrogation. Chase's question to Betea in the industrial background surrounding it inter- fered with her right of free choice guaranteed by the Act. Accordingly, I fmd the interrogation by Chase to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Quemetco, Inc., a Subsidiary of RSR Corporation, 223 NLRB 470 (1976); Abex Corporation, 162 NLRB 328 (1966). Subparagraph (e) alleges: On or about October 15, 1975, Respondent, by its agents, promulgated a rule indiscrimina- torily forbidding its employees to engage in any solicitation on Respondent's premises including solicitation during employees' own time.- Betea testified that on the afternoon of October 15 as she punched out she noticed on the company bulletin board a notice to the employees, dated October 15, that listed various prohibited types of solicitation by employees, one of which was union activities. The notice carried the signature of William Schenck and applied to all company property. Michelle 'Moore, an inspector in the electronics depart- ment, testified that shortly after October 15, when she looked at the company bulletin board- "I saw a notice signed by Mr. Schenck, stating that it was a policy of the company since nineteen seventy-two, that-there would be no soliciting on company property, and this included union activities, and it was signed by Mr. Schenck." Although Respondent in its brief alleges that the General Counsel failed to present evidence which- linked the Employer to such posting, Vice President Schenck readily admitted that he had had a notice posted on Respondent's bulletin board on or about October 15, that read that employees could not engage in any type of solicitation on company property. He later referred to this as the "No Solicitation Rule." Schenck's obvious reason for the posting of this rule was the result of information he stated he had received on October 14, that Betea was soliciting employees to sign union cards. Schenck testified that after he received -this information he went to tell her on the next day that this was not permitted, but she had gone home early. Thursday morning he also went over to see her but she was not at work. He did catch up with her on his third effort. It is well established that an employer may not, at least in the absence of special justifying circumstances, enforce a rule that. prohibits- solicitation by its employees during nonworking time and in nonworking areas on company premises. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B. 324 U.S. 793, 797-798 (1945). The manufacturing plant of Respondent was clearly not the type of facility that merited any exception to this principle, and Respondent did not attempt to establish any such justification. Respondent's no-solicitation rule was of the broadest nature, with no limitations as to its applicability at any time,-or any place on the Employer's premises. This rule would eliminate employees' rights. under Section 7 of the Act to engage in solicitation on behalf of the Union during their nonworking time. It would also eliminate the employees' rights to engage in union solicitation in nonworking areas of the factory's premises. I find, therefore, that Respondent's promulgation and maintenance of the broad no-solicitation rule in this case violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Pepsi- Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870 (1974); Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 615 (1962). Since the incident alleged in subparagraph (g) occurred prior to the incident alleged in subparagraph (f), we now examine subparagraph (g) ' which reads: On or about October 17," 1975, Respondent, by its agent William Schenck, prohibited without qualification one of its em- ployees from soliciting on Respondent's property. Betea testified that on Friday morning [October 17], while at her workbench, Schenck came up to her, engaged in conversation as to how she was feeling, "And then he told me, as you know, as a Lectron policy, there is to be no soliciting except on public property." " Betea nodded and said okay. Schenck readily admitted that on Friday morning he did go to Betea's workplace, and talked to her, "I did tell her 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that we did not allow solicitation on company property of any kind, and I would appreciate it if she wouldn't do it, and she agreed." He also told her this rule included United Foundation, Red Cross, and whatever. At no time did Respondent make any attempt to ascertain whether Betea solicited employees to sign the union authorization cards during her breaktime, or off-duty time, or in what part of the premises the cards had been offered for signature. Respondent's failure to investigate the circumstances of Betea's card solicitation is but a natural extension of its overly broad rule, because under Respondent's rule all solicitation at any time, on any part of Respondent's premises is a violation of its no-solicitation rule. Schenck knew that Betea was promoting the union cause, and he sought her out for 3 consecutive days to notify her to cease soliciting for the Union on any company property, at any time. This was an invalid rule, and Betea had a legal right to solicit for the Union during nonworking time in nonworking areas of Respondent's plant. The vice presi- dent's admonition to this young factory worker to cease all soliciting on company property was coercive and interfered with the employee's Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Bell and Howell Company, Micro Photo Division, 221 NLRB 170 (1974); The Wm. H. Block Company, 150 NLRB 341 (1964). Subparagraph (f) alleges: On or about October 17, 1975, Respondent, by its agent Michael Chase, informed an employee of Respondent that said employee was laid off in part because of the Charging Party. Betea testified that on the afternoon of October 17 at 1:30 p.m. she was leaving the plant to go home, when she was approached by Foreman Chase, "and I asked him some- thing like what is it this time and he told me that I was being laid off. And I said why? And he said part of it was because of my part-time hours and some of it had to do with union activity." That evening at about 6:30 p.m. she received a telephone call at home from Schenck. Schenck proceeded to tell her that he had been out of town that afternoon and only found out that she had been laid off when he returned, and her being laid off was a mistake, and he apologized for it. He informed her that she was free to return to work on Monday. Betea did return to her job at the plant on Monday and worked until November 24 when she volun- tarily quit. Chase did not testify. Betea's testimony is undenied and I credit it. Schenck testified that he telephoned Betea at her home because he had not authorized her discharge as he alone was responsible for employment in the plant, that it was done without his knowledge, and he apologized for the discharge. Schenck stated that he had been told "by some of my employees" that she had been terminated, but he did not recall any reasons. It is possible that Schenck9 did not recall the reasons that were given him by unnamed employees for Betea's layoff, but Mike Chase, who notified Betea of her layoff, had no doubt about the reasons. When Betea asked him why she was being laid off, he spelled it out for her-(I) part of it was because of her part-time hours, and (2) some of it had to do with her union activity. The record is silent as to what hours Betea regularly worked. However, Respondent offered no evidence that the hours she worked were in any way a hardship on the Employer's routine, or that the Employer was in any way critical of these hours. It thus becomes evident that the substantial reason for Chase's statement about her layoff was Betea's union activities. I find that this statement was coercive and contravenes Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Subparagraph (h) alleges: On or about October 20, 1975, Respondent, by its agent William Schenck, urged an employee to request to be disassociated from the charge which had been filed with the Board in this case. On the afternoon of the Monday that Betea returned to work, she was summoned to the office of the vice president. Upon arriving Schenck informed her that he had received some charges from the National Labor Relations Board, and one of them had to do with her. Schenck then asked Betea if she would explain what it was about. She then related to him Mike Chase's conversation with her about union activities. At Betea's suggestion Chase was then called into the office, and when Schenck repeated Betea's account of Chase's conversation with her on October 17, Chase agreed that it was the truth. Schenck then questioned Betea "as to what I wanted to do about the charges and I told him I didn't really understand what there was I could do about the charges." When asked specifically by Schenck if she wanted the charges to proceed or not, she told him "I want them to proceed. I don't want to drop them. Its' not up to me to decide." On cross-examination, Betea testified that Schenck, in response to her statement above, replied, "He said that it was - would involve a lot of work and he was a very busy man and did I realize that he would have to go downtown and I said yes." Schenck testified that he had spoken to Betea in his office about the notice he had received from the NLRB, concern- ing the charge she had filed. "I asked her if she wanted to consider dropping the charge in view of the fact that she has lost no time and that I had apologized for the tings that had happened to her on the 2 previous Fridays. And she stated that she [would] leave it up to the NLRB and I said well, that's fine. I didn't - in no way suggest that she do it. Ijust asked her if she wanted to do it in view of the fact that she hadn't been damaged in any way - loss of time, et cetera." Betea's version of the conversation is substantially the same as Schenck's. However, on cross-examination, when she was asked if he told her that it was her right to have the NLRB decide what to do about the charge, she did not deny it, but replied "I don't recall." I credit Schenck's testimony that he told her that it was fine after Betea stated that she would leave the charge up to the NLRB. Schenck's words contained no warnings not to use the Board's processes, nor did they contain any threat of reprisal. In his mind, he believed he had healed the wrong done her by the Company, by apologizing, and calling her back to work without any loss of pay. Schenck simply wanted to avoid the loss of time that would be required for him to go downtown and respond to the charge and did not 9 The vice president was an impressive witness, befitting his self-described corporate duties of secretary, treasurer, in charge of personnel, dealt with sales, manufacturing, and all legal problems LECTRON PRODUCTS wish to interfere with her Section 7 rights. I do not find that under- these circumstances, Respondent has violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. GTE Lenkurt, Incorporated 225 NLRB 190 (1974): Subparagraph (i) alleges: On or about October 21, 1975, Respondent, by its agent -Michael Chase, interrogated an employee as to statements which had been made and the identity of employees of Respondent who had allegedly made statements critical of Respondent's management at a meeting conducted by the, Charging Party. Inspector Michelle Moore testified that on October 21, shortly before breaktime, Foreman Michael Chase took her aside and, - he asked me if I was at the UAW meeting on Sunday and I said why? And he said, well because of the thing with Dewey Mobley and Pam Betea. He was wondering if there was any other girl that would be at the meeting that had complained of this and Mr. Schenck had wanted him to get the names of whoever, so that he could- apologize to. them. And he was ready to write down the names if I would give them to him. I told him that 1 could not help him. And he said you don't trust me, do you? And I said I can't help you Mike, I'm sorry. On cross-examination Moore testified that Chase wanted to know the names of the girls at the union meeting who had complained about Mobley, "Not blanket who had attended." Chase did not testify, and Moore's testimony stands uncontradicted and I credit it. Schenck testified that he had learned from' Mike Chase that Mobley (plant manager) "had solicited her [Betea] for social activities and that she had turned him down." Schenck talked to Betea about this, she admitted that it had happened, and indicated that this had happened with several other employees. He then testified that he felt that anybody who had been insulted by Mobley was due an apology from the Company. However, he denied that he gave an assignment to Chase to find out which women had been approached by Mobley, and stated, "I didn't ask him to find out who had been - I asked him if he knew somebody who had been - there's a difference." Schenck also admitted that he had received information that at least five of the people present at the union meeting had complained of Mobley's solicitation for social activity. While it is a general principle that employers may not question employees as to who went to union meetings, and as to what was said, Queen City Equipment Corporation 211 NLRB 284 (1974), Bassett Furniture Industries of Georgia Inc., 188 NLRB 895, (1971), this is not a hard and fast rule that bars any and all questioning about such meetings. It is not important whether Schenck asked Chase to fmd out the names of the employees, or whether Chase sought to ingratiate himself with the vice president by seeking out the names. What is important is the nature of the information that Chase asked of Moore. By Moore's own testimony Chase did not seek to learn the names of the employees who 10 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. 583 attended the meeting, but only the names of the girls who had complained about Mobley, and as he told Moore, he sought that information; because Schenck wanted to apologize to the girls who had been insulted by Mobley. I do not fmd that this inquiry by Chase had a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce Moore in the exercise of her union activities, and, under the circumstanc- es of this case, I recommend that this allegation be dismissed. - CONCLUSIONS OF LAPP 1. By discharging Karen Bedwell on' October 9 because of her support of the Union, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. By threatening employees with reprisals for union activities, by coercively interrogating an employee about her union sentiments, by the promulgation and enforce ment of an invalid rule against solicitation for the purpose of putting employees in fear of exercising their rights of self- organization under Section 7, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practice, I fmd it necessary to order Respon- dent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. - Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Karen Bedwell, I fmd it necessary to order Respondent to offer her full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended. ORDER 10 The Respondent, Lectron Products, Inc., Troy, Michi- gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America (UAW), or any other union. (b) Threatening employees with removal of their chairs and restrictions on their breaktime for supporting a union. (c) Coercively interrogating any employee about union support or union activities. 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. 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Maintaining a no-solicitation rule entirely prohibiting union solicitation on company premises at any time. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise, of their rights under Section 7-of the Act. 2. Take' the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Karen Bedwell immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former job or, if her job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for her, lost earnings in the manner set forth in the Remedy. (b) Remove from its bulletin board the notice to employees described by the vice president in section F of this Decision. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its -agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records,. timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its factory in Troy, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, "after being duly signed by Respondent's autho- rized representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme- diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this ' Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. . 11 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 by discharging Ms. Karen Bedwell for supporting a union and by otherwise interfering with our employees' rights to join and support a union: WE WILL OFFER full reinstatement to Ms. Karen Bedwell, with backpay plus 6 percent interest. - WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other union. WE WILL NOT threaten you with discriminatory treatment for supporting a union. WE WILL NOT coercively question you about union support or union activities. WE WILL NOT maintain a no-solicitation rule entirely prohibiting union solicitation on company property. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union activities in any other manner. LECTRON CORPORATION