Walter Carpet Mills, Inc.

WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 691 Walter Carpet Mills, Inc. and Building Material & DECISION Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-STATEMENT OF THE CASE housemen & Helpers of America. Cases 21- FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge: CA-18257, 21-CA-18926, and 21-RC-16127 On October 3, 1979, Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Team- December 14, 1981 sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,' DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION filed a petition in Case 20-RC-16127 seeking certification OF SECOND ELECTION as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of Walter BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Carpet Mills, Inc.,2 located at City of Industry, Califor- ZIMMERMAN nia. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election an election was conducted on Novem- On July 20, 1981, Administrative Law Judge ber 30, 1979. The results were that, of approximately 424 Frederick C. Herzog issued the attached Decision eligible voters, 188 cast votes for the Union and 209 cast in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- votes against it, with the 10 challenged ballots being in- ceptions and a supporting brief. sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Union Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the thereafter filed objections to the conduct of the election, nan L ao Rraions A a ae , tJ h e but failed to present evidence in support of the allega- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tin made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tions made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- Director for Region 21 recommended that the Union's thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. first four objections be overruled. The fifth, and last, ob- The Board has considered the record and the at- jection was dealt with as follows. tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief On October 9, 1979, the Union filed a charge in Case and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and 21-CA-18257 alleging the commission by the Company conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section to adopt his recommended Order. 2 8(aX1) of the Act. A complaint was issued based hereon. Subsequently the Regional Director issued his report on ORDER the election objections, as mentioned earlier herein, and, noting that the findings of his investigation into the Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor charge underlying the complaint in Case 21-CA-18257 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- demonstrated to him the sort of conduct alleged by the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Union's fifth objection to the election, he concluded that Order of the Administrative Law Judge and the allegations made in Objection 5 could best be re- hereby orders that the Respondent, Walter Carpet solved in a hearing in conjunction with the complaint al- Mills, Inc., City of Industry, California, its officers, legations of Case 21-CA-18257. Accordingly, he ordered agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action the cases consolidated for hearing. set forth in the said recommended Order. On April 10, 1980, the Union filed a second charge, in IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election and Case 21-CA-18926, against the Company, alleging that held in Case 21-RC-16127 be, and it hereby is, set empyee Amelia Salaarwas discharged by the Compa- aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, re- ny on April 9, 1980, because of her prior activities on aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is re behalf of the Union. The Regional Director subsequently manded to the Regional Director for Region 21 to issued a complaint based on this new charge, and consol- conduct a new election when he deems the circum- idated its allegations for hearing with those of the cases stances permit the free choice of a bargaining rep- previously mentioned. resentative. These were heard by me at a hearing conducted in [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- Los Angeles, California, on June 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1980. All note omitted from publication.] parties were present and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the briefs. Based n the record thus compiled, my observa- Administrtive Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judges resolutions with respect to credi- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, and my consid- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- eration of the arguments advanced in the post-trial briefs vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Stondard Dry Wall ProdurcL filed by the parties, I make the following: Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, proforma, the Admin- istrative Law Judge's analysis and conclusions concerning the discharge of employee Ameliz Salazar and the Administrative Law Judge's conclu- sions concerning the speech given by Respondent's vice president, 'Hereinafter referred to as the Union. Donald Kuhn. 'Hereinafter referred to as the Company. 259 NLRB No. 96 WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 691 Walter Carpet Mills, Inc. and Building Material & DECISION Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-STATEMENT OF THE CASE housemen f Helpers of America. Cases 21- FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge: CA-18257, 21-CA-18926, and 21-RC-16127 On October 3, 1979, Building Material and Dump Truck December 14, 1981 Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Team- December 14, 1981 sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,' DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION fr le d a petition in C as e 20-RC-16127 seeking certification OF SECOND ELECTION as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of Walter BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Carpet M il ls, I n c .,' lo c at ed a t C i ty o f Industry, Califor- ZIMMERMAN nia. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election an election was conducted on Novem- On July 20, 1981, Administrative Law Judge ber 30, 1979. The results were that, of approximately 424 Frederick C. Herzog issued the attached Decision eligible voters, 188 cast votes for the Union and 209 cast in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- votes against it, with the 10 challenged ballots being in- ceptions and a supporting brief. sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Union Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the t h e re aft er fi l ed o bject io n s t o t h e co n d u c t of the election, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the N- T but failed to present evidence in support of the allega- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- ^ betos codnlteRgoa tions made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- Director for Region 21 recommended that the Union's thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. first four objections be overruled. The fifth, and last, ob- The Board has considered the record and the at- jection was dealt with as follows. tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief On October 9, 1979, the Union filed a charge in Case and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and 21-CA-18257 alleging the commission by the Company conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section to adopt his recommended Order. 2 8(a(l) of the Act. A complaint was issued based hereon. Subsequently the Regional Director issued his report on ORDER the election objections, as mentioned earlier herein, and, Pursuant to Section \0(c) of the NaTional Labor noting that the findings of his investigation into the Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor charge underlying the complaint in Case 21-CA-18257 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- demonstrated to him the sort of conduct alleged by the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Union's fifth objection to the election, he concluded that Order of the Administrative Law Judge and the allegations made in Objection 5 could best be re- hereby orders that the Respondent, Walter Carpet solved in a hearing in conjunction with the complaint al- Mills, Inc., City of Industry, California, its officers, legations of Case 21-CA-18257. Accordingly, he ordered agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action t h e c ase s consolidated for hearing. set forth in the said recommended Order. On April 10, 19 80, t h e U n io n fil ed a se c o nd charge, i n IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election and Ca se 21-CA-18926, against the Company, alleging that held in Case 21-RC-16127 be, and it hereby is, set eploe A m elia ala a r w as disch a rg ed b y th e C om pa- aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, re- ny on April 9, 1980. because of her prior activities on aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is. re- behalf of the Union. The Regional Director subsequently manded to the Regional Director for Region 21 to issued a complaint based on this new charge, and consol- conduct a new election when he deems the circum- idated its allegations for hearing with those of the cases stances permit the free choice of a bargaining rep- previously mentioned. resentative. These were heard by me at a hearing conducted in [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- Los Angeles, California, on June 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1980. All note omitted from publication.] parties were present and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine Responent-ha-exceped-tocertai-crediility--xtin made y the and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file * Respondent has exopted to certain credibility findings nude by the briefs. Based On the record thus compiled, my observa- Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to b .B copied my o - overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to crcdi- tion of the Witnesses and their demeanor, and my consid- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- eration of the arguments advanced in the post-trial briefs vinces urstha the resolutionsare incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Product^ f i led by t h e parties, I m ak e t he f o l lo w ing: Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Admin- istrative Law Judge's analysis and conclusions concerning the discharge of employee Ameliz Saler and the Administrative Law Judge's conclu- sions concerning the speech given by Respondent's vice president, Hereinafter referred to as the Union. Donald Kuhn. Hereinafter referred to as the Company. 259 NLRB No. 96 WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 691 Walter Carpet Mills, Inc. and Building Material & DECISION Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-STATEMENT OF THE CASE housemen f Helpers of America. Cases 21- FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge: CA-18257, 21-CA-18926, and 21-RC-16127 On October 3, 1979, Building Material and Dump Truck December 14, 1981 Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Team- December 14, 1981 sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,' DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION fr le d a petition in C as e 20-RC-16127 seeking certification OF SECOND ELECTION as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of Walter BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Carpet M il ls, I n c .,' located a t City of Industry, Califor- ZIMMERMAN nia. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election an election was conducted on Novem- On July 20, 1981, Administrative Law Judge ber 30, 1979. The results were that, of approximately 424 Frederick C. Herzog issued the attached Decision eligible voters, 188 cast votes for the Union and 209 cast in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- votes against it, with the 10 challenged ballots being in- ceptions and a supporting brief. sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Union Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the t h e re aft er fi l ed o bject io n s t o t h e co n d u c t of the election, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the N- T but failed to present evidence in support of the allega- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- ^ betos codnlteRgoa tions made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- Director for Region 21 recommended that the Union's thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. first four objections be overruled. The fifth, and last, ob- The Board has considered the record and the at- jection was dealt with as follows. tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief On October 9, 1979, the Union filed a charge in Case and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and 21-CA-18257 alleging the commission by the Company conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section to adopt his recommended Order. 2 8(a(l) of the Act. A complaint was issued based hereon. Subsequently the Regional Director issued his report on ORDER the election objections, as mentioned earlier herein, and, Pursuant to Section \0(c) of the NaTional Labor noting that the findings of his investigation into the Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor charge underlying the complaint in Case 21-CA-18257 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- demonstrated to him the sort of conduct alleged by the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Union's fifth objection to the election, he concluded that Order of the Administrative Law Judge and the allegations made in Objection 5 could best be re- hereby orders that the Respondent, Walter Carpet solved in a hearing in conjunction with the complaint al- Mills, Inc., City of Industry, California, its officers, legations of Case 21-CA-18257. Accordingly, he ordered agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action t h e c ase s consolidated for hearing. set forth in the said recommended Order. On April 10, 19 80, t h e Union filed a second charge, in IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election and Ca se 21-CA-18926, against the Company, alleging that held in Case 21-RC-16127 be, and it hereby is, set eploe A m elia ala a r w as disch a rg ed b y th e C om pa- aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, re- ny on April 9, 1980. because of her prior activities on aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is. re- behalf of the Union. The Regional Director subsequently manded to the Regional Director for Region 21 to issued a complaint based on this new charge, and consol- conduct a new election when he deems the circum- idated its allegations for hearing with those of the cases stances permit the free choice of a bargaining rep- previously mentioned. resentative. These were heard by me at a hearing conducted in [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- Los Angeles, California, on June 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1980. All note omitted from publication.] parties were present and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine Responent-ha-exceped-tocertai-crediility--xtin made y the and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file * Respondent has exopted to certain credibility findings nude by the briefs. Based On the record thus compiled, my observa- Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to b .B copied my o - overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to crcdi- tion of the Witnesses and their demeanor, and my consid- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- eration of the arguments advanced in the post-trial briefs vinces urstha the resolutionsare incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Product^ f i led by t h e parties, I m ak e t he f o l lo w ing: Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Admin- istrative Law Judge's analysis and conclusions concerning the discharge of employee Ameliz Saler and the Administrative Law Judge's conclu- sions concerning the speech given by Respondent's vice president, Hereinafter referred to as the Union. Donald Kuhn. Hereinafter referred to as the Company. 259 NLRB No. 96 WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 691 Walter Carpet Mills, Inc. and Building Material & DECISION Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-STATEMENT OF THE CASE housemen f Helpers of America. Cases 21- FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge: CA-18257, 21-CA-18926, and 21-RC-16127 On October 3, 1979, Building Material and Dump Truck December 14, 1981 Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Team- December 14, 1981 sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,' DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION fr le d a petition in C as e 20-RC-16127 seeking certification OF SECOND ELECTION as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of Walter BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Carpet M il ls, I n c .,' located a t City of Industry, Califor- ZIMMERMAN nia. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election an election was conducted on Novem- On July 20, 1981, Administrative Law Judge ber 30, 1979. The results were that, of approximately 424 Frederick C. Herzog issued the attached Decision eligible voters, 188 cast votes for the Union and 209 cast in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- votes against it, with the 10 challenged ballots being in- ceptions and a supporting brief. sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Union Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the t h e re aft er fi l ed o bject io n s t o t h e co n d u c t of the election, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the N- T but failed to present evidence in support of the allega- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- ^ betos codnlteRgoa tions made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- Director for Region 21 recommended that the Union's thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. first four objections be overruled. The fifth, and last, ob- The Board has considered the record and the at- jection was dealt with as follows. tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief On October 9, 1979, the Union filed a charge in Case and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and 21-CA-18257 alleging the commission by the Company conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section to adopt his recommended Order. 2 8(a(l) of the Act. A complaint was issued based hereon. Subsequently the Regional Director issued his report on ORDER the election objections, as mentioned earlier herein, and, Pursuant to Section \0(c) of the NaTional Labor noting that the findings of his investigation into the Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor charge underlying the complaint in Case 21-CA-18257 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- demonstrated to him the sort of conduct alleged by the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Union's fifth objection to the election, he concluded that Order of the Administrative Law Judge and the allegations made in Objection 5 could best be re- hereby orders that the Respondent, Walter Carpet solved in a hearing in conjunction with the complaint al- Mills, Inc., City of Industry, California, its officers, legations of Case 21-CA-18257. Accordingly, he ordered agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action t h e c ase s consolidated for hearing. set forth in the said recommended Order. On April 10, 19 80, t h e U n io n fil ed a se c on d charge, i n IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election and Ca se 21-CA-18926, against the Company, alleging that held in Case 21-RC-16127 be, and it hereby is, set eploe A m elia ala a r w as disch a rg ed b y th e C om pa- aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, re- ny on April 9, 1980. because of her prior activities on aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is. re- behalf of the Union. The Regional Director subsequently manded to the Regional Director for Region 21 to issued a complaint based on this new charge, and consol- conduct a new election when he deems the circum- idated its allegations for hearing with those of the cases stances permit the free choice of a bargaining rep- previously mentioned. resentative. These were heard by me at a hearing conducted in [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- Los Angeles, California, on June 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1980. All note omitted from publication.] parties were present and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine Responent-ha-exceped-tocertai-crediility--xtin made y the and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file * Respondent has exopted to certain credibility findings nude by the briefs. Based On the record thus compiled, my observa- Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to b .B copied my o - overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to crcdi- tion of the Witnesses and their demeanor, and my consid- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- eration of the arguments advanced in the post-trial briefs vinces urstha the resolutionsare incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Product^ f i led by t h e parties, I m ak e t he f o l lo w ing: Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Admin- istrative Law Judge's analysis and conclusions concerning the discharge of employee Ameliz Saler and the Administrative Law Judge's conclu- sions concerning the speech given by Respondent's vice president, Hereinafter referred to as the Union. Donald Kuhn. Hereinafter referred to as the Company. 259 NLRB No. 96 WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 691 Walter Carpet Mills, Inc. and Building Material & DECISION Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-STATEMENT OF THE CASE housemen f Helpers of America. Cases 21- FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge: CA-18257, 21-CA-18926, and 21-RC-16127 On October 3, 1979, Building Material and Dump Truck December 14, 1981 Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Team- December 14, 1981 sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,' DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION fr le d a petition in C as e 20-RC-16127 seeking certification OF SECOND ELECTION as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of Walter BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Carpet M il ls, I n c .,' located a t City of Industry, Califor- ZIMMERMAN nia. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election an election was conducted on Novem- On July 20, 1981, Administrative Law Judge ber 30, 1979. The results were that, of approximately 424 Frederick C. Herzog issued the attached Decision eligible voters, 188 cast votes for the Union and 209 cast in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- votes against it, with the 10 challenged ballots being in- ceptions and a supporting brief. sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Union Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the t h e re aft er fi l ed o bject io n s t o t h e co n d u c t of the election, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the N- T but failed to present evidence in support of the allega- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- ^ betos codnlteRgoa tions made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- Director for Region 21 recommended that the Union's thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. first four objections be overruled. The fifth, and last, ob- The Board has considered the record and the at- jection was dealt with as follows. tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief On October 9, 1979, the Union filed a charge in Case and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and 21-CA-18257 alleging the commission by the Company conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section to adopt his recommended Order. 2 8(a(l) of the Act. A complaint was issued based hereon. Subsequently the Regional Director issued his report on ORDER the election objections, as mentioned earlier herein, and, Pursuant to Section \0(c) of the NaTional Labor noting that the findings of his investigation into the Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor charge underlying the complaint in Case 21-CA-18257 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- demonstrated to him the sort of conduct alleged by the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Union's fifth objection to the election, he concluded that Order of the Administrative Law Judge and the allegations made in Objection 5 could best be re- hereby orders that the Respondent, Walter Carpet solved in a hearing in conjunction with the complaint al- Mills, Inc., City of Industry, California, its officers, legations of Case 21-CA-18257. Accordingly, he ordered agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action t h e c ase s consolidated for hearing. set forth in the said recommended Order. On April 10, 19 80, t h e U n io n fil ed a se c on d charge, i n IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election and Ca se 21-CA-18926, against the Company, alleging that held in Case 21-RC-16127 be, and it hereby is, set eploe A m elia ala a r w as disch a rg ed b y th e C om pa- aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, re- ny on April 9, 1980. because of her prior activities on aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is. re- behalf of the Union. The Regional Director subsequently manded to the Regional Director for Region 21 to issued a complaint based on this new charge, and consol- conduct a new election when he deems the circum- idated its allegations for hearing with those of the cases stances permit the free choice of a bargaining rep- previously mentioned. resentative. These were heard by me at a hearing conducted in [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- Los Angeles, California, on June 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1980. All note omitted from publication.] parties were present and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine Responent-ha-exceped-tocertai-crediility--xtin made y the and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file * Respondent has exopted to certain credibility findings nude by the briefs. Based On the record thus compiled, my observa- Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to b .B copied my o - overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to crcdi- tion of the Witnesses and their demeanor, and my consid- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- eration of the arguments advanced in the post-trial briefs vinces urstha the resolutionsare incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Product^ f i led by t h e parties, I m ak e t he f o l lo w ing: Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Admin- istrative Law Judge's analysis and conclusions concerning the discharge of employee Ameliz Saler and the Administrative Law Judge's conclu- sions concerning the speech given by Respondent's vice president, Hereinafter referred to as the Union. Donald Kuhn. Hereinafter referred to as the Company. 259 NLRB No. 96 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT It is clear, however, that the facts having direct bear- ing on this case began to unfold in late August and Sep- 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY tember 1979, when the alleged discriminatee, Amelia Sa- The consoli d c t a s ad te C - lazar, and two fellow workers, Hilda Leonard and Elena The consolidated complaint alleges, and the Compa- Melendrez, contacted the Union. They then proceeded ny's answer admits, that the Company is a California to enlist the support of other workers by means of per- corporatinengage in th busines of m urig to enlist the support of other workers by means of per- corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing sonal conversations and solicitations and by distribution carpet at its facility located in City of Industry, Califor- of cards and newsletters. All of this led to the election nia. Further, it was alleged and admitted that the Com- te reslts of wc are set th e pany annually purchases and receives goods and prod- the results of which are set forth above. pany annually purchases and receives goods and prod- The election petition was filed on October 3, 1979, at ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers The elec tion was cnducted on November 30, 9:07 a.m. The election was conducted on November 30, located outside California. ~located outside California.1979. Thus, the Union's objection that the Company en- Based on the pleadings I find and conclude that the 1 . T , the Unions ojection harassm ent, coerion Company is an employer engaged in commerce within gaged in a concerted campaign of harassment, coercion, the omany is an employer engaged ( n commerce with intimidation, surveillance, and threats designed to impair the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.the rights of the employees to exercise their right to vote I. THE UNION AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION in a free and fair election must be examined by me with a view toward determining, not only whether such con- The consolidated complaint alleges, the answer admits, duct occurred, but also whether it occurred within the and I find and conclude that the Union is a labor ongani- "critical period" preceding the election. The Board has zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. long held that, absent exceptional circumstances not present in this case, the critical period is limited on the III. THE COMPANY'S SUPERVISORY HIERARCHY one end by the date that the petition was filed and on the The consolidated complaint alleges that the following other by the date of the election. The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961). 3 The named individuals occupied the positions set opposite their names, and, further that they are, and have been at critical perod" has been held to include the day on all material times herein, supervisors and agents of the which the petition was filed, rather than running "from" Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) that date. Kenworth Trucks of Philadelphia Inc., 229 of the Act: Donald Kuhn, vice president of marketing NLRB 815, 822 (1977)- and administration; Sandy Morales, personnel director at . sues the New Braunfels, Texas, facility of Westpoint Pepper- ell, a parent corporation of Respondent; Derek Davis, di- Speaking generally, the allegations against the Compa- rector of employee relations for the carpet and rug divi- ny herein raise issues in only four categories: sion of Westpoint Pepperell, a parent corporation of Re- (1) Whether or not the Company violated Section spondent; Jim Laney, industrial relations director; Homer 8(a)(1) and interfered with the election by holding meet- Frausto, department head of tufting department; Joe ings of large groups of employees both before and after Ruiz, supervisor, carpet repair and final inspection; the filing of the petition (it was asserted that the Compa- George Dewsnap, chief industrial engineer; and Samuel ny created the impression among employees that their P. Ortiz, supervisor, shipping department. unionizing efforts would be made futile, promised them While the Company's answer initially denied certain of benefits and threatened employees with discipline). these allegations, the Company did ultimately admit that (2) Whether or not the Company violated Section each person named above was a supervisor and agent of 8(a)(l) and interfered with the election by conducting a Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) campaign of individual interviews with employees in of the Act. Accordingly, I so find and conclude. which employees were led to believe their unionizing ef- forts would be made futile and in which employees were IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND interrogated about their own and others' union activi- OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT ties. 4 (3) Whether or not in various specific instances super- A. Background visors of the Company violated Section 8(aX1) of the The Company, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., was owned Act and/or engaged in objectionable conduct. by Ludlow Corporation until its acquisition by West- point-Pepperell in August 1978. Since its acquisition it The Union's assertion that I should find that the Company's conduct was "aggregious" [sic] and that the critical period began sometime before has apparently continued to operate essentially as it did the filing of the petition is unpersuasive, and its citation of Lyon's Restau- previously, manufacturing carpet, but now as I of some rants, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated Foods Company, 234 50 such facilities owned by Westpoint-Pepperell. NLRB 178 (1978), is inapposite, as that case dealt with a narrow excep- The record here reveals nothing to suggest that its tion to the Ideal Eslctri rule, having to do with a type of pre-petition conduct peculiar only to unions. labor relations history has been marked or typified by 'At the hearing the General Counsel unsuccessfully sought to amend acrimony, unfair labor practices, or other illegal conduct. the complaint to allege that the Company also solicited grievances during By all that appears, the organizational campaign under- these interviews. While the issue raised by such an allegation seems close- taken by the Union herein may have been its first contact ly related to another complaint allegation, i.e., promising benefits, it must be borne in mind that the allegations having to do with promises of bene- with a labor organization at the facility located in City of fits rose out of a different factual setting, the large group meetings re- Industry, California. ferred to in sec. IV,B(I), above. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT It is clear, however, that the facts having direct bear- ing on this case began to unfold in late August and Sep- L. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY tember 1979, when the alleged discriminatee, Amelia Sa- The consolidated complaint alleges, and the Compa- lazar, and two fellow workers, Hilda Leonard and Elena The consolidated complaint alleges, and the Compa- Melendrez, contacted the Union. They then proceeded ny's answer admits that the Companyess of anuactrin to enlist the support of other workers by means of per- corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing sonal conversations and solicitations and by distribution carpet at its facility located in City of Industryh Cafor- of cards and newsletters. All of this led to the election, mia. Further, it was alleged and admitted that the Corn- ^ the reut of whc ar se fot ao pany annually purchases and receives goods and prod- the resultsof whic are se forh ao e. ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers T e pt w filed on Nober 3 0, located outside California. 9:07 a.m. The election was conducted on November 30, located outside California. ^ jtinhateCmpye- Base onthepleaing I ind nd oncude hatthe 1979. Thus, the Union's objection that the Company en- Based on the pleadings I find and conclude that the gaged in a concerted campaign of harassment, coercion, Company is an employer engaged in commerce within intimidation, surveillance, and threats designed to impair the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the rights of the employees to exercise their right to vote II. THE UNION AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION i n a f r e e a n d f a i r e l e c t i o n m u s t b e e x a m i n e d by m e w i t h a view toward determining, not only whether such con- The consolidated complaint alleges, the answer admits, duct occurred, but also whether it occurred within the and I find and conclude that the Union is a labor ongani- "critical period" preceding the election. The Board has zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. long held that, absent exceptional circumstances not present in this case, the critical period is limited on the Ill. THE COMPANY'S SUPERVISORY HIERARCHY one end by the date that the petition was filed and on the The consolidated complaint alleges that the following o t h e r b th e d at e o f t he ele c t io n . T he I d ea l E lec tr a n d Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961).' The named individuals occupied the positions set opposite p1 their names, and, further that they are, and have been at critical p e rio d " h a s b een h e ld t o inclu d e t h e d a y on all material times herein, supervisors and agents of the which the petition was filed, rather than running "from" Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (I3) that date. Kenworth Trucks of Philadelphia, Inc., 229 of the Act: Donald Kuhn, vice president of marketing NLRB 815, 822 (1977). and administration; Sandy Morales, personnel director at B. The Issues the New Braunfels, Texas, facility of Westpoint Pepper- ell, a parent corporation of Respondent; Derek Davis, di- Speaking generally, the allegations against the Compa- rector of employee relations for the carpet and rug divi- ny herein raise issues in only four categories: sion of Westpoint Pepperell, a parent corporation of Re- (1) Whether or not the Company violated Section spondent; Jim Laney, industrial relations director; Homer 8(a)(1) and interfered with the election by holding meet- Frausto, department head of tufting department; Joe ings of large groups of employees both before and after Ruiz, supervisor, carpet repair and final inspection; the filing of the petition (it was asserted that the Compa- George Dewsnap, chief industrial engineer; and Samuel ny created the impression among employees that their P. Ortiz, supervisor, shipping department. unionizing efforts would be made futile, promised them While the Company's answer initially denied certain of benefits and threatened employees with discipline). these allegations, the Company did ultimately admit that (2) Whether or not the Company violated Section each person named above was a supervisor and agent of 8(a)(l) and interfered with the election by conducting a Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) campaign of individual interviews with employees in of the Act. Accordingly, I so find and conclude. which employees were led to believe their unionizing ef- forts would be made futile and in which employees were IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND interrogated about their own and others' union activi- OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT ties. 4 (3) Whether or not in various specific instances super- A. Background visors of the Company violated Section 8(aXl) of the The Company, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., was owned Act and/or engaged in objectionable conduct. by Ludlow Corporation until its acquisition by West- point-Pepperell in August 1978. Since its acquisition it The Union's assertion that I should find that the Company's conduct was "aggregious" [sic) and that the critical period began sometime before has apparently continued to operate essentially as it did the riling of the petition is unpersuasive, and its citation of Lyon's Restau- previously, manufacturing Carpet, but now as 1 Of some rants, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated Foods Company, 234 50 such facilities owned by Westpoint-Pepperell. NLRB 178 (1978), is inapposite, as that case dealt with a narrow excep- The record here reveals nothing to suggest that its tion to the Ideal Electric rule, having to do w ith a ty pe of pr e-pe tition conduct peculiar only to unions. labor relations history has been marked or typified by 4 At the hearing the General Counsel unsuccessfully sought to amend acrimony, unfair labor practices, or Other illegal conduct,. the complaint to allege that the Company also solicited grievances during By all that appears, the organizational campaign under- t he w e interviews. While the issue raised by such an allegation seems close- taken by the Union herein may have been its first contact ly related to another complaint allegation, i.e., promising benefits, it must be boome in mind that the allegations having to do with promises of bene- With a labor Organization at the facility located in City of fits rose out of a different factual setting, the large group meetings re- Industry, California. ferred to in sec. IV,B(1), above. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT It is clear, however, that the facts having direct bear- ing on this case began to unfold in late August and Sep- L. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY tember 1979, when the alleged discriminatee, Amelia Sa- The consolidated complaint alleges, and the Compa- lazar, and two fellow workers, Hilda Leonard and Elena The consolidated complaint alleges, and the Compa- Melendrez, contacted the Union. They then proceeded ny's answer admits that the Companyess of anuactrin to enlist the support of other workers by means of per- corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing sonal conversations and solicitations and by distribution carpet at its facility located in City of Industryh Cafor- of cards and newsletters. All of this led to the election, mia. Further, it was alleged and admitted that the Corn- ^ the reut of whc ar se fot ao pany annually purchases and receives goods and prod- the resultsof whic are se forh ao e. ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers T e pt w filed on Nober 3 0, located outside California. 9:07 a.m. The election was conducted on November 30, located outside California. ^ jtinhateCmpye- Base onthepleaing I ind nd oncude hatthe 1979. Thus, the Union's objection that the Company en- Based on the pleadings I find and conclude that the gaged in a concerted campaign of harassment, coercion, Company is an employer engaged in commerce within intimidation, surveillance, and threats designed to impair the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the rights of the employees to exercise their right to vote II. THE UNION AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION i n a f r e e a n d f a i r e l e c t i o n m u s t b e e x a m i n e d by m e w i t h a view toward determining, not only whether such con- The consolidated complaint alleges, the answer admits, duct occurred, but also whether it occurred within the and I find and conclude that the Union is a labor ongani- "critical period" preceding the election. The Board has zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. long held that, absent exceptional circumstances not present in this case, the critical period is limited on the Ill. THE COMPANY'S SUPERVISORY HIERARCHY one end by the date that the petition was filed and on the The consolidated complaint alleges that the following o t h e r b th e d at e o f t he ele c t io n . T he I d ea l E lec tr a n d Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961).' The named individuals occupied the positions set opposite p1 their names, and, further that they are, and have been at critical p e rio d " h a s b een h e ld t o inclu d e t h e d a y on all material times herein, supervisors and agents of the which the petition was filed, rather than running "from" Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (I3) that date. Kenworth Trucks of Philadelphia, Inc., 229 of the Act: Donald Kuhn, vice president of marketing NLRB 815, 822 (1977). and administration; Sandy Morales, personnel director at B. The Issues the New Braunfels, Texas, facility of Westpoint Pepper- ell, a parent corporation of Respondent; Derek Davis, di- Speaking generally, the allegations against the Compa- rector of employee relations for the carpet and rug divi- ny herein raise issues in only four categories: sion of Westpoint Pepperell, a parent corporation of Re- (1) Whether or not the Company violated Section spondent; Jim Laney, industrial relations director; Homer 8(a)(1) and interfered with the election by holding meet- Frausto, department head of tufting department; Joe ings of large groups of employees both before and after Ruiz, supervisor, carpet repair and final inspection; the filing of the petition (it was asserted that the Compa- George Dewsnap, chief industrial engineer; and Samuel ny created the impression among employees that their P. Ortiz, supervisor, shipping department. unionizing efforts would be made futile, promised them While the Company's answer initially denied certain of benefits and threatened employees with discipline). these allegations, the Company did ultimately admit that (2) Whether or not the Company violated Section each person named above was a supervisor and agent of 8(a)(l) and interfered with the election by conducting a Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) campaign of individual interviews with employees in of the Act. Accordingly, I so find and conclude. which employees were led to believe their unionizing ef- forts would be made futile and in which employees were IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND interrogated about their own and others' union activi- OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT ties. 4 (3) Whether or not in various specific instances super- A. Background visors of the Company violated Section 8(aXl) of the The Company, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., was owned Act and/or engaged in objectionable conduct. by Ludlow Corporation until its acquisition by West- point-Pepperell in August 1978. Since its acquisition it The Union's assertion that I should find that the Company's conduct was "aggregious" [sic) and that the critical period began sometime before has apparently continued to operate essentially as it did the riling of the petition is unpersuasive, and its citation of Lyon's Restau- previously, manufacturing Carpet, but now as 1 Of some rants, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated Foods Company, 234 50 such facilities owned by Westpoint-Pepperell. NLRB 178 (1978), is inapposite, as that case dealt with a narrow excep- The record here reveals nothing to suggest that its tion to the Ideal Electric rule, having to do w ith a ty pe of pr e-pe tition conduct peculiar only to unions. labor relations history has been marked or typified by 4 At the hearing the General Counsel unsuccessfully sought to amend acrimony, unfair labor practices, or Other illegal conduct,. the complaint to allege that the Company also solicited grievances during By all that appears, the organizational campaign under- t he w e interviews. While the issue raised by such an allegation seems close- taken by the Union herein may have been its first contact ly related to another complaint allegation, i.e., promising benefits, it must be boome in mind that the allegations having to do with promises of bene- With a labor Organization at the facility located in City of fits rose out of a different factual setting, the large group meetings re- Industry, California. ferred to in sec. IV,B(1), above. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT It is clear, however, that the facts having direct bear- ing on this case began to unfold in late August and Sep- L. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY tember 1979, when the alleged discriminatee, Amelia Sa- The consolidated complaint alleges, and the Compa- lazar, and two fellow workers, Hilda Leonard and Elena The consolidated complaint alleges, and the Compa- Melendrez, contacted the Union. They then proceeded ny's answer admits that the Companyess of anuactrin to enlist the support of other workers by means of per- corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing sonal conversations and solicitations and by distribution carpet at its facility located in City of Industry, Cafor- of cards and newsletters. All of this led to the election, mia. Further, it was alleged and admitted that the Corn- ^ the reut of whc ar se fot ao pany annually purchases and receives goods and prod- the resultsof whic are se forh ao e. ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers T e pt w filed on Nober 3 0, located outside California. 9:07 a.m. The election was conducted on November 30, located outside California. ^ jtinhateCmpye- Base onthepleaing I ind nd oncude hatthe 1979. Thus, the Union's objection that the Company en- Based on the pleadings I find and conclude that the gaged in a concerted campaign of harassment, coercion, Company is an employer engaged in commerce within intimidation, surveillance, and threats designed to impair the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the rights of the employees to exercise their right to vote II. THE UNION AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION i n a f r e e a n d f a i r e l e c t i o n m u s t b e e x a m i n e d by m e w i t h a view toward determining, not only whether such con- The consolidated complaint alleges, the answer admits, duct occurred, but also whether it occurred within the and I find and conclude that the Union is a labor ongani- "critical period" preceding the election. The Board has zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. long held that, absent exceptional circumstances not present in this case, the critical period is limited on the Ill. THE COMPANY'S SUPERVISORY HIERARCHY one end by the date that the petition was filed and on the The consolidated complaint alleges that the following o t h e r b th e d at e o f t he ele c t io n . T he I d ea l E lec tr a n d Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961).' The named individuals occupied the positions set opposite p1 their names, and, further that they are, and have been at critical p e rio d " h a s b een h e ld t o inclu d e t h e d a y on all material times herein, supervisors and agents of the which the petition was filed, rather than running "from" Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (I3) that date. Kenworth Trucks of Philadelphia, Inc., 229 of the Act: Donald Kuhn, vice president of marketing NLRB 815, 822 (1977). and administration; Sandy Morales, personnel director at B. The Issues the New Braunfels, Texas, facility of Westpoint Pepper- ell, a parent corporation of Respondent; Derek Davis, di- Speaking generally, the allegations against the Compa- rector of employee relations for the carpet and rug divi- ny herein raise issues in only four categories: sion of Westpoint Pepperell, a parent corporation of Re- (1) Whether or not the Company violated Section spondent; Jim Laney, industrial relations director; Homer 8(a)(1) and interfered with the election by holding meet- Frausto, department head of tufting department; Joe ings of large groups of employees both before and after Ruiz, supervisor, carpet repair and final inspection; the filing of the petition (it was asserted that the Compa- George Dewsnap, chief industrial engineer; and Samuel ny created the impression among employees that their P. Ortiz, supervisor, shipping department. unionizing efforts would be made futile, promised them While the Company's answer initially denied certain of benefits and threatened employees with discipline). these allegations, the Company did ultimately admit that (2) Whether or not the Company violated Section each person named above was a supervisor and agent of 8(a)(l) and interfered with the election by conducting a Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) campaign of individual interviews with employees in of the Act. Accordingly, I so find and conclude. which employees were led to believe their unionizing ef- forts would be made futile and in which employees were IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND interrogated about their own and others' union activi- OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT ties. 4 (3) Whether or not in various specific instances super- A. Background visors of the Company violated Section 8(aXl) of the The Company, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., was owned Act and/or engaged in objectionable conduct. by Ludlow Corporation until its acquisition by West- point-Pepperell in August 1978. Since its acquisition it The Union's assertion that I should find that the Company's conduct was "aggregious" [sic) and that the critical period began sometime before has apparently continued to operate essentially as it did the riling of the petition is unpersuasive, and its citation of Lyon's Restau- previously, manufacturing Carpet, but now as 1 Of some rants, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated Foods Company, 234 50 such facilities owned by Westpoint-Pepperell. NLRB 178 (1978), is inapposite, as that case dealt with a narrow excep- The record here reveals nothing to suggest that its tion to the Ideal Electric rule, having to do w ith a ty pe of pr e-pe tition conduct peculiar only to unions. labor relations history has been marked or typified by 4 At the hearing the General Counsel unsuccessfully sought to amend acrimony, unfair labor practices, or Other illegal conduct,. the complaint to allege that the Company also solicited grievances during By all that appears, the organizational campaign under- t he w e interviews. While the issue raised by such an allegation seems close- taken by the Union herein may have been its first contact ly related to another complaint allegation, i.e., promising benefits, it must be boome in mind that the allegations having to do with promises of bene- With a labor Organization at the facility located in City of fits rose out of a different factual setting, the large group meetings re- Industry, California. ferred to in sec. IV,B(1), above. WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 693 (4) Whether or not the Company discriminated against ances that their cards would remain confidential, and il- Amelia Salazar when it discharged her from her job on lustrated his point by means of a story about employees April 4, 1980, of her having engaged in union, or other being subpenaed to testify in a previous hearing despite protected concerted activities. earlier assurances against such disclosures. He urged em- ployees to give "very serious thought to this matter" and C. The Group Meetings not sign away their "job rights" in reliance on promises The Company learned that an organizing campaign made by the Union. He followed by telling them of his was underway no later than mid-September 1979, when belief that the Union would not accurately advise them union authorization cards were discovered in one of the of its dues, or its history of long and bitter strikes, or the Company's restrooms. Therefore, the Company's vice fines it levied on its members. He then told the employ- president and general manager of Walter Carpet Mills ar- ees of a union campaign at another of Westpoint-Pepper- ranged to and did conduct a series of group meetings ell's plants, noting that many employees had lost their with employees. The employee complement of approxi- jobs after 4 years of negotiations led to a collective-bar- mately 400 workers was split up into 6 to 8 groups, with gaining agreement of no value to employees. Kuhn reit- roughly 60 to 70 employees in each group. Kuhn testi- erated that the Union was interested in the employees fled, at variance with his investigatory affidavit, that the only in an effort to get money from the employees. He meetings were begun on the night of October 1, 1979, urged employees to be careful about what they signed, and continued through the day of October 2, 1979, con- and encouraged them to "discuss this matter freely with eluding before midnight. He was corroborated in this tes- . . supervisors." He closed by reminding them that the timony by Morales, director of personnel at a company Union could not force the Company to agree to any- plant in Texas; Morales' testimony was similarly at vari- thing, and might call them out on strike, thereby causing ance with an affidavit he had provided to the General all employees to have economic hardship. Kuhn closed Counsel during the investigation. 5 by calling for employees to continue working directly Based on an amalgam of the testimony concerning with the Company, and telling employees that they these meetings a general picture emerged, as follows. could come to their supervisors, or anyone in manage- Kuhn was accompanied by Morales, Don Hartline, per- ment, to get straight answers to their questions. sonnel director, and a Mr. Kelehear, director of person- Counsel for the General Counsel's witnesses recalled nel industrial relations for Westpoint-Pepperell's carpet the speech essentially as outlined above, although with and rug division. The meetings were begun, after em- certain additions and variations. For example, Salazar ployees were assembled by their supervisors, with Kele- and employee Silver recounted that they heard that em- hear making introductory remarks. Then Kuhn read a ployees will lose rights. Employee Alvarez heard that prepared speech, with Morales interpreting for him as he there would be strikes. Employee Gonzalez heard that went along. During his speech, Kuhn referred to two the Union could not give employees anything and that large pieces of cardboard, which displayed blown-up Kuhn would try to resolve employees' problems without versions of union authorization cards, in both English the intervention of a third party. And employees Leon- and Spanish. ard and Casillas heard that the Company would solve Kuhn's speech, as written, advised employees that he employees' problems if only it were given a chance. had learned the Union was trying to get union cards Moreover, Salazar heard a threat to discipline any union signed, that the Union was after their money, that em- people found to be bothering employees, while Leonard ployees had not needed to pay anyone previously to get recalled that it was stated that anyone taking union cards fair treatment, that the Company was opposed to the around for signatures, or going around from one depart- Union coming into the plant, that employees need not ment to another to talk, would be disciplined. And, final- join or pay dues to a union to keep their jobs, and that ly, employee Monje heard Kuhn promise employees employees would get no special treatment for having better benefits and salaries, if only given the opportunity. joined the Union. He went on to stress that selecting a As a result of such testimony I am urged to find that union by signing authorization cards might have greater (a) employees were promised improved benefits, (b) em- consequences than employees realized because it might ployees were threatened with discipline, (c) employees enable the Union to circumvent the process of a secret were threatened with disclosure of their union sympa- election. He told employees they could not rely on assur- thies, loss of their rights, strikes, and loss of work, and (d) in their entirety, the speeches conveyed to employees Counsel for the General Counsel urges that these variances should a sense of futility in their efforts to select a collective- lead me to discredit the testimony of Kuhn and Morales. She also urges me to credit the testimony of employees Casillas and Alvarez, who t bargaesti- fied to having attended such a meeting as early as September 27 or 28, sel failed to cite any case in her brief supporting these 1979. The point is not viewed by me as an important conflict, but I re- propositions, however. The Union's brief makes no men- solve it in favor of the version given by Kuhn and Morales, notwith- tion of these matters. standing the variance between their testimony and their respective affida- vits. There appears to be no reason why either would benefit from fabri- I am unpersuaded that Kuhn or any other official of cation about the matter. And here, as in numerous other instances during the Company actually made the types of threats or the hearing, their testimony seemed to be more precise and accurate than promises attributed to them by the General Counsel's that of the witnesses offered by counsel for the General Counsel. While I witnesses. For while it is admitted that Kuhn, and his as- do not believe that either Casillas or Alvarez was fabricating while testi- fying, neither do I believe that either was capable of recounting a de- sistants, did say something more to the employees than is tailed actual scenario with accuracy. shown by the text of Kuhn's speech, it seems likely that WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 693 (4) Whether or not the Company discriminated against ances that their cards would remain confidential, and il- Amelia Salazar when it discharged her from her job on lustrated his point by means of a story about employees April 4, 1980, of her having engaged in union, or other being subpenaed to testify in a previous hearing despite protected concerted activities. earlier assurances against such disclosures. He urged em- ployees to give "very serious thought to this matter" and C. The Group Meetings not sign away their "job rights" in reliance on promises The Company learned that an organizing campaign made by the Union. He followed by telling them of his was underway no later than mid-September 1979, when belief that the Union would not accurately advise them union authorization cards were discovered in one of the of its dues, or its history of long and bitter strikes, or the Company's restrooms. Therefore, the Company's vice fine s it levied on its members. He then told the employ- president and general manager of Walter Carpet Mills ar- ees of a union campaign at another of Westpoint-Pepper- ranged to and did conduct a series of group meetings ell's plants, noting that many employees had lost their with employees. The employee complement of approxi- jobs after 4 years of negotiations led to a collective-bar- mately 400 workers was split up into 6 to 8 groups, with gaining agreement of no value to employees. Kuhn reit- roughly 60 to 70 employees in each group. Kuhn testi- erated that the Union was interested in the employees fled, at variance with his investigatory affidavit, that the only in an effort to get money from the employees. He meetings were begun on the night of October 1, 1979, urged employees to be careful about what they signed, and continued through the day of October 2, 1979, con- and encouraged them to "discuss this matter freely with eluding before midnight. He was corroborated in this tes- . . . supervisors." He closed by reminding them that the timony by Morales, director of personnel at a company Union could not force the Company to agree to any- plant in Texas; Morales' testimony was similarly at vari- thing, and might call them out on strike, thereby causing ance with an affidavit he had provided to the General all employees to have economic hardship. Kuhn closed Counsel during the investigation. 5 by calling for employees to continue working directly Based on an amalgam of the testimony concerning with the Company, and telling employees that they these meetings a general picture emerged, as follows,. could come to their supervisors, or anyone in manage- Kuhn was accompanied by Morales, Don Hartline, per- ment, to get straight answers to their questions. sonnel director, and a Mr. Kelehear, director of person- Counsel for the General Counsel's witnesses recalled nel industrial relations for Westpoint-Pepperell's carpet the speech essentially as outlined above, although with and rug division. The meetings were begun, after em- certain additions and variations. For example, Salazar ployees were assembled by their supervisors, with Kele- and employee Silver recounted that they heard that em- hear making introductory remarks. Then Kuhn read a ployees will lose rights. Employee Alvarez heard that prepared speech, with Morales interpreting for him as he there would be strikes. Employee Gonzalez heard that went along. During his speech, Kuhn referred to two the Union could not give employees anything and that large pieces of cardboard, which displayed blown-up Kuhn would try to resolve employees' problems without versions of union authorization cards, in both English the intervention of a third party. And employees Leon- and Spanish. ard and Casillas heard that the Company would solve Kuhn's speech, as written, advised employees that he employees' problems if only it were given a chance. had learned the Union was trying to get union cards Moreover, Salazar heard a threat to discipline any union signed, that the Union was after their money, that em- people found to be bothering employees, while Leonard ployees had not needed to pay anyone previously to get recalled that it was stated that anyone taking union cards fair treatment, that the Company was opposed to the around for signatures, or going around from one depart- Union coming into the plant, that employees need not ment to another to talk, would be disciplined. And, final- join or pay dues to a union to keep their jobs, and that ly, employee Monje heard Kuhn promise employees employees would get no special treatment for having better benefits and salaries, if only given the opportunity. joined the Union. He went on to stress that selecting a As a result of such testimony I am urged to find that union by signing authorization cards might have greater (a) employees were promised improved benefits, (b) em- consequences than employees realized because it might ployees were threatened with discipline, (c) employees enable the Union to circumvent the process of a secret were threatened with disclosure of their union sympa- election. He told employees they could not rely on assur- thies, loss of their rights, strikes, and loss of work, and (d) in their entirety, the speeches conveyed to employees >Counsel for the General Counsel urges that these variances should a sense of futility in their efforts to Select a collective- lead me to discredit the testimony of Kuhn and Morales. She also urges bargaining representative. Counsel for the General Coun- me to credit the testimony of employees Casillas and Alvarez, who testi- fied to having attended such a meeting as early as September 27 or 28, sel failed to Cite any case in her brief Supporting these 1979. The point is not viewed by me as an important conflict, but I re- propositions, however. The Union's brief makes no men- solve it in favor of the version given by Kuhn and Morales, notwith- tion of these matters. standing the variance between their testimony and their respective affida- , _i _i .i. » y i. .1. n i vits. There appears to be no reason why either would benefit from fabri- I am unpersuaded that Kuhn or any other official of cation about the matter. And here, as in numerous other instances during the Company actually made the types of threats or the hearing, their testimony seemed to be more precise and accurate than promises attributed to them by the General Counsel's that of the witnesses offered by counsel for the General Counsel. While I witnesses. For while it is admitted that Kuhn, and his as- do not believe that either Casillas or Alvarez was fabricating while testi- fying, neither do I believe that either was capable of recounting a de- sistants, did say something more to the employees than is tailed actual scenario with accuracy. shown by the text of Kuhn's speech, it seems likely that WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 693 (4) Whether or not the Company discriminated against ances that their cards would remain confidential, and il- Amelia Salazar when it discharged her from her job on lustrated his point by means of a story about employees April 4, 1980, of her having engaged in union, or other being subpenaed to testify in a previous hearing despite protected concerted activities. earlier assurances against such disclosures. He urged em- ployees to give "very serious thought to this matter" and C. The Group Meetings not sign away their "job rights" in reliance on promises The Company learned that an organizing campaign made by the Union. He followed by telling them of his was underway no later than mid-September 1979, when belief that the Union would not accurately advise them union authorization cards were discovered in one of the of its dues, or its history of long and bitter strikes, or the Company's restrooms. Therefore, the Company's vice fine s it levied on its members. He then told the employ- president and general manager of Walter Carpet Mills ar- ees of a union campaign at another of Westpoint-Pepper- ranged to and did conduct a series of group meetings ell's plants, noting that many employees had lost their with employees. The employee complement of approxi- jobs after 4 years of negotiations led to a collective-bar- mately 400 workers was split up into 6 to 8 groups, with gaining agreement of no value to employees. Kuhn reit- roughly 60 to 70 employees in each group. Kuhn testi- erated that the Union was interested in the employees fled, at variance with his investigatory affidavit, that the only in an effort to get money from the employees. He meetings were begun on the night of October 1, 1979, urged employees to be careful about what they signed, and continued through the day of October 2, 1979, con- and encouraged them to "discuss this matter freely with eluding before midnight. He was corroborated in this tes- . . . supervisors." He closed by reminding them that the timony by Morales, director of personnel at a company Union could not force the Company to agree to any- plant in Texas; Morales' testimony was similarly at vari- thing, and might call them out on strike, thereby causing ance with an affidavit he had provided to the General all employees to have economic hardship. Kuhn closed Counsel during the investigation. 5 by calling for employees to continue working directly Based on an amalgam of the testimony concerning with the Company, and telling employees that they these meetings a general picture emerged, as follows,. could come to their supervisors, or anyone in manage- Kuhn was accompanied by Morales, Don Hartline, per- ment, to get straight answers to their questions. sonnel director, and a Mr. Kelehear, director of person- Counsel for the General Counsel's witnesses recalled nel industrial relations for Westpoint-Pepperell's carpet the speech essentially as outlined above, although with and rug division. The meetings were begun, after em- certain additions and variations. For example, Salazar ployees were assembled by their supervisors, with Kele- and employee Silver recounted that they heard that em- hear making introductory remarks. Then Kuhn read a ployees will lose rights. Employee Alvarez heard that prepared speech, with Morales interpreting for him as he there would be strikes. Employee Gonzalez heard that went along. During his speech, Kuhn referred to two the Union could not give employees anything and that large pieces of cardboard, which displayed blown-up Kuhn would try to resolve employees' problems without versions of union authorization cards, in both English the intervention of a third party. And employees Leon- and Spanish. ard and Casillas heard that the Company would solve Kuhn's speech, as written, advised employees that he employees' problems if only it were given a chance. had learned the Union was trying to get union cards Moreover, Salazar heard a threat to discipline any union signed, that the Union was after their money, that em- people found to be bothering employees, while Leonard ployees had not needed to pay anyone previously to get recalled that it was stated that anyone taking union cards fair treatment, that the Company was opposed to the around for signatures, or going around from one depart- Union coming into the plant, that employees need not ment to another to talk, would be disciplined. And, final- join or pay dues to a union to keep their jobs, and that ly, employee Monje heard Kuhn promise employees employees would get no special treatment for having better benefits and salaries, if only given the opportunity. joined the Union. He went on to stress that selecting a As a result of such testimony I am urged to find that union by signing authorization cards might have greater (a) employees were promised improved benefits, (b) em- consequences than employees realized because it might ployees were threatened with discipline, (c) employees enable the Union to circumvent the process of a secret were threatened with disclosure of their union sympa- election. He told employees they could not rely on assur- thies, loss of their rights, strikes, and loss of work, and (d) in their entirety, the speeches conveyed to employees >Counsel for the General Counsel urges that these variances should a sense of futility in their efforts to Select a collective- lead me to discredit the testimony of Kuhn and Morales. She also urges bargaining representative. Counsel for the General Coun- me to credit the testimony of employees Casillas and Alvarez, who testi- fied to having attended such a meeting as early as September 27 or 28, sel failed to Cite any case in her brief Supporting these 1979. The point is not viewed by me as an important conflict, but I re- propositions, however. The Union's brief makes no men- solve it in favor of the version given by Kuhn and Morales, notwith- tion of these matters. standing the variance between their testimony and their respective affida- , _i _i .i. » y i. .1. n i vits. There appears to be no reason why either would benefit from fabri- I am unpersuaded that Kuhn or any other official of cation about the matter. And here, as in numerous other instances during the Company actually made the types of threats or the hearing, their testimony seemed to be more precise and accurate than promises attributed to them by the General Counsel's that of the witnesses offered by counsel for the General Counsel. While I witnesses. For while it is admitted that Kuhn, and his as- do not believe that either Casillas or Alvarez was fabricating while testi- fying, neither do I believe that either was capable of recounting a de- sistants, did say something more to the employees than is tailed actual scenario with accuracy. shown by the text of Kuhn's speech, it seems likely that WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 693 (4) Whether or not the Company discriminated against ances that their cards would remain confidential, and il- Amelia Salazar when it discharged her from her job on lustrated his point by means of a story about employees April 4, 1980, of her having engaged in union, or other being subpenaed to testify in a previous hearing despite protected concerted activities. earlier assurances against such disclosures. He urged em- ployees to give "very serious thought to this matter" and C. The Group Meetings not sign away their "job rights" in reliance on promises The Company learned that an organizing campaign made by the Union. He followed by telling them of his was underway no later than mid-September 1979, when belief that the Union would not accurately advise them union authorization cards were discovered in one of the of its dues, or its history of long and bitter strikes, or the Company's restrooms. Therefore, the Company's vice fine s it levied on its members. He then told the employ- president and general manager of Walter Carpet Mills ar- ees of a union campaign at another of Westpoint-Pepper- ranged to and did conduct a series of group meetings ell's plants, noting that many employees had lost their with employees. The employee complement of approxi- jobs after 4 years of negotiations led to a collective-bar- mately 400 workers was split up into 6 to 8 groups, with gaining agreement of no value to employees. Kuhn reit- roughly 60 to 70 employees in each group. Kuhn testi- erated that the Union was interested in the employees fled, at variance with his investigatory affidavit, that the only in an effort to get money from the employees. He meetings were begun on the night of October 1, 1979, urged employees to be careful about what they signed, and continued through the day of October 2, 1979, con- and encouraged them to "discuss this matter freely with eluding before midnight. He was corroborated in this tes- . . . supervisors." He closed by reminding them that the timony by Morales, director of personnel at a company Union could not force the Company to agree to any- plant in Texas; Morales' testimony was similarly at vari- thing, and might call them out on strike, thereby causing ance with an affidavit he had provided to the General all employees to have economic hardship. Kuhn closed Counsel during the investigation. 5 by calling for employees to continue working directly Based on an amalgam of the testimony concerning with the Company, and telling employees that they these meetings a general picture emerged, as follows,. could come to their supervisors, or anyone in manage- Kuhn was accompanied by Morales, Don Hartline, per- ment, to get straight answers to their questions. sonnel director, and a Mr. Kelehear, director of person- Counsel for the General Counsel's witnesses recalled nel industrial relations for Westpoint-Pepperell's carpet the speech essentially as outlined above, although with and rug division. The meetings were begun, after em- certain additions and variations. For example, Salazar ployees were assembled by their supervisors, with Kele- and employee Silver recounted that they heard that em- hear making introductory remarks. Then Kuhn read a ployees will lose rights. Employee Alvarez heard that prepared speech, with Morales interpreting for him as he there would be strikes. Employee Gonzalez heard that went along. During his speech, Kuhn referred to two the Union could not give employees anything and that large pieces of cardboard, which displayed blown-up Kuhn would try to resolve employees' problems without versions of union authorization cards, in both English the intervention of a third party. And employees Leon- and Spanish. ard and Casillas heard that the Company would solve Kuhn's speech, as written, advised employees that he employees' problems if only it were given a chance. had learned the Union was trying to get union cards Moreover, Salazar heard a threat to discipline any union signed, that the Union was after their money, that em- people found to be bothering employees, while Leonard ployees had not needed to pay anyone previously to get recalled that it was stated that anyone taking union cards fair treatment, that the Company was opposed to the around for signatures, or going around from one depart- Union coming into the plant, that employees need not ment to another to talk, would be disciplined. And, final- join or pay dues to a union to keep their jobs, and that ly, employee Monje heard Kuhn promise employees employees would get no special treatment for having better benefits and salaries, if only given the opportunity. joined the Union. He went on to stress that selecting a As a result of such testimony I am urged to find that union by signing authorization cards might have greater (a) employees were promised improved benefits, (b) em- consequences than employees realized because it might ployees were threatened with discipline, (c) employees enable the Union to circumvent the process of a secret were threatened with disclosure of their union sympa- election. He told employees they could not rely on assur- thies, loss of their rights, strikes, and loss of work, and (d) in their entirety, the speeches conveyed to employees >Counsel for the General Counsel urges that these variances should a sense of futility in their efforts to Select a collective- lead me to discredit the testimony of Kuhn and Morales. She also urges bargaining representative. Counsel for the General Coun- me to credit the testimony of employees Casillas and Alvarez, who testi- fied to having attended such a meeting as early as September 27 or 28, sel failed to Cite any case in her brief Supporting these 1979. The point is not viewed by me as an important conflict, but I re- propositions, however. The Union's brief makes no men- solve it in favor of the version given by Kuhn and Morales, notwith- tion of these matters. standing the variance between their testimony and their respective affida- , _i _i .i. » y i. .1. n i vits. There appears to be no reason why either would benefit from fabri- I am unpersuaded that Kuhn or any other official of cation about the matter. And here, as in numerous other instances during the Company actually made the types of threats or the hearing, their testimony seemed to be more precise and accurate than promises attributed to them by the General Counsel's that of the witnesses offered by counsel for the General Counsel. While I witnesses. For while it is admitted that Kuhn, and his as- do not believe that either Casillas or Alvarez was fabricating while testi- fying, neither do I believe that either was capable of recounting a de- sistants, did say something more to the employees than is tailed actual scenario with accuracy. shown by the text of Kuhn's speech, it seems likely that 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such statements were insignificant and nothing more than Inc., Photographic Products Division, 225 NLRB 617 perfunctory openings and closings to the various meet- (1976), quoting Gissel, supra at 618. ings, or that they were in response to isolated and unin- Here the allusion to strikes seems permissible. The vited questions. I am persuaded in this by the testimony speech did not depict strikes as inevitable, or within the of the Company's witnesses that the text of the speech control of the employer. Compare Thomas Products Co. was, in the main, closely adhered to. And, while the text Division of Thomas Industries, Inc., 167 NLRB 732 (1967). does, indeed, contain ominous though oblique, references Nor was the possible loss of "job rights" presented as to such dire consequences as "loss of rights," "strikes," a factor within the control of the Company, any more and "discipline," etc., as well as optimistic allusion to im- than the disclosure of names relating to the signing of au- provements in the future, it seems not to have crossed thorization cards in the event that litigation should ensue. the line into violative threats or promises. That employ- As to the threats to discipline employees for going ees hearing such a speech might, as it appears to me they around with union cards, or going from one department did, later recall a threat or a prediction in somewhat aroun th, I sim y r ind the testimon one departmen stronger terms than it was made is not surprising." For, Leonard lacking in credibility. No other witness was clearly, the speech was designed to evoke strong emo- L eonard to supp credibr testim y o any s ba tions among the employees, and to arrest their movement called to supprt th e i tesiony o f any su ch bald toward the Union. As such, the speech serves as evi- threats I believe that the two leading adherents of the dence that the Company harbored strong sentiments Union were perhaps so apprehensive concerning their against the Union. exposure to reprisals as a result of their leadership that But that is not the question at issue. For it has been they imagined somewhat more than was actually said. long settled that Section 8(c) of the Act affords protec- Moreover, Leonard exhibited a high level of partisanship tion to an employer's expression of opinion concerning in her testimony, thereby detracting from her general unions so long as the expression remains free of threat of credibility. And, as will be seen at a later point, Salazar's reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Instead, since the overall credibility was badly strained by her inconsistent Supreme Court's decision' in N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing testimony. Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), the Board has developed The allegation that benefits were promised in this specific guidelines for distinguishing between protected speech must fail, since no words were spoken which speech and proscribed threats or promises of benefit. In might reasonably lead employees to believe that benefits making such distinctions the Board regularly cautions would be conferred. Instead, the expression of hope that that it involves an examination of all the circumstances they could continue to work together (for their mutual surrounding the employer's speech. The inquiry encom- benefit presumably) seems sufficiently ambiguous to pre- passes not only what the employer intended to imply, vent its being labeled as a promise, whether of benefit, or but also what its employees reasonably might have in- anything else. ferred from these remarks. Thus remarks, relatively in- In sum, I find and conclude that the evidence has nocuous in themselves, may be considered violative failed to prove any of the allegations made in paragraph when considered in the totality of the employer's con- 7 of the complaint. I shall, therefore, dismiss these allega- duct. tions. Moreover, if the subject matter discussed by the em- ployer is one peculiarly under his control (e.g., closing D. The Interviews the plant, moving the plant, loss of wage increases, loss of benefits) the speech will be very carefully scrutinized When Westpoint-Pepperell acquired the Company by the Board. In election situations an employer may from Ludlow in August 1978 it noted the need to estab- make such statements only if they are made on the basis lish its own policies there, this was accomplished in part of objective fact to convey his belief as to demonstrably by conducting numerous meetings and training sessions probable consequences beyond his control. Honeywell, among the supervisory and management hierarchy at the Company. But also, so it claims, the Company made In this connection, it must be noted that most of these witnesses, like plans, as early as February or March, to conduct what it several of the Company's, exhibited a lack of fluency in the English lan- refers to as "in depth interviews" among the employees. guage. Based upon my observations at the hearing I am convinced that T C e w g to t t much of what is disputed in this case is bottomed upon mere misunder- The Companys evidence was generally to the effect standing, rather than conscious fabrication or deceit on the part of wit- that its standard policy of some 11 years' standing calls neses. Nevertheless, I have evaluated the relative credibility of witnesses for such interviews to be conducted on a routine basis at with this factor in mind, attempting to gauge the degree to which preci- each of its facilities about once every year to year and a sion and accuracy seemed either possible or of importance to each wit- ness, taking into account each witness' apparent language difficulties on half. Its practice is to have such interviews carried out fluency. by management officials from another of its facilities. 'The Court set out a distinction between lawful predictions and un- Thus, Davis explained, that though he did not even lawful threats or promises as follows: be lawful threats or promises as follows: begin to work for Westpoint-Pepperell in Georgia until [A]n employer, who has control over that relationship [with employ- ees] and therefore knows it best, cannot be heard to complain that he June, he learned thereafter that he was to conduct such is without an adequate guide for his behavior. He can easily make his interviews at the Company according to a plan set up views known without engaging in "brinkmanship" when it becomes months before. Moreover, despite the testimony of sever- all to easy to "overstep and tumble [over] the brink" . At the al employees that they were given no prior explanation least he can avoid coercive speech simply by avoiding conscious overstatements he had reason to believe will mislead his employees. or notice of the Company's plans, I credit Kuhn's testi- Id. at 620. mony that such notices were placed on the Company's 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such statements were insignificant and nothing more than Inc, Photographic Products Division, 225 NLRB 617 perfunctory openings and closings to the various meet- (1976), quoting Gissel, supra at 618. ings, or that they were in response to isolated and unin- Here the allusion to strikes seems permissible. The vited questions. I am persuaded in this by the testimony speech did not depict strikes as inevitable, or within the of the Company's witnesses that the text of the speech control of the employer. Compare Thomas Products Co. was, in the main, closely adhered to. And, while the text Division of Thomas Industries, Inc., 167 NLRB 732 (1967). does, indeed, contain ominous though oblique, references Nor was the possible loss of "job rights" presented as to such dire consequences as "loss of rights," "strikes," a factor within the control of the Company, any more and "discipline," etc., as well as optimistic allusion to im- than the disclosure of names relating to the signing of au- provements in the future, it seems not to have crossed thorization cards in the event that litigation should ensue. the line into violative threats or promises. That employ- A discipline employees for going ees hearing such a speech might, as it appears to me they a ui c or g r on d t did, later recall a threat or a prediction in somewhat ano th sion rd oh goin y of dapartmnd stronger terms than it was made is not surprising." For, Le a n o t h er d lacipn y fi n d i t h e testimony ot Salazar and clearly, the speech was designed to evoke strong emo- L eo n ard to su pp credibility. No other witness was tions among the employees, and to arrest their movement ca ll ed t oI lpp et t h e ir twoladiyg o f ahe su c h btde toward the Union. As such, the speech serves as evi- t h rea t s l believe that the two leading adherents of the dence that the Company harbored strong sentiments Unio n w er e perhaps s o apprehensive concerning their against the Union. exposure to reprisals as a result of their leadership that But that is not the question at issue. For it has been they imagined somewhat more than was actually said. long settled that Section 8(c) of the Act affords protec- Moreover, Leonard exhibited a high level of partisanship tion to an employer's expression of opinion concerning in her testimony, thereby detracting from her general unions so long as the expression remains free of threat of credibility. And, as will be seen at a later point, Salazar's reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Instead, since the overall credibility was badly strained by her inconsistent Supreme Court's decision' in N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing testimony. Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), the Board has developed The allegation that benefits were promised in this specific guidelines for distinguishing between protected speech must fail, since no words were spoken which speech and proscribed threats or promises of benefit. In might reasonably lead employees to believe that benefits making such distinctions the Board regularly cautions would be conferred. Instead, the expression of hope that that it involves an examination of all the circumstances they could continue to work together (for their mutual surrounding the employer's speech. The inquiry encom- benefit presumably) seems sufficiently ambiguous to pre- passes not only what the employer intended to imply, vent its being labeled as a promise, whether of benefit, or but also what its employees reasonably might have in- anything else. ferred from these remarks. Thus remarks, relatively in- In sum, I find and conclude that the evidence has nocuous in themselves, may be considered violative failed to prove any of the allegations made in paragraph when considered in the totality of the employer's con- 7 of the complaint. I shall, therefore, dismiss these allega- duct. tos d w t -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tions. Moreover, if the subject matter discussed by the em- ployer is one peculiarly under his control (e.g., closing D. The Interviews the plant, moving the plant, loss of wage increases, loss of benefits) the speech will be very carefully scrutinized Wh e n Westpoint-Pepperell acquired the Company by the Board. In election situations an employer may fro m Ludlow in August 1978 it noted the need to estab- make such statements only if they are made on the basis lish it s o w n policies there, this was accomplished in part of objective fact to convey his belief as to demonstrably by conducting numerous meetings and training sessions probable consequences beyond his control. Honeywell, among the supervisory and management hierarchy at the Company. But also, so it claims, the Company made 'in this connection, it must be noted that most of these witnesses, like plans, as early as February or March, to conduct what it several of the Company's, exhibited a lack of fluency in the English lan- refers to as "in depth interviews" among the employees. guage. Based upon my observations at the hearing I am convinced that rt Th- '« .A 11 » tl. cret much of what is disputed in this case is bottomed upon mere misunder- T h e Company's evidence was generally to the effect standing, rather than conscious fabrication or deceit on the part of wit- that Its Standard policy of Some 11 years' Standing Calls nesses. Nevertheless, I have evaluated the relative credibility of witnesses for such interviews to be conducted On a routine basis at with this factor in mind, attempting to gauge the degree to which preci- each of its facilities about once every year to year and a sion and accuracy seemed either possible or of importance to each wit- ness. taking into account each witness' apparent language difficulties on half Its practice is to have Such interviews carried Out fluency. by management officials from another of its facilities. ' The Court set out a distinction bet ween law ful Predictions and un- Thus, Davis explained, that though he did not even lawful threats or promises as follows: begin to work for Westpoint-Pepperell in Georgia until [Amn employer, who has control over that relationship [with employ- ees] and therefore knows it best, cannot be heard to complain that he J u n e , h e learned thereafter that he was to conduct such is without an adequate guide for his behavior. He can easily make his interviews at the Company according to a plan set up views known without engaging in "brinkmanship" when it becomes months before. Moreover, despite the testimony of sever- all to easy to "overstep and tumble [over] the brink" . . At Ihe al em ployees that they were given no prior explanation least he can avoid coercive speech simply by avoiding conscious overstatements he had reason to believe will mislead his employees. Or notice Of the Company's plans, I credit Kuhn's testi- Id. at 620. mony that such notices were placed on the Company's 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such statements were insignificant and nothing more than Inc, Photographic Products Division, 225 NLRB 617 perfunctory openings and closings to the various meet- (1976), quoting Gissel, supra at 618. ings, or that they were in response to isolated and unin- Here the allusion to strikes seems permissible. The vited questions. I am persuaded in this by the testimony speech did not depict strikes as inevitable, or within the of the Company's witnesses that the text of the speech control of the employer. Compare Thomas Products Co. was, in the main, closely adhered to. And, while the text Division of Thomas Industries, Inc., 167 NLRB 732 (1967). does, indeed, contain ominous though oblique, references Nor was the possible loss of "job rights" presented as to such dire consequences as "loss of rights," "strikes," a factor within the control of the Company, any more and "discipline," etc., as well as optimistic allusion to im- than the disclosure of names relating to the signing of au- provements in the future, it seems not to have crossed thorization cards in the event that litigation should ensue. the line into violative threats or promises. That employ- A discipline employees for going ees hearing such a speech might, as it appears to me they a ui c or g r on d t did, later recall a threat or a prediction in somewhat ano th sion rd oh goin y of dapartmnd stronger terms than it was made is not surprising." For, ° a n o t h er d lacipn y fi n d t h e testimony of Salazar and clearly, the speech was designed to evoke strong emo- L eo n ard to su pp credibility. No other witness was tions among the employees, and to arrest their movement ca ll ed t oI lpp et t h e twolaiyg o f an t su c h b ot d toward the Union. As such, the speech serves as evi- t h rea t s l believe that the two leading adherents of the dence that the Company harbored strong sentiments Unio n w er e perhaps s o apprehensive concerning their against the Union. exposure to reprisals as a result of their leadership that But that is not the question at issue. For it has been they imagined somewhat more than was actually said. long settled that Section 8(c) of the Act affords protec- Moreover, Leonard exhibited a high level of partisanship tion to an employer's expression of opinion concerning in her testimony, thereby detracting from her general unions so long as the expression remains free of threat of credibility. And, as will be seen at a later point, Salazar's reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Instead, since the overall credibility was badly strained by her inconsistent Supreme Court's decision' in N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing testimony. Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), the Board has developed The allegation that benefits were promised in this specific guidelines for distinguishing between protected speech must fail, since no words were spoken which speech and proscribed threats or promises of benefit. In might reasonably lead employees to believe that benefits making such distinctions the Board regularly cautions would be conferred. Instead, the expression of hope that that it involves an examination of all the circumstances they could continue to work together (for their mutual surrounding the employer's speech. The inquiry encom- benefit presumably) seems sufficiently ambiguous to pre- passes not only what the employer intended to imply, vent its being labeled as a promise, whether of benefit, or but also what its employees reasonably might have in- anything else. ferred from these remarks. Thus remarks, relatively in- In sum, I find and conclude that the evidence has nocuous in themselves, may be considered violative failed to prove any of the allegations made in paragraph when considered in the totality of the employer's con- 7 of the complaint. I shall, therefore, dismiss these allega- duct. tos d w t -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tions. Moreover, if the subject matter discussed by the em- ployer is one peculiarly under his control (e.g., closing D. The Interviews the plant, moving the plant, loss of wage increases, loss of benefits) the speech will be very carefully scrutinized Wh e n Westpoint-Pepperell acquired the Company by the Board. In election situations an employer may fro m Ludlow in August 1978 it noted the need to estab- make such statements only if they are made on the basis lish its o w n policies there, this was accomplished in part of objective fact to convey his belief as to demonstrably by conducting numerous meetings and training sessions probable consequences beyond his control. Honeywell, among the supervisory and management hierarchy at the Company. But also, so it claims, the Company made 'in this connection, it must be noted that most of these witnesses, like plans, as early as February or March, to conduct what it several of the Company's, exhibited a lack of fluency in the English lan- refers to as "in depth interviews" among the employees. guage. Based upon my observations at the hearing I am convinced that rp, <-.„__„_ ,, ;., i, » t1, cr-t much of what is disputed in this case is bottomed upon mere misunder- T h e Company's evidence was generally to the effect standing, rather than conscious fabrication or deceit on the part of wit- that Its Standard policy of Some 11 years' Standing Calls nesses. Nevertheless, I have evaluated the relative credibility of witnesses for such interviews to be conducted On a routine basis at with this factor in mind, attempting to gauge the degree to which preci- each of its facilities about once every year to year and a sion and accuracy seemed either possible or of importance to each wit- ness. taking into account each witness' apparent language difficulties on half. Its practice is to have Such interviews carried Out fluency. by management officials from another of its facilities. ' The Court set out a distinction bet ween law ful Predictions and un- Thus, Davis explained, that though he did not even lawful threats or promises as follows: begin to work for Westpoint-Pepperell in Georgia until [Amn employer, who has control over that relationship [with employ- ees] and therefore knows it best, cannot be heard to complain that he J u n e, he learned thereafter that he was to conduct such is without an adequate guide for his behavior. He can easily make his interviews at the Company according to a plan set up views known without engaging in "brinkmanship" when it becomes months before. Moreover, despite the testimony of sever- all to easy to "overstep and tumble [over] the brink" . . At Ihe al employees that they were given no prior explanation least he can avoid coercive speech simply by avoiding conscious overstatements he had reason to believe will mislead his employees. Or notice Of the Company's plans, I credit Kuhn's testi- Id. at 620. mony that such notices were placed on the Company's 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such statements were insignificant and nothing more than Inc, Photographic Products Division, 225 NLRB 617 perfunctory openings and closings to the various meet- (1976), quoting Gissel, supra at 618. ings, or that they were in response to isolated and unin- Here the allusion to strikes seems permissible. The vited questions. I am persuaded in this by the testimony speech did not depict strikes as inevitable, or within the of the Company's witnesses that the text of the speech control of the employer. Compare Thomas Products Co. was, in the main, closely adhered to. And, while the text Division of Thomas Industries, Inc., 167 NLRB 732 (1967). does, indeed, contain ominous though oblique, references Nor was the possible loss of "job rights" presented as to such dire consequences as "loss of rights," "strikes," a factor within the control of the Company, any more and "discipline," etc., as well as optimistic allusion to im- than the disclosure of names relating to the signing of au- provements in the future, it seems not to have crossed thorization cards in the event that litigation should ensue. the line into violative threats or promises. That employ- A discipline employees for going ees hearing such a speech might, as it appears to me they a ui c or g r on d t did, later recall a threat or a prediction in somewhat ano th sion rd oh goin y of dapartmnd stronger terms than it was made is not surprising." For, ° a n o t h er d lacipn y fi n d t h e testimony of Salazar and clearly, the speech was designed to evoke strong emo- L eo n ard to su pp credibility. No other witness was tions among the employees, and to arrest their movement ca ll ed t oI lpp et t h e twolaiyg o f an t su c h b ot d toward the Union. As such, the speech serves as evi- t h rea t s l believe that the two leading adherents of the dence that the Company harbored strong sentiments Unio n w er e perhaps s o apprehensive concerning their against the Union. exposure to reprisals as a result of their leadership that But that is not the question at issue. For it has been they imagined somewhat more than was actually said. long settled that Section 8(c) of the Act affords protec- Moreover, Leonard exhibited a high level of partisanship tion to an employer's expression of opinion concerning in her testimony, thereby detracting from her general unions so long as the expression remains free of threat of credibility. And, as will be seen at a later point, Salazar's reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Instead, since the overall credibility was badly strained by her inconsistent Supreme Court's decision' in N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing testimony. Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), the Board has developed The allegation that benefits were promised in this specific guidelines for distinguishing between protected speech must fail, since no words were spoken which speech and proscribed threats or promises of benefit. In might reasonably lead employees to believe that benefits making such distinctions the Board regularly cautions would be conferred. Instead, the expression of hope that that it involves an examination of all the circumstances they could continue to work together (for their mutual surrounding the employer's speech. The inquiry encom- benefit presumably) seems sufficiently ambiguous to pre- passes not only what the employer intended to imply, vent its being labeled as a promise, whether of benefit, or but also what its employees reasonably might have in- anything else. ferred from these remarks. Thus remarks, relatively in- In sum, I find and conclude that the evidence has nocuous in themselves, may be considered violative failed to prove any of the allegations made in paragraph when considered in the totality of the employer's con- 7 of the complaint. I shall, therefore, dismiss these allega- duct. tos d w t -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tions. Moreover, if the subject matter discussed by the em- ployer is one peculiarly under his control (e.g., closing D. The Interviews the plant, moving the plant, loss of wage increases, loss of benefits) the speech will be very carefully scrutinized Wh e n Westpoint-Pepperell acquired the Company by the Board. In election situations an employer may fro m Ludlow in August 1978 it noted the need to estab- make such statements only if they are made on the basis lish its o w n policies there, this was accomplished in part of objective fact to convey his belief as to demonstrably by conducting numerous meetings and training sessions probable consequences beyond his control. Honeywell, among the supervisory and management hierarchy at the Company. But also, so it claims, the Company made 'in this connection, it must be noted that most of these witnesses, like plans, as early as February or March, to conduct what it several of the Company's, exhibited a lack of fluency in the English lan- refers to as "in depth interviews" among the employees. guage. Based upon my observations at the hearing I am convinced that rp, <-.„__„_ ,, ;., i, » t1, cr-t much of what is disputed in this case is bottomed upon mere misunder- T h e Company's evidence was generally to the effect standing, rather than conscious fabrication or deceit on the part of wit- that Its Standard policy of Some 11 years' Standing Calls nesses. Nevertheless, I have evaluated the relative credibility of witnesses for such interviews to be conducted On a routine basis at with this factor in mind, attempting to gauge the degree to which preci- each of its facilities about once every year to year and a sion and accuracy seemed either possible or of importance to each wit- ness. taking into account each witness' apparent language difficulties on half. Its practice is to have Such interviews carried Out fluency. by management officials from another of its facilities. ' The Court set out a distinction bet ween law ful Predictions and un- Thus, Davis explained, that though he did not even lawful threats or promises as follows: begin to work for Westpoint-Pepperell in Georgia until [Amn employer, who has control over that relationship [with employ- ees] and therefore knows it best, cannot be heard to complain that he J u n e, he learned thereafter that he was to conduct such is without an adequate guide for his behavior. He can easily make his interviews at the Company according to a plan set up views known without engaging in "brinkmanship" when it becomes months before. Moreover, despite the testimony of sever- all to easy to "overstep and tumble [over] the brink" . oi. At the al employees that they were given no prior explanation least he can avoid coercive speech simply by avoiding conscious overstatements he had reason to believe will mislead his employees. Or notice Of the Company's plans, I credit Kuhn's testi- Id. at 620. mony that such notices were placed on the Company's WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 695 bulletin boards, in both English and Spanish, on Septem- that when she responded that the Company was not, in ber 20, a full week or more before the interviews began. her opinion, going to give her "a dollar,""' he stated, The interview format appears to have been fairly "Well, changes will come, but they will come without a standardized. Over the course of a few days, beginning union." on September 27 and continuing through the forenoon of As noted earlier, Morales generally denied talking to October 3, Davis and Morales each conducted about 70 employees about the Union, but he admitted that he had individual interviews with employees. Each interview no recollection of any conversation with Salazar about was conducted in private, with only the employee and "a dollar." I find Morales' recollection to be superior to the interviewer present. Generally the interviewer await- Salazar's, notwithstanding his inability to recall every ed the employee in an office near the plant's nursing sta- point raised by her testimony. Indeed, I found that his tion, and caused the desired employees to be sent in to unwillingness to claim that he was able to recall each him. However, as the interviews progressed, some em- detail of this conversation (or even some of the General ployees not scheduled for interviews heard about them Counsel's witnesses in general) enhanced his appearance and requested that they be interviewed; some, if not all, as a truthful witness, making sincere attempts to refute such requests were evidently honored, even though charges he believed to be unfounded. However, he was doing so meant that interviews continued past their unwilling to refute such charges by attempting to appear scheduled ending. that he recalled more than he actually remembered. Ac- Both Davis and Morales followed a format in which cordingly, this allegation shall be dismissed. cordingly, this allegation shall be dismissed. they introduced themselves to the employees, assured the 2. Leonard al tetiied ab he i e ih 2. Leonard also testified about her interview with Mo- employee that their conversation would be treated as ralescalled a hvng o rred in lte e- confidential, talked with the employee in an effort to put rale s, w ho ch sh e rec al lbe as97h av occurred in late ep him or her at ease, and then asked questions concerning tember or eary ctober 1979. Morales testified that he the employee's feelings about the employee's job title, simply had no recollection of his talk with Leonard. the employee's level of satisfaction with his job, and his However, Leonard's testimony was that Morales said he the employee's level of satisfaction with his job, and his level of satisfaction with his supervisor. The interview h ad be en sen t t h ere ro m T e xas t o s lv e employee com- was generally closed by asking the employee if he had plants because the Company was good and was out any questions. "looking to make [employees] happy." She said that he Neither Davis nor Morales admitted that they asked denounced the Union, claiming it was only interested in employees anything about the Union. But since some of her money, and saying that she would be throwing her the interviews took place shortly following employees money away, as well as losing her freedom to speak di- having heard Kuhn's speech, some were asked their feel- rectly to management regarding problems." In response ings about the speech. And Morales routinely9 told em- to his question she denied having any problems. Despite ployees of the Company's "philosophy" about unions, the fact that Leonard's testimony stands unrefuted in its i.e., it is the Company's policy to treat employees fairly specifics, I find Morales' general denial more persuasive and consistently so that they would feel no need of a than Leonard's testimony, which appeared tainted by ex- union. treme partisanship. Accordingly, I find this point to be The General Counsel's witnesses tended generally to unproven by either counsel for the General Counsel or corroborate the testimony of Davis and Morales as to the the Union. basic mechanics of the interview process. However, a 3. Employee Mendoza asked for and secured an inter- number of these witnesses testified to additional matter. view with Morales on October 9, 1979, the day follow- Their testimony is discussed below. ing the end of the interview program. Mendoza testified 1. Salazar, for instance, testified that Morales, in an in- that he went to Morales for help in securing a transfer. terview of October 1, 1979, told her that he knew there He testified that in the interview "the union thing came were problems in the plant and that he wanted to know up," and that Morales, who had come from Texas to their nature. She also testified that he said he had heard help solve the problems employees had as a result of ill rumors that a union was trying to come in. He went on treatment by the Company, had been thinking of return- to say that a union would not help her and would simply ing to Texas when the union problem came up, and so take her money. Morales had stayed on to "help [employees] about the Morales denied talking to Salazar about unions, except, transfer and all of that. He stated in essence that Morales as he had testified, about the Company's "philosophy." asked his help in persuading anyone who had not yet However, Salazar also testified apparently in connection signed an authorization card to give him time to solve with his assertions to her that the Union was merely the problem after her money. Morales asked why she should give the While Morales had no recollection of talking about the money she made working for the Company to a union Union with Mendoza, he generally denied saying any- when she could keep it for herself. She went on to say thing about the Union, aside from his standard message regarding the Company's "philosophy." Instead, so Mo- ' Apparently interviews were conducted with about one-third of the regarding the Company's "philosophy." Instead, so Mo- employees at the plant. These employees' names were selected at rales claims, it was Mendoza who injected the Union random, months before, though the list thus compiled was checked and augmented with other names in an effort to assure that a reasonable sam- 0 Evidently she took Morales' words to mean that he was assuring her pling of employee opinion from every department would be obtained, of a raise sometime in the future. ' Morales testified that he refrained from stating the Company's philos- " Such statement constitutes objectionable conduct, if credited, and if ophy in instances where the employee volunteered the expression of sen- shown to have occurred within the critical period. Armstrong Cork Com- timents similar thereto. pany, 250 NLRB 1282 (1980). WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 695 bulletin boards, in both English and Spanish, on Septem- that when she responded that the Company was not, in ber 20, a full week or more before the interviews began. her opinion, going to give her "a dollar,"" 0 he stated, The interview format appears to have been fairly "Well, changes will come, but they will come without a standardized. Over the course of a few days, beginning union." on September 27 and continuing through the forenoon of As noted earlier, Morales generally denied talking to October 3, Davis and Morales each conducted about 70 employees about the Union, but he admitted that he had individual interviews with employees. Each interview no recollection of any conversation with Salazar about was conducted in private, with only the employee and .a dollar." I find Morales' recollection to be superior to the interviewer present. Generally the interviewer await- Salazar's, notwithstanding his inability to recall every ed the employee in an office near the plant's nursing sta- point raised by her testimony. Indeed, I found that his tion, and caused the desired employee" to be sent in to unwillingness to claim that he was able to recall each him. However, as the interviews progressed, some em- detail of this conversation (or even some of the General ployees not scheduled for interviews heard about them Counsel's witnesses in general) enhanced his appearance and requested that they be interviewed; some, if not all, as a truthful witness, making sincere attempts to refute such requests were evidently honored, even though charges he believed to be unfounded. However, he was doing so meant that interviews continued past their unwilling to refute such charges by attempting to appear scheduled ending. that he recalled more than he actually remembered. Ac- Both Davis and Morales followed a format in which crigy hsalgto hl edsisd .. , h Davl s^ \ 1° ? ln T~ ~~~~cordingly, this allegation shall be disnusscd. they introduced themselves to the employees, assured the 2. L a t a h i employee that their conversation would be treated as l eswhc sh r ec a ed as h ai occu r v ed l te Se- confidential, talked with the employee in an effort to put tr al es m w h c h sh e re c al l t d as1 h 9 M oa soccurred in late Sep- him or her at ease, and then asked questions concerning ste m b er o r nore O c to b er n 1979. Morales testified that he the employee's feelings about the employee's job title, Hwvpry h ad n o recollection of his talk with Leonard. the employee's level of satisfaction with his job, and hisHowever, Leonard's testimony was that Morales said he level of satisfaction with his supervisor. The interview h ad been sen t there from Texas to solve employee com- was generally closed by asking the employee if he had plaints be c au s e t h e Company was good and was out any questions. "looking to make [employees] happy." She said that he Neither Davis nor Morales admitted that they asked denounced the Union, claiming it was only interested in employees anything about the Union. But since some of h e r money, and saying that she would be throwing her the interviews took place shortly following employees money away, as well as losing her freedom to speak di- having heard Kuhn's speech, some were asked their feel- 'rectly to management regarding problems." In response ings about the speech. And Morales routinelyg told em- to his question she denied having any problems. Despite ployees of the Company's "philosophy" about unions, the fact that Leonard's testimony stands unrefuted in its i.e., it is the Company's policy to treat employees fairly specifics, I find Morales' general denial more persuasive and consistently so that they would feel no need of a than Leonard's testimony, which appeared tainted by ex- union. treme partisanship. Accordingly, I find this point to be The General Counsel's witnesses tended generally to unproven by either counsel for the General Counsel or corroborate the testimony of Davis and Morales as to the the Union. basic mechanics of the interview process. However, a 3. Employee Mendoza asked for and secured an inter- number of these witnesses testified to additional matter. view with Morales on October 9, 1979, the day follow- Their testimony is discussed below,.ing the end of the interview program. Mendoza testified 1. Salazar, for instance, testified that Morales, in an in- that he went to Morales for help in securing a transfer. terview of October 1, 1979, told her that he knew there He testified that in the interview "the union thing came were problems in the plant and that he wanted to know up," and that Morales, who had come from Texas to their nature. She also testified that he said he had heard help solve the problems employees had as a result of ill rumors that a union was trying to come in. He went on treatment by the Company, had been thinking of return- to say that a union would not help her and would simply ing to Texas when the union problem came up, and so take her money. Morales had stayed on to "help [employees] about the Morales denied talking to Salazar about unions, except, transfer and all of that. He stated in essence that Morales as he had testified, about the Company's "philosophy." asked his help in persuading anyone who had not yet However, Salazar also testified apparently in connection signed an authorization card to give him time to solve with his assertions to her that the Union was merely the problem. after her money. Morales asked why she should give the While Morales had no recollection of talking about the money she made working for the Company to a union Union with Mendoza, he generally denied saying any- when she could keep it for herself. She went on to say thing about the Union, aside from his standard message -; ---- ""'. .~~~~~~~~regarding the Company's "philosophy." Instead, so Mo- I Apparently interviews were conducted with about one-third of the readnthCopy'"hispy.IsedoM- employees at the plant. These employees' names were selected at rales claims, it was Mendoza who injected the Union random, months before, though the list thus compiled was checked and augmented with other names in an effort to assure that a reasonable sam- Evidently she took Morales' words to mean that he was assuring her pling of employee opinion from every department would be obtained. of a raise sometime in the future. * Morales testified that he refrained from stating the Company's philos- " Such statement constitutes objectionable conduct, if credited, and if ophy in instances where the employee volunteered the expression of sen- shown to have occurred within the critical period. Armstrong Cork Com- timents similar thereto. pany, 250 NLRB 1282 (1980). WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 695 bulletin boards, in both English and Spanish, on Septem- that when she responded that the Company was not, in ber 20, a full week or more before the interviews began. her opinion, going to give her "a dollar,"" 0 he stated, The interview format appears to have been fairly "Well, changes will come, but they will come without a standardized. Over the course of a few days, beginning union." on September 27 and continuing through the forenoon of As noted earlier, Morales generally denied talking to October 3, Davis and Morales each conducted about 70 employees about the Union, but he admitted that he had individual interviews with employees. Each interview no recollection of any conversation with Salazar about was conducted in private, with only the employee and .a dollar." I find Morales' recollection to be superior to the interviewer present. Generally the interviewer await- Salazar's, notwithstanding his inability to recall every ed the employee in an office near the plant's nursing sta- point raised by her testimony. Indeed, I found that his tion, and caused the desired employee" to be sent in to unwillingness to claim that he was able to recall each him. However, as the interviews progressed, some em- detail of this conversation (or even some of the General ployees not scheduled for interviews heard about them Counsel's witnesses in general) enhanced his appearance and requested that they be interviewed; some, if not all, as a truthful witness, making sincere attempts to refute such requests were evidently honored, even though charges he believed to be unfounded. However, he was doing so meant that interviews continued past their unwilling to refute such charges by attempting to appear scheduled ending. that he recalled more than he actually remembered. Ac- Both Davis and Morales followed a format in which crigy hsalgto hl edsisd .. , h Davl s^ \ 1° ? ln T~ ~~~~cordingly, this allegation shall be disnusscd. they introduced themselves to the employees, assured the 2. L a t a h i employee that their conversation would be treated as l eswhc sh r ec a ed as h ai occu r v ed l te Se- confidential, talked with the employee in an effort to put tr al es m w h c h sh e re c al l t d as1 h 9 M oa soccurred in late Sep- him or her at ease, and then asked questions concerning ste m b er o r norcy c to b er n 1979. Morales testified that he the employee's feelings about the employee's job title, Hwvpry h ad n o recollection of his talk with Leonard. the employee's level of satisfaction with his job, and hisHowever, Leonard's testimony was that Morales said he level of satisfaction with his supervisor. The interview h ad been sen t there from Texas to solve employee com- was generally closed by asking the employee if he had plaints be c au s e the Company was good and was out any questions. "looking to make [employees] happy." She said that he Neither Davis nor Morales admitted that they asked denounced the Union, claiming it was only interested in employees anything about the Union. But since some of h e r money, and saying that she would be throwing her the interviews took place shortly following employees money away, as well as losing her freedom to speak di- having heard Kuhn's speech, some were asked their feel- 'rectly to management regarding problems." In response ings about the speech. And Morales routinelyg told em- to his question she denied having any problems. Despite ployees of the Company's "philosophy" about unions, the fact that Leonard's testimony stands unrefuted in its i.e., it is the Company's policy to treat employees fairly specifics, I find Morales' general denial more persuasive and consistently so that they would feel no need of a than Leonard's testimony, which appeared tainted by ex- union. treme partisanship. Accordingly, I find this point to be The General Counsel's witnesses tended generally to unproven by either counsel for the General Counsel or corroborate the testimony of Davis and Morales as to the the Union. basic mechanics of the interview process. However, a 3. Employee Mendoza asked for and secured an inter- number of these witnesses testified to additional matter. view with Morales on October 9, 1979, the day follow- Their testimony is discussed below,.ing the end of the interview program. Mendoza testified 1. Salazar, for instance, testified that Morales, in an in- that he went to Morales for help in securing a transfer. terview of October 1, 1979, told her that he knew there He testified that in the interview "the union thing came were problems in the plant and that he wanted to know up," and that Morales, who had come from Texas to their nature. She also testified that he said he had heard help solve the problems employees had as a result of ill rumors that a union was trying to come in. He went on treatment by the Company, had been thinking of return- to say that a union would not help her and would simply ing to Texas when the union problem came up, and so take her money. Morales had stayed on to "help [employees] about the Morales denied talking to Salazar about unions, except, transfer and all of that. He stated in essence that Morales as he had testified, about the Company's "philosophy." asked his help in persuading anyone who had not yet However, Salazar also testified apparently in connection signed an authorization card to give him time to solve with his assertions to her that the Union was merely the problem. after her money. Morales asked why she should give the While Morales had no recollection of talking about the money she made working for the Company to a union Union with Mendoza, he generally denied saying any- when she could keep it for herself. She went on to say thing about the Union, aside from his standard message -; ---- ""'. .~~~~~~~~regarding the Company's "philosophy." Instead, so Mo- I Apparently interviews were conducted with about one-third of the readnthCopy'"hispy.IsedoM- employees at the plant. These employees' names were selected at rales claims, it was Mendoza who injected the Union random, months before, though the list thus compiled was checked and augmented with other names in an effort to assure that a reasonable sam- Evidently she took Morales' words to mean that he was assuring her pling of employee opinion from every department would be obtained. of a raise sometime in the future. * Morales testified that he refrained from stating the Company's philos- " Such statement constitutes objectionable conduct, if credited, and if ophy in instances where the employee volunteered the expression of sen- shown to have occurred within the critical period. Armstrong Cork Com- timents similar thereto. pany, 250 NLRB 1282 (1980). WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 695 bulletin boards, in both English and Spanish, on Septem- that when she responded that the Company was not, in ber 20, a full week or more before the interviews began. her opinion, going to give her "a dollar,"" 0 he stated, The interview format appears to have been fairly "Well, changes will come, but they will come without a standardized. Over the course of a few days, beginning union." on September 27 and continuing through the forenoon of As noted earlier, Morales generally denied talking to October 3, Davis and Morales each conducted about 70 employees about the Union, but he admitted that he had individual interviews with employees. Each interview no recollection of any conversation with Salazar about was conducted in private, with only the employee and .a dollar." I find Morales' recollection to be superior to the interviewer present. Generally the interviewer await- Salazar's, notwithstanding his inability to recall every ed the employee in an office near the plant's nursing sta- point raised by her testimony. Indeed, I found that his tion, and caused the desired employee" to be sent in to unwillingness to claim that he was able to recall each him. However, as the interviews progressed, some em- detail of this conversation (or even some of the General ployees not scheduled for interviews heard about them Counsel's witnesses in general) enhanced his appearance and requested that they be interviewed; some, if not all, as a truthful witness, making sincere attempts to refute such requests were evidently honored, even though charges he believed to be unfounded. However, he was doing so meant that interviews continued past their unwilling to refute such charges by attempting to appear scheduled ending. that he recalled more than he actually remembered. Ac- Both Davis and Morales followed a format in which crigy hsalgto hl edsisd .. , h Davl s^ \ 1° ? ln T~ ~~~~cordingly, this allegation shall be disnusscd. they introduced themselves to the employees, assured the 2. L a t a h i employee that their conversation would be treated as l eswhc sh r ec a ed as h ai occu r v ed l te Se- confidential, talked with the employee in an effort to put tr al es m w h c h sh e re c al l t d as1 h 9 M oa soccurred in late Sep- him or her at ease, and then asked questions concerning ste m b er o r norcy c to b er n 1979. Morales testified that he the employee's feelings about the employee's job title, Hwvpry h ad n o recollection of his talk with Leonard. the employee's level of satisfaction with his job, and hisHowever, Leonard's testimony was that Morales said he level of satisfaction with his supervisor. The interview h ad been sen t there from Texas to solve employee com- was generally closed by asking the employee if he had plaints be c au s e the Company was good and was out any questions. "looking to make [employees] happy." She said that he Neither Davis nor Morales admitted that they asked denounced the Union, claiming it was only interested in employees anything about the Union. But since some of h e r money, and saying that she would be throwing her the interviews took place shortly following employees money away, as well as losing her freedom to speak di- having heard Kuhn's speech, some were asked their feel- 'rectly to management regarding problems." In response ings about the speech. And Morales routinelyg told em- to his question she denied having any problems. Despite ployees of the Company's "philosophy" about unions, the fact that Leonard's testimony stands unrefuted in its i.e., it is the Company's policy to treat employees fairly specifics, I find Morales' general denial more persuasive and consistently so that they would feel no need of a than Leonard's testimony, which appeared tainted by ex- union. treme partisanship. Accordingly, I find this point to be The General Counsel's witnesses tended generally to unproven by either counsel for the General Counsel or corroborate the testimony of Davis and Morales as to the the Union. basic mechanics of the interview process. However, a 3. Employee Mendoza asked for and secured an inter- number of these witnesses testified to additional matter. view with Morales on October 9, 1979, the day follow- Their testimony is discussed below,.ing the end of the interview program. Mendoza testified 1. Salazar, for instance, testified that Morales, in an in- that he went to Morales for help in securing a transfer. terview of October 1, 1979, told her that he knew there He testified that in the interview "the union thing came were problems in the plant and that he wanted to know up," and that Morales, who had come from Texas to their nature. She also testified that he said he had heard help solve the problems employees had as a result of ill rumors that a union was trying to come in. He went on treatment by the Company, had been thinking of return- to say that a union would not help her and would simply ing to Texas when the union problem came up, and so take her money. Morales had stayed on to "help [employees] about the Morales denied talking to Salazar about unions, except, transfer and all of that. He stated in essence that Morales as he had testified, about the Company's "philosophy." asked his help in persuading anyone who had not yet However, Salazar also testified apparently in connection signed an authorization card to give him time to solve with his assertions to her that the Union was merely the problem. after her money. Morales asked why she should give the While Morales had no recollection of talking about the money she made working for the Company to a union Union with Mendoza, he generally denied saying any- when she could keep it for herself. She went on to say thing about the Union, aside from his standard message -; ---- ""'. .~~~~~~~~regarding the Company's "philosophy." Instead, so Mo- I Apparently interviews were conducted with about one-third of the readnthCopy'"hispy.IsedoM- employees at the plant. These employees' names were selected at rales claims, it was Mendoza who injected the Union random, months before, though the list thus compiled was checked and augmented with other names in an effort to assure that a reasonable sam- Evidently she took Morales' words to mean that he was assuring her pling of employee opinion from every department would be obtained. of a raise sometime in the future. * Morales testified that he refrained from stating the Company's philos- " Such statement constitutes objectionable conduct, if credited, and if ophy in instances where the employee volunteered the expression of sen- shown to have occurred within the critical period. Armstrong Cork Com- timents similar thereto. pany, 250 NLRB 1282 (1980). 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD into the conversation by volunteering that he was not in about the temperature in the plant and about her pay favor of the Union but felt bound to go along with the scale. She recalled him saying that he would "check it prounion sentiment of a friend. out." She also testified that he asked her what she had I have considerable doubts about whether Morales and thought of the meeting (conducted by Kuhn), and what Mendoza ever truly understood one another's words. But she thought about the Union. However, on cross-exami- I found Mendoza's testimony credible when he spoke of nation she admitted that she could not exactly recall just Morales' attempt to enlist his aid in preventing employ- what Davis had asked her, or just what he had said he ees from signing authorization cards, and in holding out would do about the problems she had mentioned. the implied, albeit vague, promise of a benefit (i.e., help Davis admitted that he asked her how she liked of an unspecified nature in securing the transfer sought Kuhn's speech, but denied any other comment or ques- by Mendoza). tion about the Union, or his intentions regarding any Thus, I find that Morales' conversation with Mendoza remedy for Alvarez' complaints. was both violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and, in- Based on the demonstrated uncertainty in Alvarez' tes- asmuch as the conduct occurred within the critical timony I have no hesitancy in crediting Davis' denials period, also objectionable. and finding that this matter stands unproven. 4. Jose Avila testified that, as he requested, he was in- 8. Carmen Silver testified that she was interviewed by terviewed by Morales in "early October." Among other Davis "a couple of days after this big meeting" (conduct- things Avila claimed that Morales asked him if he had ed by Kuhn). She recalled him asking her thoughts about signed a union card and why he had done so. Avila went the speech by Kuhn, and her response that it seemed on to testify that Morales stated that he was there to re- unfair to talk about the Union without having aunion solve the employees' problems. fact, interview Avila, representative present to answer the Company's claims. Morales testified that he did, in fact, interview Avila, She recalled that he told her that if the Union came in but that all he did was listen while Avila blurted things everyone would have to belong to it ou, - everyone would have to belong to it. According to Davis he merely asked Silver her Avila showed a strong animosity towards the Compa- According to Davis he merely asked Silver her ny, apparently over having been fired. I was not per- thoughts about the speech as a sort of "icebreaker" in suaded that he testified accurately and have determined t h e r coersation. He stated that Silver then went on to credit the testimony of Morales. Accordingly, this and olunteered a great deal more. matter stands unproven. I credit Davis' account, as Silver's demeanor demon- 5. Maria Monje testified that she was interviewed on strated a strong bias against the Company. or about October 5, 1979, by Morales at her own re- Accordingly, this matter stands unproven. quest. She recited problems to Morales and, according to 9. In light of my findings above, I also find that the her, he responded by saying he would try to solve them. General Counsel's assertion that such interviews are vio- She also recalled that he asked her opinion of the Union. lative of Section 8(a)(l) in their entirety cannot stand. 2 Morales acknowledged that he interviewed Monje, but While the timing of these interviews seems suspiciously stated that he was unable to recall anything they said to contrived, I also find that the evidence supports no more one another. than two isolated violations. Certainly, there has been no I found Monje to be a truthful witness but, like others, proof of a pattern of illegal conduct when the evidence her demeanor caused serious doubts as to her accuracy supports such a relatively small number of violations and precision. Nevertheless, despite my misgivings, I do considering the large numbers of employees interviewed. not believe there is adequate reason to discredit her un- It seems illogical to infer that the nature of the inter- controverted testimony. Accordingly, I find that Morales views was tainted by illegality when only 1 witness, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating her from among roughly 190 employees interviewed, testi- about her union sympathies, activities, and leanings, and fied convincingly regarding these allegations, for it impliedly promised to grant her benefits by remedying should be recalled that Silver's testimony was credited the problems she brought up regarding her salary and only because it was uncontroverted. other matters. I also find that this conduct constituted a valid objection to the election. E. The Various Specific Incidents 6. Hector Gonzales testified about his interview with 1. It is alleged that Supervisor Ruiz created the im- Morales on October 3, 1979. Gonzales recalled that, pression of surveillance andinterrogated Salazar. among other things, Morales asked him what he thought among other things, Morales asked him what he thought Salazar testified that in early November 1979 she had a "about the problems with the Union." brief verbal encounter with Ruiz in the Company's park- Morales denied having asked the question attributed to b n e f v er b al en c w n t et w l th R u lz m t C^pany's park- mralend insied thavg ash e e te questione atthuted to ing lot. She testified that he told her then that everyone him and insisted that he never mentioned the Union he met told him that she was working for the Union She except in connection with his usual explanation of the Company's "philosophy." I credit Morales' recollection, I note further that no party has either argued or shown that the in- as Gonzales impressed me as an angry and highly biased terviews were violative because of factors such as, for example, the loca- witness. As a consequence, I find that no violative or ob- tion in which they were conducted, or because the questions asked by jectionable conduct has been proven regarding this inci- Davis about the employees' views of Kuhn's speech might have been a dent. calculated ruse to compel employees to disclose their sentiments for or against the Union, or because of any seeming infirmity in the assurances 7. Annie Alvarez testified that she was interviewed by of voluntary and confidential participation afforded employees who were Davis on or about October 3. She complained to him interviewed. 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD into the conversation by volunteering that he was not in about the temperature in the plant and about her pay favor of the Union but felt bound to go along with the scale. She recalled him saying that he would "check it prounion sentiment of a friend,.out." She also testified that he asked her what she had I have considerable doubts about whether Morales and thought of the meeting (conducted by Kuhn), and what Mendoza ever truly understood one another's words. But she thought about the Union. However, on cross-exami- I found Mendoza's testimony credible when he spoke of nation she admitted that she could not exactly recall just Morales' attempt to enlist his aid in preventing employ- what Davis had asked her, or just what he had said he ees from signing authorization cards, and in holding out would do about the problems she had mentioned. the implied, albeit vague, promise of a benefit (i.e., help Davis admitted that he asked her how she liked of an unspecified nature in securing the transfer sought Kuhn's speech, but denied any other comment or ques- by Mendoza). tion about the Union, or his intentions regarding any Thus, I find that Morales' conversation with Mendoza remedy for Alvarez' complaints. was both violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and, in- Based on the demonstrated uncertainty in Alvarez' tes- asmuch as the conduct occurred within the critical timony I have no hesitancy in crediting Davis' denials period, also objectionable. and finding that this matter stands unproven. 4. Jose Avila testified that, as he requested, he was in- 8. Carmen Silver testified that she was interviewed by terviewed by Morales in "early October." Among other D a v is "a couple of days af t e r t h i s big meeting" (c o n d u c t- things Avila claimed that Morales asked him if he had edbKun.Sercldhiasngertohsaot signed a union card and why he had done so. Avila went ted b y K u h n ). S h e r ec all e d her respon h er thatit sbee on to testify that Morales stated t h at h e w as t h er e t o r e- u rto al the Unon wtut ha a unin soe tete at , in fact, interviewp representative present to answer the Company' s c la im s . Moraes estfie tht h di, i fat, ntevie Avla, She recalled that he told her that if the Union came in but that all he did was listen while Avila blurted things se e r e wol d ha ve t o l ong t o a t . out. everyone would have to belong to it. Avila showed a strong animosity towards the Compa- tAccording to Davis he merely asked Silver her ny, apparently over having been fired. I was not per- thoughts about the speech as a sort of "icebreaner" in suaded that he testified accurately and have determined at h ed r colnersation. He stated that Silver then went on to credit the testimony of Morales. Accordingly, this a n d wlunteered a great deal more. matter stands unproven. I credit Davis' account, as Silver's demeanor demon- 5. Maria Monje testified that she was interviewed on strated a strong bias against the Company. or about October 5, 1979, by Morales at her own re- Accordingly, this matter stands unproven. quest. She recited problems to Morales and, according to 9. In light of my findings above, I also find that the her, he responded by saying he would try to solve them. General Counsel's assertion that such interviews are vio- She also recalled that he asked her opinion of the Union. lative of Section 8(a)(l) in their entirety cannot stand."1 Morales acknowledged that he interviewed Monje, but While the timing of these interviews seems suspiciously stated that he was unable to recall anything they said to contrived, I also find that the evidence supports no more one another,.than two isolated violations. Certainly, there has been no I found Monje to be a truthful witness but, like others, proof of a pattern of illegal conduct when the evidence her demeanor caused serious doubts as to her accuracy supports such a relatively small number of violations and precision. Nevertheless, despite my misgivings, I do considering the large numbers of employees interviewed. not believe there is adequate reason to discredit her un- It seems illogical to infer that the nature of the inter- controverted testimony. Accordingly, I find that Morales views was tainted by illegality when only 1 witness, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating her from among roughly 190 employees interviewed, testi- about her union sympathies, activities, and leanings, and fied convincingly regarding these allegations, for it impliedly promised to grant her benefits by remedying should be recalled that Silver's testimony was credited the problems she brought up regarding her salary and only because it was uncontroverted. other matters. I also find that this conduct constituted a valid objection to the election. E. The Various Specific Incidents 6. Hector Gonzales testified about his interview with 1 I i a t Supervisor Ruiz created the im- Morales on October 3, 1979. Gonzales recalled that, p surveillance and interrogated Salazar. among other things, Morales asked him what he thought S t tha i er Nvm r 17 sh h "about the problems with the Union." Salazar testified that in early November 1979 she had a Morales denied having asked the question attributed to bin e f v er b al en cs n t e ie w d th R u h z t h thenCtpany's park- him and insisted that he never mentioned the Union he met S h e t es t o f l e dth a t h e t o ld w h e r t h en Unionv.Sh except in connection with his usual explanation of thehe met told him that she was working for the Union. She Company's "philosophy." I credit Morales' recollection, I n fe as Gonzales impressed me as an angry and highly biased ^.^ ^ '1 ^\ uterta n\atyhseihrarudorson ht.h as Gonales ipresse me asan angy and ighly iased terviews were violative because of factors such as, for example, the toca- Witness. AS a consequence, I find that no violative or Ob- tion in which they were conducted, or because the questions asked by jectionable conduct has been proven regarding this inci- Davis about the employees' views of Kuhn's speech might have been a dent. calculated ruse to compel employees to disclose their sentiments for or "7 Annie A I,,,,..,,., f~tesf-.^A »!,,,. ,fc^ „„ **„; j inagainst the Union, or because of any seeming infirmity in the assurances 7. Annie Alvarez testified that she was interviewed by of voluntary and confidential participation afforded employees who were Davis on or about October 3. She complained to him interviewed. 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD into the conversation by volunteering that he was not in about the temperature in the plant and about her pay favor of the Union but felt bound to go along with the scale. She recalled him saying that he would "check it prounion sentiment of a friend,.out." She also testified that he asked her what she had I have considerable doubts about whether Morales and thought of the meeting (conducted by Kuhn), and what Mendoza ever truly understood one another's words. But she thought about the Union. However, on cross-exami- I found Mendoza's testimony credible when he spoke of nation she admitted that she could not exactly recall just Morales' attempt to enlist his aid in preventing employ- what Davis had asked her, or just what he had said he ees from signing authorization cards, and in holding out would do about the problems she had mentioned. the implied, albeit vague, promise of a benefit (i.e., help Davis admitted that he asked her how she liked of an unspecified nature in securing the transfer sought Kuhn's speech, but denied any other comment or ques- by Mendoza). tion about the Union, or his intentions regarding any Thus, I find that Morales' conversation with Mendoza remedy for Alvarez' complaints. was both violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and, in- Based on the demonstrated uncertainty in Alvarez' tes- asmuch as the conduct occurred within the critical timony I have no hesitancy in crediting Davis' denials period, also objectionable. and finding that this matter stands unproven. 4. Jose Avila testified that, as he requested, he was in- 8. Carmen Silver testified that she was interviewed by terviewed by Morales in "early October." Among other D a v is "a couple of d ays af t e r t h i s big meeting" (c o n d u c t- things Avila claimed that Morales asked him if he had edbKun.Sercldhiasngertohsaot signed a union card and why he had done so. Avila went ted b y K u h n ). S h e r ec all e d her rseson h er thatit sbee on to testify that Morales stated t h at h e w as t h er e t o r e- u rto al the Unon wtut ha a unin soe tete at , in fact, interviewp representative present to answer the Company' s c la im s . Moraes estfie tht h di, i fat, ntevie Avla, She recalled that he told her that if the Union came in but that all he did was listen while Avila blurted things se e r e wol d ha ve t o l ong t o a t . out. everyone would have to belong to it. Avila showed a strong animosity towards the Compa- tAccording to Davis he merely asked Silver her ny, apparently over having been fired. I was not per- thoughts about the speech as a sort of "icebreaner" in suaded that he testified accurately and have determined at h ed r colnersation. He stated that Silver then went on to credit the testimony of Morales. Accordingly, this a n d wlunteered a great deal more. matter stands unproven. I credit Davis' account, as Silver's demeanor demon- 5. Maria Monje testified that she was interviewed on strated a strong bias against the Company. or about October 5, 1979, by Morales at her own re- Accordingly, this matter stands unproven. quest. She recited problems to Morales and, according to 9. In light of my findings above, I also find that the her, he responded by saying he would try to solve them. General Counsel's assertion that such interviews are vio- She also recalled that he asked her opinion of the Union. lative of Section 8(a)(l) in their entirety cannot stand."1 Morales acknowledged that he interviewed Monje, but While the timing of these interviews seems suspiciously stated that he was unable to recall anything they said to contrived, I also find that the evidence supports no more one another,.than two isolated violations. Certainly, there has been no I found Monje to be a truthful witness but, like others, proof of a pattern of illegal conduct when the evidence her demeanor caused serious doubts as to her accuracy supports such a relatively small number of violations and precision. Nevertheless, despite my misgivings, I do considering the large numbers of employees interviewed. not believe there is adequate reason to discredit her un- It seems illogical to infer that the nature of the inter- controverted testimony. Accordingly, I find that Morales views was tainted by illegality when only 1 witness, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating her from among roughly 190 employees interviewed, testi- about her union sympathies, activities, and leanings, and fied convincingly regarding these allegations, for it impliedly promised to grant her benefits by remedying should be recalled that Silver's testimony was credited the problems she brought up regarding her salary and only because it was uncontroverted. other matters. I also find that this conduct constituted a valid objection to the election. E. The Various Specific Incidents 6. Hector Gonzales testified about his interview with 1 I i a t Supervisor Ruiz created the im- Morales on October 3, 1979. Gonzales recalled that, p surveillance and interrogated Salazar. among other things, Morales asked him what he thought S t tha i er Nvm r 17 sh h "about the problems with the Union." Salazar testified that in early November 1979 she had a Morales denied having asked the question attributed to bin e f v er b al en cs n t e ie w d th R u h z t h thenCtpany's park- him and insisted that he never mentioned the Union he met S h e t es t o f l e dth a t h e t o ld w h e r t h en Unionv.Sh except in connection with his usual explanation of thehe met told him that she was working for the Union. She Company's "philosophy." I credit Morales' recollection, I n fe as Gonzales impressed me as an angry and highly biased ^.^ ^ '1 ^\ uterta n\atyhseihrarudorson ht.h as Gonales ipresse me asan angy and ighly iased terviews were violative because of factors such as, for example, the toca- Witness. AS a consequence, I find that no violative or Ob- tion in which they were conducted, or because the questions asked by jectionable conduct has been proven regarding this inci- Davis about the employees' views of Kuhn's speech might have been a dent. calculated ruse to compel employees to disclose their sentiments for or "7 Annie A I,,,,..,,., f~tesf-.^A »!,,,. ,fc^ „„ **„; j inagainst the Union, or because of any seeming infirmity in the assurances 7. Annie Alvarez testified that she was interviewed by of voluntary and confidential participation afforded employees who were Davis on or about October 3. She complained to him interviewed. 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD into the conversation by volunteering that he was not in about the temperature in the plant and about her pay favor of the Union but felt bound to go along with the scale. She recalled him saying that he would "check it prounion sentiment of a friend,.out." She also testified that he asked her what she had I have considerable doubts about whether Morales and thought of the meeting (conducted by Kuhn), and what Mendoza ever truly understood one another's words. But she thought about the Union. However, on cross-exami- I found Mendoza's testimony credible when he spoke of nation she admitted that she could not exactly recall just Morales' attempt to enlist his aid in preventing employ- what Davis had asked her, or just what he had said he ees from signing authorization cards, and in holding out would do about the problems she had mentioned. the implied, albeit vague, promise of a benefit (i.e., help Davis admitted that he asked her how she liked of an unspecified nature in securing the transfer sought Kuhn's speech, but denied any other comment or ques- by Mendoza). tion about the Union, or his intentions regarding any Thus, I find that Morales' conversation with Mendoza remedy for Alvarez' complaints. was both violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and, in- Based on the demonstrated uncertainty in Alvarez' tes- asmuch as the conduct occurred within the critical timony I have no hesitancy in crediting Davis' denials period, also objectionable. and finding that this matter stands unproven. 4. Jose Avila testified that, as he requested, he was in- 8. Carmen Silver testified that she was interviewed by terviewed by Morales in "early October." Among other D a v is "a couple of d ays af t e r t h i s big meeting" (c o n d u c t- things Avila claimed that Morales asked him if he had edbKun.Sercldhiasngertohsaot signed a union card and why he had done so. Avila went ted b y K u h n ). S h e r ec all e d her rseson h er thatit sbee on to testify that Morales stated t h at h e w as t h er e t o r e- u rto al the Unon wtut ha a unin soe tete at , in fact, interviewp representative present to answer the Company' s c la im s . Moraes estfie tht h di, i fat, ntevie Avla, She recalled that he told her that if the Union came in but that all he did was listen while Avila blurted things se e r e wol d ha ve t o l ong t o a t . out. everyone would have to belong to it. Avila showed a strong animosity towards the Compa- tAccording to Davis he merely asked Silver her ny, apparently over having been fired. I was not per- thoughts about the speech as a sort of "icebreaner" in suaded that he testified accurately and have determined at h ed r colnersation. He stated that Silver then went on to credit the testimony of Morales. Accordingly, this a n d wlunteered a great deal more. matter stands unproven. I credit Davis' account, as Silver's demeanor demon- 5. Maria Monje testified that she was interviewed on strated a strong bias against the Company. or about October 5, 1979, by Morales at her own re- Accordingly, this matter stands unproven. quest. She recited problems to Morales and, according to 9. In light of my findings above, I also find that the her, he responded by saying he would try to solve them. General Counsel's assertion that such interviews are vio- She also recalled that he asked her opinion of the Union. lative of Section 8(a)(l) in their entirety cannot stand."1 Morales acknowledged that he interviewed Monje, but While the timing of these interviews seems suspiciously stated that he was unable to recall anything they said to contrived, I also find that the evidence supports no more one another,.than two isolated violations. Certainly, there has been no I found Monje to be a truthful witness but, like others, proof of a pattern of illegal conduct when the evidence her demeanor caused serious doubts as to her accuracy supports such a relatively small number of violations and precision. Nevertheless, despite my misgivings, I do considering the large numbers of employees interviewed. not believe there is adequate reason to discredit her un- It seems illogical to infer that the nature of the inter- controverted testimony. Accordingly, I find that Morales views was tainted by illegality when only 1 witness, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating her from among roughly 190 employees interviewed, testi- about her union sympathies, activities, and leanings, and fied convincingly regarding these allegations, for it impliedly promised to grant her benefits by remedying should be recalled that Silver's testimony was credited the problems she brought up regarding her salary and only because it was uncontroverted. other matters. I also find that this conduct constituted a valid objection to the election. E. The Various Specific Incidents 6. Hector Gonzales testified about his interview with 1 I i a t Supervisor Ruiz created the im- Morales on October 3, 1979. Gonzales recalled that, p surveillance andinterrogated Salazar. among other things, Morales asked him what he thought S t tha i er Nvm r 17 sh h "about the problems with the Union." Salazar testified that in early November 1979 she had a Morales denied having asked the question attributed to bin e f v er b al en cs n t e ie w d th R u h z t h thenCtpany's park- him and insisted that he never mentioned the Union he met S h e t es t o f l e dth a t h e t o ld w h e r t h en Unionv.Sh except in connection with his usual explanation of thehe met told him that she was working for the Union. She Company's "philosophy." I credit Morales' recollection, I n fe as Gonzales impressed me as an angry and highly biased ^.^ ^ '1 ^\ uterta n\atyhseihrarudorson ht.h as Gonales ipresse me asan angy and ighly iased terviews were violative because of factors such as, for example, the toca- Witness. AS a consequence, I find that no violative or Ob- tion in which they were conducted, or because the questions asked by jectionable conduct has been proven regarding this inci- Davis about the employees' views of Kuhn's speech might have been a dent. calculated ruse to compel employees to disclose their sentiments for or "7 Annie A I,,,,..,,., f~tesf-.^A »!,,,. ,fc^ „„ **„; j inagainst the Union, or because of any seeming infirmity in the assurances 7. Annie Alvarez testified that she was interviewed by of voluntary and confidential participation afforded employees who were Davis on or about October 3. She complained to him interviewed. WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 697 also recalled him going on to say that he was sure she neously and, as they walked across the parking lot, Ortiz would not be so dumb. She made no response. began to tell her that the Union was no good, that the Ruiz testified that he did not have any such conversa- Company was a good one, and that she would get good tion with Salazar. Instead, so Ruiz testified, he simply benefits (such as increased medical benefits) if the Union congratulated or sought to console her, shortly after the were not brought in. Though Salazar expressed doubt Union had lost the election, by commenting to her that about his accuracy, he pointed out that he knew these she had tried her best. things to be true because he had been present in manage- I credit Salazar's testimony regarding this incident, as ment meetings. Ortiz also told her that the Union was no each of the two accounts shows that there was an en- good, and claimed that some of its people were involved counter between them and that the Union was men- in criminal activities. He told her to wait and see if the tioned. It seems implausible that Ruiz would have ut- Company did not, in weeks to come, "almost beg" em- tered words so sympathetically as he testified. ployees for another chance. He told her that things Accordingly, I conclude that the Company created the would be better if the Union were not brought in. And, impression of surveillance of Salazar's union activities, in finally, he told her that if she became a shop steward for violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act and that this was the Union she would probably be beaten up. an instance of objectionable conduct to the election. 3 Ortiz admitted that he talked to Salazar, but denied The allegation that Ruiz interrogated Salazar has not making any threats or implied promises, saying that he been proven and shall be dismissed. was friendly with Salazar and merely sought to respond 2. It is alleged that George Dewsnap, the chief indus- to her complaints about the Company. trial engineer and a supervisor, telephoned Salazar at her Ortiz, though apparently well motivated toward Sala- home in early November and interrogated her about her zar, was not credible. He demonstrated a high degree of union activities, sympathies, and membership. bias against the Union. Accordingly, I credit Salazar's Salazar testified that around November 10, 1979, while account of this incident and find that Ortiz committed home on a leave of absence, she received a phone call the violations as alleged, and that such conduct also in- from Dewsnap. According to Salazar, during this con- terfered with a voter's free choice in the upcoming elec- versation between old friends, Dewsnap asked if he tion. could ask a personal question, and upon receiving her 4. It is alleged that on January 18 1980 Homer assent, Dewsnap asked if she belonged to the Union. She as a se teatene emoee te recalled that she responded affirmatively and the conver- a e rv s threatened employees f they sup sation then turned back to personal matters, primarily ported the Union. concerning the state of health of Salazar's daughter. alazar's version of these facts was as follows: Dewsnap denied that he had asked the question, On January 18, 1980, she was called to attend a com- though he did recall telephoning Salazar. He recalled pany meeting. This meeting, with about 20 employees that he called to let her know that, though she was gone present, was conducted in the tufting department, with from the plant for a while, she was not forgotten. He Dan Hartline presiding. He explained the Company's dis- claimed that he understood the reason for her absence ciplinary policy to the assembled employees. At one was related to Salazar's health, not that of Salazer's point Salazar, in requesting clarification of a point, im- daughter. He also testified that he had once, a month or plied that the Company practiced favoritism. two prior thereto, attempted to tell Salazar his own feel- Later that day she was called into the office of ings about unions, but that he had been abruptly cut off Frausto. Upon her arrival he complained that she had by her. been making false accusations about management and he I credit Salazar's account of this incident. While I asked her if she had any proof. She responded negative- have doubts about the accuracy of her testimony in ly, implying at the hearing that he did so because of a many other respects, those doubts do not go to her es- desire to protect the sources of her information. He told sential truthfulness. In so simple a factual scenario as her that her accusations were serious. She said that Hart- this, involving a friend, it seems unlikely that her ac- line had misunderstood her, but added that if the Union count would have been either inaccurate or unduly en- had come in they would not have such problems. At larged. that, so she testified, Frausto stated that he had do any- Accordingly, I find that by this conduct the Company thing to keep the Union out. violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act and interfered with an Frausto, in his version of this conversation with Sala- employee's free choice in the then-upcoming election. zar, conceded that he had asked for whatever evidence 3. It is alleged that on or about November 9, 1979, she might have to support what he regarded as a serious Samuel Ortiz, a supervisor, threatened employees and attack upon the Company, and, apparently, his own in- promised benefits for keeping out the Union. The Gener- tegrity. However, he testified that as soon as she told al Counsel's evidence was that in early November Sala- him she could not support her allegations with evidence zar and Ortiz happened to be leaving the plant simulta- the conversation was soon ended without mention of the Union. t No finding is made herein with respect to Salazar's testimony that While I have no doubt that Salazar did, in fact, protest Ruiz talked to her on December 3, expressing surprise that she was pres- what she regarded as unfair treatment of employees, and ent (in view of his expectation that she would be with her union friends). that she and Frausto later had a discussion about it in This matter is neither alleged nor argued by counsel for the General Counsel as an unfair labor practice. And, since it falls outside the critical which he asked her for the basis for her accusation, I do period, it cannot serve as a basis for a finding of objectionable conduct. not credit her further testimony. I found Frausto to be a WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 697 also recalled him going on to say that he was sure she neously and, as they walked across the parking lot, Ortiz would not be so dumb. She made no response,.began to tell her that the Union was no good, that the Ruiz testified that he did not have any such conversa- Company was a good one, and that she would get good tion with Salazar. Instead, so Ruiz testified, he simply benefits (such as increased medical benefits) if the Union congratulated or sought to console her, shortly after the were not brought in. Though Salazar expressed doubt Union had lost the election, by commenting to her that about his accuracy, he pointed out that he knew these she had tried her best. things to be true because he had been present in manage- I credit Salazar's testimony regarding this incident, as ment meetings. Ortiz also told her that the Union was no each of the two accounts shows that there was an en- good, and claimed that some of its people were involved counter between them and that the Union was men- in criminal activities. He told her to wait and see if the tioned. It seems implausible that Ruiz would have ut- Company did not, in weeks to come, "almost beg" em- tered words so sympathetically as he testified. ployees for another chance. He told her that things Accordingly, I conclude that the Company created the would be better if the Union were not brought in. And, impression of surveillance of Salazar's union activities, in finally, he told her that if she became a shop steward for violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act and that this was the Union she would probably be beaten up. an instance of objectionable conduct to the election. 13 Ortiz admitted that he talked to Salazar, but denied The allegation that Ruiz interrogated Salazar has not making any threats or implied promises, saying that he been proven and shall be dismissed. was friendly with Salazar and merely sought to respond 2. It is alleged that George Dewsnap, the chief indus- to her complaints about the Company. trial engineer and a supervisor, telephoned Salazar at her Ortiz, though apparently well motivated toward Sala- home in early November and interrogated her about her zar, was not credible. He demonstrated a high degree of union activities, sympathies, and membership,.bias against the Union. Accordingly, I credit Salazar's Salazar testified that around November 10, 1979, while account of this incident and find that Ortiz committed home on a leave of absence, she received a phone call the violations as alleged, and that such conduct also in- from Dewsnap. According to Salaar, during this con- terfered with a voter's free choice in the upcoming elec- versation between old friends, Dewsnap asked if he tion. could ask a personal question, and upon receiving her 4. I i a ta o J , 1980, H assent, Dewsnap asked if she belonged to the Union. She F s a s upe rio t hrat e n e l e if they sup- recalled that she responded affirmatively and the conver- F raus to a su pe rv is o r, threatened employees if they sup- sation then turned back to personal matters, primarily S p o r t e z t 'e U nv o n. o t f concerning the state of health of Salazar's daughter. S al az ar s v er sl o n o f t h e se fa c ts w as as fo l l o w s : Dewsnap denied that he had asked the question, On January 18, 1980, she was called to attend a com- though he did recall telephoning Salazar. He recalled pa"y meeting. T h is meeting, with about 20 employees that he called to let her know that, though she was gone present, was conducted in the tufting department, with from the plant for a while, she was not forgotten. He D an Hartline presiding. He explained the Company's dis- claimed that he understood the reason for her absence ciplinary policy to the assembled employees. At one was related to Salazar's health, not that of Salazer's poin" Salazar, in requesting clarification of a point, im- daughter. He also testified that he had once, a month or plied that the Company practiced favoritism. two prior thereto, attempted to tell Salazar his own feel- L at er that day she was called into the office of ings about unions, but that he had been abruptly cut off Frausto. Upon her arrival he complained that she had by her. been making false accusations about management and he I credit Salazar's account of this incident. While I asked her if she had any proof. She responded negative- have doubts about the accuracy of her testimony in ly, implying at the hearing that he did so because of a many other respects, those doubts do not go to her es- d es ir e to protect the sources of her information. He told sential truthfulness. In so simple a factual scenario as h er that her accusations were serious. She said that Hart- this, involving a friend, it seems unlikely that her ac- lin e had misunderstood her, but added that if the Union count would have been either inaccurate or unduly en- had come in they would not have such problems. At larged. that, so she testified, Frausto stated that he had do any- Accordingly, I find that by this conduct the Company thing to keep the Union out. violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and interfered with an Frausto, in his version of this conversation with Sala- employee's free choice in the then-upcoming election. zar, conceded that he had asked for whatever evidence 3. It is alleged that on or about November 9, 1979, she might have to support what he regarded as a serious Samuel Ortiz, a supervisor, threatened employees and attack upon the Company, and, apparently, his own in- promised benefits for keeping out the Union. The Gener- tegrity. However, he testified that as soon as she told al Counsel's evidence was that in early November Sala- him she could not support her allegations with evidence zar and Ortiz happened to be leaving the plant simulta- the conversation was soon ended without mention of the Union. " No finding is made herein with respect to Salazar's testimony that While I have no doubt that Salazar did, in fact, protest Ruiz talked to her on December 3. expressing surprise that she was pres- what she regarded as unfair treatment of employees, and ent (in view of his expectation that she would be with her union friends). .i,, „ J c, .» i a i, j -r it . This matter is neither alleged nor argued by counsel for the General tht sh e a n d F r a st o lat e r h a d a discussion about it in Counsel as an unfair labor practice. And, since it falls outside the critical which he asked her for the basis for her accusation, I do period, it cannot serve as a basis for a finding of objectionable conduct. not credit her further testimony. I found Frausto to be a WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 697 also recalled him going on to say that he was sure she neously and, as they walked across the parking lot, Ortiz would not be so dumb. She made no response,.began to tell her that the Union was no good, that the Ruiz testified that he did not have any such conversa- Company was a good one, and that she would get good tion with Salazar. Instead, so Ruiz testified, he simply benefits (such as increased medical benefits) if the Union congratulated or sought to console her, shortly after the were not brought in. Though Salazar expressed doubt Union had lost the election, by commenting to her that about his accuracy, he pointed out that he knew these she had tried her best. things to be true because he had been present in manage- I credit Salazar's testimony regarding this incident, as ment meetings. Ortiz also told her that the Union was no each of the two accounts shows that there was an en- good, and claimed that some of its people were involved counter between them and that the Union was men- in criminal activities. He told her to wait and see if the tioned. It seems implausible that Ruiz would have ut- Company did not, in weeks to come, "almost beg" em- tered words so sympathetically as he testified. ployees for another chance. He told her that things Accordingly, I conclude that the Company created the would be better if the Union were not brought in. And, impression of surveillance of Salazar's union activities, in finally, he told her that if she became a shop steward for violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act and that this was the Union she would probably be beaten up. an instance of objectionable conduct to the election. 3 Ortiz admitted that he talked to Salazar, but denied The allegation that Ruiz interrogated Salazar has not making any threats or implied promises, saying that he been proven and shall be dismissed. was friendly with Salazar and merely sought to respond 2. It is alleged that George Dewsnap, the chief indus- to her complaints about the Company. trial engineer and a supervisor, telephoned Salazar at her Ortiz, though apparently well motivated toward Sala- home in early November and interrogated her about her zar, was not credible. He demonstrated a high degree of union activities, sympathies, and membership,.bias against the Union. Accordingly, I credit Salazar's Salazar testified that around November 10, 1979, while account of this incident and find that Ortiz committed home on a leave of absence, she received a phone call the violations as alleged, and that such conduct also in- from Dewsnap. According to Salaar, during this con- terfered with a voter's free choice in the upcoming elec- versation between old friends, Dewsnap asked if he tion. could ask a personal question, and upon receiving her 4. I i a ta o J , 1980, H assent, Dewsnap asked if she belonged to the Union. She F s a s upe rio t hrat e n e l e if they sup- recalled that she responded affirmatively and the conver- F raus to a su pe rv is o r, threatened employees if they sup- sation then turned back to personal matters, primarily S p o r t e z t 'e U nv o n. o t f concerning the state of health of Salazar's daughter. S al az&T s v er sl o n o f t h e se f ac ts w as as follows: Dewsnap denied that he had asked the question, On January 18, 1980, she was called to attend a com- though he did recall telephoning Salazar. He recalled pa"y meeting. This meeting, with about 20 employees that he called to let her know that, though she was gone present, was conducted in the tufting department, with from the plant for a while, she was not forgotten. He D an Hartline presiding. He explained the Company's dis- claimed that he understood the reason for her absence ciplinary policy to the assembled employees. At one was related to Salazar's health, not that of Salazer's poin" Salazar, in requesting clarification of a point, im- daughter. He also testified that he had once, a month or plied that the Company practiced favoritism. two prior thereto, attempted to tell Salazar his own feel- Lat er that day she was called into the office of ings about unions, but that he had been abruptly cut off Frausto. Upon her arrival he complained that she had by her. been making false accusations about management and he I credit Salazar's account of this incident. While I asked her if she had any proof. She responded negative- have doubts about the accuracy of her testimony in ly, implying at the hearing that he did so because of a many other respects, those doubts do not go to her es- desire to protect the sources of her information. He told sential truthfulness. In so simple a factual scenario as h er that her accusations were serious. She said that Hart- this, involving a friend, it seems unlikely that her ac- lin e had misunderstood her, but added that if the Union count would have been either inaccurate or unduly en- had come in they would not have such problems. At larged. that, so she testified, Frausto stated that he had do any- Accordingly, I find that by this conduct the Company thing to keep the Union out. violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and interfered with an Frausto, in his version of this conversation with Sala- employee's free choice in the then-upcoming election. zar, conceded that he had asked for whatever evidence 3. It is alleged that on or about November 9, 1979, she might have to support what he regarded as a serious Samuel Ortiz, a supervisor, threatened employees and attack upon the Company, and, apparently, his own in- promised benefits for keeping out the Union. The Gener- tegrity. However, he testified that as soon as she told al Counsel's evidence was that in early November Sala- him she could not support her allegations with evidence zar and Ortiz happened to be leaving the plant simulta- the conversation was soon ended without mention of the Union. " No finding is made herein with respect to Salazar's testimony that While I have no doubt that Salazar did, in fact, protest Ruiz talked to her on December 3. expressing surprise that she was pres- what she regarded as unfair treatment of employees, and ent (in view of his expectation that she would be with her union friends). .i,, „ J c, .» i a i, j -r it . This matter is neither alleged nor argued by counsel for the General tht sh e a n d F r a st o lat e r h a d a discussion about it in Counsel as an unfair labor practice. And, since it falls outside the critical which he asked her for the basis for her accusation, I do period, it cannot serve as a basis for a finding of objectionable conduct. not credit her further testimony. I found Frausto to be a WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 697 also recalled him going on to say that he was sure she neously and, as they walked across the parking lot, Ortiz would not be so dumb. She made no response,.began to tell her that the Union was no good, that the Ruiz testified that he did not have any such conversa- Company was a good one, and that she would get good tion with Salazar. Instead, so Ruiz testified, he simply benefits (such as increased medical benefits) if the Union congratulated or sought to console her, shortly after the were not brought in. Though Salazar expressed doubt Union had lost the election, by commenting to her that about his accuracy, he pointed out that he knew these she had tried her best. things to be true because he had been present in manage- I credit Salazar's testimony regarding this incident, as ment meetings. Ortiz also told her that the Union was no each of the two accounts shows that there was an en- good, and claimed that some of its people were involved counter between them and that the Union was men- in criminal activities. He told her to wait and see if the tioned. It seems implausible that Ruiz would have ut- Company did not, in weeks to come, "almost beg" em- tered words so sympathetically as he testified. ployees for another chance. He told her that things Accordingly, I conclude that the Company created the would be better if the Union were not brought in. And, impression of surveillance of Salazar's union activities, in finally, he told her that if she became a shop steward for violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act and that this was the Union she would probably be beaten up. an instance of objectionable conduct to the election. 13 Ortiz admitted that he talked to Salazar, but denied The allegation that Ruiz interrogated Salazar has not making any threats or implied promises, saying that he been proven and shall be dismissed. was friendly with Salazar and merely sought to respond 2. It is alleged that George Dewsnap, the chief indus- to her complaints about the Company. trial engineer and a supervisor, telephoned Salazar at her Ortiz, though apparently well motivated toward Sala- home in early November and interrogated her about her zar, was not credible. He demonstrated a high degree of union activities, sympathies, and membership,.bias against the Union. Accordingly, I credit Salazar's Salazar testified that around November 10, 1979, while account of this incident and find that Ortiz committed home on a leave of absence, she received a phone call the violations as alleged, and that such conduct also in- from Dewsnap. According to Salaar, during this con- terfered with a voter's free choice in the upcoming elec- versation between old friends, Dewsnap asked if he tion. could ask a personal question, and upon receiving her 4. I i a ta o J , 1980, H assent, Dewsnap asked if she belonged to the Union. She F s a s upe rio t hrat e n e l e if they sup- recalled that she responded affirmatively and the conver- su pe rv is o r, threatened employees if they sup- sation then turned back to personal matters, primarily S p o r t e z t 'e U nv o n. o t f concerning the state of health of Salazar's daughter. S al az ar s v er sl o n o f t h e se f ac ts w as as follows: Dewsnap denied that he had asked the question, On January 18, 1980, she was called to attend a com- though he did recall telephoning Salazar. He recalled pa"y meeting. This meeting, with about 20 employees that he called to let her know that, though she was gone present, was conducted in the tufting department, with from the plant for a while, she was not forgotten. He D an Hartline presiding. He explained the Company's dis- claimed that he understood the reason for her absence ciplinary policy to the assembled employees. At one was related to Salazar's health, not that of Salazer's poin" Salazar, in requesting clarification of a point, im- daughter. He also testified that he had once, a month or plied that the Company practiced favoritism. two prior thereto, attempted to tell Salazar his own feel- Lat er that day she was called into the office of ings about unions, but that he had been abruptly cut off Frausto. Upon her arrival he complained that she had by her. been making false accusations about management and he I credit Salazar's account of this incident. While I asked her if she had any proof. She responded negative- have doubts about the accuracy of her testimony in ly, implying at the hearing that he did so because of a many other respects, those doubts do not go to her es- desire to protect the sources of her information. He told sential truthfulness. In so simple a factual scenario as her that her accusations were serious. She said that Hart- this, involving a friend, it seems unlikely that her ac- lin e had misunderstood her, but added that if the Union count would have been either inaccurate or unduly en- had come in they would not have such problems. At larged. that, so she testified, Frausto stated that he had do any- Accordingly, I find that by this conduct the Company thing to keep the Union out. violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act and interfered with an Frausto, in his version of this conversation with Sala- employee's free choice in the then-upcoming election. zar, conceded that he had asked for whatever evidence 3. It is alleged that on or about November 9, 1979, she might have to support what he regarded as a serious Samuel Ortiz, a supervisor, threatened employees and attack upon the Company, and, apparently, his own in- promised benefits for keeping out the Union. The Gener- tegrity. However, he testified that as soon as she told al Counsel's evidence was that in early November Sala- him she could not support her allegations with evidence zar and Ortiz happened to be leaving the plant simulta- the conversation was soon ended without mention of the Union. " No finding is made herein with respect to Salazar's testimony that While I have no doubt that Salazar did, in fact, protest Ruiz talked to her on December 3. expressing surprise that she was pres- what she regarded as unfair treatment of employees, and ent (in view of his expectation that she would be with her union friends). .i,, „ J c, .» i a i, j -r it . This matter is neither alleged nor argued by counsel for the General tht sh e a n d F r a st o late had a discussion about it in Counsel as an unfair labor practice. And, since it falls outside the critical which he asked her for the basis for her accusation, I do period, it cannot serve as a basis for a finding of objectionable conduct. not credit her further testimony. I found Frausto to be a 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD straightforward and earnest witness, whose testimony Obviously, such activities could scarcely go forever seemed to be careful, honest, and sincere. Additionally, it unnoticed by the Company. So, the Company stipulated struck me as somewhat implausible that Salazar would at the hearing that it was aware of her sympathies for have made her alleged comment to the head of her de- the Union when she was designated as an election ob- partment about the need for a union over a month and a server, a week or so before the election. While it seems half after the election, with nothing to indicate that more likely that the Company gained knowledge about Frausto had ever been previously involved in any con- Salazar's sympathies and activities considerably earlier versation which might logically lead into the remarks than late November, it remains unclear whether such she claimed to have passed with him. And, finally, bear- knowledge was gained at or before the time she began to ing in mind my previously noted dubiousness about the have disciplinary problems.'5 precision to be attributed to Salazar's recollection, I find It cannot be said with certainty that the Company myself reluctant to base a finding of a violation upon a viewed Salazar as a prime adherent of the Union until remark which is, to say the least, somewhat ambiguous early November 1979 when the incidents with Ruiz, This allegation is unproven and is dismissed. Dewsnap, and Ortiz occurred. F. Salazar's Discharge In any event, the election campaign was conducted throughout October and November and the Union seem- 1. Facts ingly lost the election conducted at the end of Novem- ber. Salazar, however, continued her regular work for Salazar began working for the Company on January 1, the Company throughout the fall and winter of 1979 and 1968. Aside from a couple of leaves of absence, each of the sprn of r198 which lasted about 3 months, she worked at the Compa- te sprn , 198 , ny until April 4, 1980. On that date she was fired. But, on April 1, 1980, a Tuesday, Selazar was assigned For some time preceding her discharge Salazar to work on machine no. 11 as an inspector/mender. The worked in the tufting department. During much of her operator assigned to the machine was Jose Martinez. career with the Company she had done "re-work," or Such machines are approximately 15 feet across with mending, upon carpets which were manufactured with a 1,160 lines of material, called "ends," being fed down flaw. During the time immediately preceding her dis- from creels situated on the two floors above. The materi- charge she had worked as an "Inspector/Mender" on al is woven into a carpet, complete with texture and pat- machine no. 11, where her primary duty was to note any tern, as it feeds through the machine. As it feeds out of flawed material being turned out and to notify the ma- the machine on the side opposite where the operator chine operator to stop the machine. Her leadman was normally stands the inspector/mender is supposed to be Alfrreo Nereo, her supervisor was Manuel Martinez, and stationed on the catwalk and observe whether there are the manager of the tufting department, including all defects. If the inspector spots a defect the inspector noti- three of its shifts, was Homer Frausto. fies the operator, who stops the machinery. " On some Salazar's work reputation was good and she had no machinery the inspector/mender must not only spot de- history of problems with discipline, quality, or attend- fects but must also mend them as they come out of the ance until the time she began her activities on behalf of machine; toward this end a small, hand-held "gun" is the Union, in August or September 1979. Indeed, during used by the inspector/mender. But on machine no. 11 the hearing she repeatedly and adamantly testified that defects, or "mends" as they are called, were simply even up to the time of her discharge she had never been noted and the material was diverted to the rework frame warned or disciplined. where four employees were constantly stationed to As noted earlier in this Decision, Salazar, along with attend to repairing defects. However, generally speaking, Hilda Leonard and Elena Melendrez,"1 contacted the the longer the "mend" the less the chance there was of Union in late August 1979. They sought the Union's help mending it so successfully that the carpet would not be because Frausto told them they would no longer be al- downgraded and sold at a discount price, as a "second." lowed "clean-up time." The Union gave them a supply The Company oonsidered any "mend" over 3 feet in of authorization cards and literature. They began solicit- length to be very long. ing fellow employees to sign authorization cards and dis- During the day on April 1, 1980, Salazar's leadman, tributing the cards and literature throughout the employ- Nereo, happened to pass by machine no. 11 and noticed ee complement. Salazar personally approached and solic- that it was turning out defective carpet. He noticed, too, ited approximately 60 to 70 employees in efforts to per- suade them to sign cards during September and October " Counsel for the Union failed to follow up her own questions and in- 1979. Generally she carried out her organizational activi- quire of Leonard about the dates of certain incidents about which Leon- 1,979. , , , out her organizat l ard testified, evidently to demonstrate that supervisors and a forelady had ties in the Company's parking lot after her work shift knowledge of Leonard's, and perhaps Salazar's, union activities. concluded in mid-afternoon. Ultimately Salazar was des- " When the machine is stopped in this fashion it leaves a mark on the ignated by the Union to serve as an observer in the elec- carpet. Such "stop marks" are horizontally embedded in the carpet and tion of November 30, 1979. are sometimes of such severity as to cause the material to be downgraded as a "second." Such marks are the sort of defect referred to by Leonard in her testimony to the effect that, after Salazar was fired, Hartline told a " Melendrez was evidently discharged by the Company on or before group of employees that machine no. II had been turning out defective Labor Day 1979. Though the point was not established, the record con- carpet because of mechanical problems. However, such defects are not tains at least the hint that she was not thought to be a good enough the sort which preceded Salazar's discipline, and ultimate discharge; worker to survive her probationary period. There is no evidence that her those defects were vertical and were caused by tufts of material having discharge was violative of the Act. been omitted or skipped. 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD straightforward and earnest witness, whose testimony Obviously, such activities could scarcely go forever seemed to be careful, honest, and sincere. Additionally, it unnoticed by the Company. So, the Company stipulated struck me as somewhat implausible that Salazar would at the hearing that it was aware of her sympathies for have made her alleged comment to the head of her de- the Union when she was designated as an election ob- partment about the need for a union over a month and a server, a week or so before the election. While it seems half after the election, with nothing to indicate that more likely that the Company gained knowledge about Frausto had ever been previously involved in any con- Salazar's sympathies and activities considerably earlier versation which might logically lead into the remarks than late November, it remains unclear whether such she claimed to have passed with him. And, finally, bear- knowledge was gained at or before the time she began to ing in mind my previously noted dubiousness about the have disciplinary problems. " precision to be attributed to Salazar's recollection, I find It cannot be said with certainty that the Company myself reluctant to base a finding of a violation upon a viewed Salazar as a prime adherent of the Union until remark which is, to say the least, somewhat ambiguous, early November 1979 when the incidents with Ruiz, This allegation is unproven and is dismissed. Dewsnap, and Ortiz occurred. F. Salazar's Discharge I n any event, the election campaign was conducted throughout October and November and the Union seem- 1. Facts ingly lost the election conducted at the end of Novem- Salazar began working for the Company on January 1, ber. Salazar, however, continued her regular work for Salazar began working for the Company on January 1, h Company throughout the fall and winter of 1979 and 1968. Aside from a couple of leaves of absence, each of the C y u t le of 199on which lasted about 3 months, she worked at the Compa- t s o . ny until April 4, 1980. On that date she was fired. Bu t, o n April 1: 19 80, a Tuesday, Selazar was assigned For some time preceding her discharge Salazar to work on machine no. 11 as an inspector/mender. The worked in the tufting department. During much of her operator assigned to the machine was Jose Martinez. career with the Company she had done "re-work," or Suc h machines are approximately 15 feet across with mending, upon carpets which were manufactured with a 1,160 line s o f material, called "ends," being fed down flaw. During the time immediately preceding her dis- fr om creels situated on the two floors above. The materi- charge she had worked as an "Inspector/Mender" on al is woven into a carpet, complete with texture and pat- machine no. 11, where her primary duty was to note any tem , as it feeds through the machine. As it feeds out of flawed material being turned out and to notify the ma- th e machine on the side opposite where the operator chine operator to stop the machine. Her leadman was normally stands the inspector/mender is supposed to be Alfrreo Nereo, her supervisor was Manuel Martinez, and stationed on the catwalk and observe whether there are the manager of the tufting department, including all defects. If the inspector spots a defect the inspector noti- three of its shifts, was Homer Frausto. fie s the operator, who stops the machinery." On some Salazar's work reputation was good and she had no machinery the inspector/mender must not only spot de- history of problems with discipline, quality, or attend- fec ts b u t must also mend them as they come out of the ance until the time she began her activities on behalf of machine; toward this end a small, hand-held "gun" is the Union, in August or September 1979. Indeed, during used by the inspector/mender. But on machine no. 11 the hearing she repeatedly and adamantly testified that defects, or "mends" as they are called, were simply even up to the time of her discharge she had never been "°ted and the material was diverted to the rework frame warned or disciplined. where four employees were constantly stationed to As noted earlier in this Decision, Salazar, along with attend to repairing defects. However, generally speaking, Hilda Leonard and Elena Melendrez, 14 contacted the th e longer the "mend" the less the chance there was of Union in late August 1979. They sought the Union's help mending it so successfully that the carpet would not be because Frausto told them they would no longer be al- downgraded and sold at a discount price, as a "second." lowed "clean-up time." The Union gave them a supply T h e Company considered any "mend" over 3 feet in of authorization cards and literature. They began solicit- length to be very long. ing fellow employees to sign authorization cards and dis- During the day on April 1, 1980, Salazar's leadman, tributing the cards and literature throughout the employ- Nereo, happened to pass by machine no. 11 and noticed ee complement. Salazar personally approached and solic- that it was turning out defective carpet. He noticed, too, ited approximately 60 to 70 employees in efforts to per- suade them to sign cards during September and October " Counsel for the Union failed to follow up her own questions and in- 1979. Generally she carried out her organizational activi- gqu"re of Leonard about the date of certain incidents about w hich Leon- 1979. , Generally she carried out her organizational activi- ard testified, evidently to demonstrate that supervisors and a forelady had ties in the Company's parking lot after her work shift knowledge of Leonard's, and perhaps Salazar's, union activities. concluded in mid-afternoon. Ultimately Salazar was des- " When the machine is stopped in this fashion it leaves a mark on the ignated by the Union to serve as an observer in the elec- carpet. Such "stop marks" are horizontally embedded in the carpet and tion of November 30, 1979. are sometimes of such severity as to cause the material to be downgraded as a "second." Such marks are the sort of defect referred to by Leonard in her testimony to the effect that, after Salazar was Fired, Hartline told a " Melendrez was evidently discharged by the Company on or before group of employees that machine no. 11 had been turning out defective Labor Day 1979. Though the point was not established, the record con- carpet because of mechanical problems. However, such defects are not tains at least the hint that she was not thought to be a good enough the sort which preceded Salazar's discipline, and ultimate discharge; worker to survive her probationary period. There is no evidence that her those defects were vertical and were caused by tufts of material having discharge was violative of the Act. been omitted or skipped. 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD straightforward and earnest witness, whose testimony Obviously, such activities could scarcely go forever seemed to be careful, honest, and sincere. Additionally, it unnoticed by the Company. So, the Company stipulated struck me as somewhat implausible that Salazar would at the hearing that it was aware of her sympathies for have made her alleged comment to the head of her de- the Union when she was designated as an election ob- partment about the need for a union over a month and a server, a week or so before the election. While it seems half after the election, with nothing to indicate that more likely that the Company gained knowledge about Frausto had ever been previously involved in any con- Salazar's sympathies and activities considerably earlier versation which might logically lead into the remarks than late November, it remains unclear whether such she claimed to have passed with him. And, finally, bear- knowledge was gained at or before the time she began to ing in mind my previously noted dubiousness about the have disciplinary problems. " precision to be attributed to Salazar's recollection, I find It cannot be said with certainty that the Company myself reluctant to base a finding of a violation upon a viewed Salazar as a prime adherent of the Union until remark which is, to say the least, somewhat ambiguous, early November 1979 when the incidents with Ruiz, This allegation is unproven and is dismissed. Dewsnap, and Ortiz occurred. F. Salazar's Discharge I n any event, the election campaign was conducted throughout October and November and the Union seem- 1. Facts ingly lost the election conducted at the end of Novem- Salazar began working for the Company on January 1, ber. Salazar, however, continued her regular work for Salazar began working for the Company on January 1, h Company throughout the fall and winter of 1979 and 1968. Aside from a couple of leaves of absence, each of the C y u t le of l99 o which lasted about 3 months, she worked at the Compa- t s o . ny until April 4, 1980. On that date she was fired. Bu t, o n April 1: 19 80, a Tuesday, Selazar was assigned For some time preceding her discharge Salazar to work on machine no. 11 as an inspector/mender. The worked in the tufting department. During much of her operator assigned to the machine was Jose Martinez. career with the Company she had done "re-work," or Suc h machines are approximately 15 feet across with mending, upon carpets which were manufactured with a 1,160 line s o f material, called "ends," being fed down flaw. During the time immediately preceding her dis- fr om creels situated on the two floors above. The materi- charge she had worked as an "Inspector/Mender" on al is woven into a carpet, complete with texture and pat- machine no. 11, where her primary duty was to note any tem , as it feeds through the machine. As it feeds out of flawed material being turned out and to notify the ma- th e machine on the side opposite where the operator chine operator to stop the machine. Her leadman was normally stands the inspector/mender is supposed to be Alfrreo Nereo, her supervisor was Manuel Martinez, and stationed on the catwalk and observe whether there are the manager of the tufting department, including all defects. If the inspector spots a defect the inspector noti- three of its shifts, was Homer Frausto. fie s the operator, who stops the machinery." On some Salazar's work reputation was good and she had no machinery the inspector/mender must not only spot de- history of problems with discipline, quality, or attend- fec ts but must also mend them as they come out of the ance until the time she began her activities on behalf of machine; toward this end a small, hand-held "gun" is the Union, in August or September 1979. Indeed, during used by the inspector/mender. But on machine no. 11 the hearing she repeatedly and adamantly testified that defects, or "mends" as they are called, were simply even up to the time of her discharge she had never been no ted and the material was diverted to the rework frame warned or disciplined. where four employees were constantly stationed to As noted earlier in this Decision, Salazar, along with attend to repairing defects. However, generally speaking, Hilda Leonard and Elena Melendrez, 14 contacted the the longer the "mend" the less the chance there was of Union in late August 1979. They sought the Union's help mending it so successfully that the carpet would not be because Frausto told them they would no longer be al- downgraded and sold at a discount price, as a "second." lowed "clean-up time." The Union gave them a supply T h e Company considered any "mend" over 3 feet in of authorization cards and literature. They began solicit- length to be very long. ing fellow employees to sign authorization cards and dis- During the day on April 1, 1980, Salazar's leadman, tributing the cards and literature throughout the employ- Nereo, happened to pass by machine no. 11 and noticed ee complement. Salazar personally approached and solic- that it was turning out defective carpet. He noticed, too, ited approximately 60 to 70 employees in efforts to per- suade them to sign cards during September and October " Counsel for the Union failed to follow up her own questions and in- 1979. Generally she carried out her organizational activi- gqu"re of Leonard about the date of certain incidents about w hich Leon- 1979. , Generally she carried out her organizational activi- ard testified, evidently to demonstrate that supervisors and a forelady had ties in the Company's parking lot after her work shift knowledge of Leonard's, and perhaps Salazar's, union activities. concluded in mid-afternoon. Ultimately Salazar was des- " When the machine is stopped in this fashion it leaves a mark on the ignated by the Union to serve as an observer in the elec- carpet. Such "stop marks" are horizontally embedded in the carpet and tion of November 30, 1979. are sometimes of such severity as to cause the material to be downgraded as a "second." Such marks are the sort of defect referred to by Leonard in her testimony to the effect that, after Salazar was Fired, Hartline told a " Melendrez was evidently discharged by the Company on or before group of employees that machine no. 11 had been turning out defective Labor Day 1979. Though the point was not established, the record con- carpet because of mechanical problems. However, such defects are not tains at least the hint that she was not thought to be a good enough the sort which preceded Salazar's discipline, and ultimate discharge; worker to survive her probationary period. There is no evidence that her those defects were vertical and were caused by tufts of material having discharge was violative of the Act. been omitted or skipped. 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD straightforward and earnest witness, whose testimony Obviously, such activities could scarcely go forever seemed to be careful, honest, and sincere. Additionally, it unnoticed by the Company. So, the Company stipulated struck me as somewhat implausible that Salazar would at the hearing that it was aware of her sympathies for have made her alleged comment to the head of her de- the Union when she was designated as an election ob- partment about the need for a union over a month and a server, a week or so before the election. While it seems half after the election, with nothing to indicate that more likely that the Company gained knowledge about Frausto had ever been previously involved in any con- Salazar's sympathies and activities considerably earlier versation which might logically lead into the remarks than late November, it remains unclear whether such she claimed to have passed with him. And, finally, bear- knowledge was gained at or before the time she began to ing in mind my previously noted dubiousness about the have disciplinary problems. " precision to be attributed to Salazar's recollection, I find It cannot be said with certainty that the Company myself reluctant to base a finding of a violation upon a viewed Salazar as a prime adherent of the Union until remark which is, to say the least, somewhat ambiguous, early November 1979 when the incidents with Ruiz, This allegation is unproven and is dismissed. Dewsnap, and Ortiz occurred. F. Salazar's Discharge I n any event, the election campaign was conducted throughout October and November and the Union seem- 1. Facts ingly lost the election conducted at the end of Novem- Salazar began working for the Company on January 1, ber. Salazar, however, continued her regular work for Salazar began working for the Company on January 1, h Company throughout the fall and winter of 1979 and 1968. Aside from a couple of leaves of absence, each of the C y u t le of l99 o which lasted about 3 months, she worked at the Compa- t si of 18 . ny until April 4, 1980. On that date she was fired. Bu t, o n April 1: 19 80, a Tuesday, Selazar was assigned For some time preceding her discharge Salazar to work on machine no. 11 as an inspector/mender. The worked in the tufting department. During much of her operator assigned to the machine was Jose Martinez. career with the Company she had done "re-work," or Suc h machines are approximately 15 feet across with mending, upon carpets which were manufactured with a 1,160 line s o f material, called "ends," being fed down flaw. During the time immediately preceding her dis- fr om creels situated on the two floors above. The materi- charge she had worked as an "Inspector/Mender" on al is woven into a carpet, complete with texture and pat- machine no. 11, where her primary duty was to note any tem , as it feeds through the machine. As it feeds out of flawed material being turned out and to notify the ma- th e machine on the side opposite where the operator chine operator to stop the machine. Her leadman was normally stands the inspector/mender is supposed to be Alfrreo Nereo, her supervisor was Manuel Martinez, and stationed on the catwalk and observe whether there are the manager of the tufting department, including all defects. If the inspector spots a defect the inspector noti- three of its shifts, was Homer Frausto. fie s the operator, who stops the machinery." On some Salazar's work reputation was good and she had no machinery the inspector/mender must not only spot de- history of problems with discipline, quality, or attend- fec ts but must also mend them as they come out of the ance until the time she began her activities on behalf of machine; toward this end a small, hand-held "gun" is the Union, in August or September 1979. Indeed, during u se d by the inspector/mender. But on machine no. 11 the hearing she repeatedly and adamantly testified that defects, or "mends" as they are called, were simply even up to the time of her discharge she had never been no ted and the material was diverted to the rework frame warned or disciplined. where four employees were constantly stationed to As noted earlier in this Decision, Salazar, along with attend to repairing defects. However, generally speaking, Hilda Leonard and Elena Melendrez,' 4 contacted the the longer the "mend" the less the chance there was of Union in late August 1979. They sought the Union's help mending it so successfully that the carpet would not be because Frausto told them they would no longer be al- downgraded and sold at a discount price, as a "second." lowed "clean-up time." The Union gave them a supply T h e Company considered any "mend" over 3 feet in of authorization cards and literature. They began solicit- length to be very long. ing fellow employees to sign authorization cards and dis- During the day on April 1, 1980, Salazar's leadman, tributing the cards and literature throughout the employ- Nereo, happened to pass by machine no. 11 and noticed ee complement. Salazar personally approached and solic- that it was turning out defective carpet. He noticed, too, ited approximately 60 to 70 employees in efforts to per- suade them to sign cards during September and October " Counsel for the Union failed to follow up her own questions and in- 1979. Generally she carried out her organizational activi- gqu"re of Leonard about the date of certain incidents about w hich Leon- 1979. , Generally she carried out her organizational activi- ard testified, evidently to demonstrate that supervisors and a forelady had ties in the Company's parking lot after her work shift knowledge of Leonard's, and perhaps Salazar's, union activities. concluded in mid-afternoon. Ultimately Salazar was des- " When the machine is stopped in this fashion it leaves a mark on the ignated by the Union to serve as an observer in the elec- carpet. Such "stop marks" are horizontally embedded in the carpet and tion of November 30, 1979. are sometimes of such severity as to cause the material to be downgraded as a "second." Such marks are the sort of defect referred to by Leonard in her testimony to the effect that, after Salazar was Fired, Hartline told a " Melendrez was evidently discharged by the Company on or before group of employees that machine no. 11 had been turning out defective Labor Day 1979. Though the point was not established, the record con- carpet because of mechanical problems. However, such defects are not tains at least the hint that she was not thought to be a good enough the sort which preceded Salazar's discipline, and ultimate discharge; worker to survive her probationary period. There is no evidence that her those defects were vertical and were caused by tufts of material having discharge was violative of the Act. been omitted or skipped. WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 699 that Salazar was not at her appointed place" on the op- no alternative but to discharge Salazar.'" He did so, and posite side of the machine from the operator. So he issued her final paychecks to her. Salazar, although re- stopped the machine and waited for her to return. He fusing to sign any of the documents proffered her by asked the operator about Salazar's whereabouts and was Hartline, claimed that the accusations against her were told that the operator had not known she was absent. untrue, but to no avail. Though he had just seen Salazar talking to another em- The essence of the case of the counsel for the General ployee, he had not known then that she was not on an Counsel appears to rely heavily on the leadership role of authorized break. When she came back about 5 minutes Salazar in the organizational campaign during the fall of later, he told her of his observations. Then he reported 1979, and the suspicious timing of warnings which the the incident to Department Manager Frausto and Super- Company claims were given Salazar near the time of the visor Martinez. Among the items he had noted, and campaign's outset. Additionally, the fact of the prior ex- which he reported, was that machine no. 11 had run istence of a formal disciplinary system at the Company is some 60 to 70 feet of defective carpet before being called into question, as well as whether Salazar was ever stopped. afforded any notice of her jeopardy thereunder. And, fi- On the next day, April 2, a Wednesday, having nally, the General Counsel contends that the evidence checked into the matter sufficiently to be satisfied that he demonstrates harsh, disparate treatment toward Salazar, knew what had happened, Martinez spoke to Salazar and with inadequate and unreliable documentation of the rea- Jose Martinez, the operator. He verbally warned them to sons underlying the seemingly sudden change in the use care, so as not to cause "seconds" produced. But no ompany's view of Salazar's worth as an employee. disciplinary, or even counseling, action was taken against either employee. 2. Discussion and conclusions And that is apparently how matters would have re- mained had there not been another incident on Thurs- Neither the leadership role of Salazar in the organiza- day, April 3. This time, however, Martinez saw for him- tional campaign, nor the suspicious timing of disoiplinary self that Salazar was again absent from her assigned post, actions taken against her at that time can be seriously which again happened to be as inspector/mender on ma- contested. chine no. 11. And, he saw that she was talking to other But the remainder of the counsel for the General employees. As he testified, "She knew, because she saw Counsel's contentions cannot withstand close scrutiny. me and right away she saw me, she run away." And "I The existence of the Company's policies regarding em- told Mr. Frausto, Homer, it is too much; she don't want ployee discipline is not, in my view, successfully at- to stop doing that." Accordingly, he decided to recom- tacked by the testimony of Salazar, and other witnesses, mend that a written warning be issued to her and that that they had no knowledge of such policies before their she be discharged. He did so and turned the matter over explanation by Hartline at a meeting called for that pur- to Frausto, who agreed and, in turn, submitted the issue pose on January 18, 1980. For, as demonstrated by the to Dan Hartline, the personnel director and the official previously noted failure of communication regarding the responsible for authorizing personnel actions such as dis- notices of the Company's intent to conduct individual in- charges. terviews, the fact that certain employees may testify, Thus, on Good Friday, April 4, 1980, Hartline sent for with evident veracity, as to their complete ignorance Salazar and called her into his office, with Frausto and about a particular policy does not necessarily establish Martinez present. He testified that he reviewed her the previous nonexistence of the policy. For it ignores record with her, including the fact that this incident con- the plausible, and credited, testimony of Hartline that fol- stituted her third warning. And, so the Company con- lowing the Company's acquisition by Westpoint-Pepper- tends, its policy was that any employee receiving a third ell, each policy required discussion and promulgation warning in any 12-month period was to be automatically among the Company's supervisory personnel, that a terminated. As a consequence, Hartline testified, he had series of meetings was held toward that end, and that the Company's policies on discipline were explained or rein- " The operator is capable of running the machine alone, at least for forced at small group meetings of employees, as ques- relatively short periods of time, by utilizing a remote-control switch to as wl as in te l e m i top the machine. However, he would not resort to this if the inspector ons arose as we as n the laeremployee meet left the area without first telling him that she was leaving, since, due to during the week of January 18, 1980. And nowhere is the intervention of the carpet and the machine, he would not be able to there direct evidence that the meetings during the week observe that the inspector was absent. of January 18, 1980, were called to announce new In this case Jose Martinez claimed not to have known that Salazar wasd t a o in p o e ini going to leave on April 1, thereby accounting for his failure to come olicy, as pposed to an ngoing program of explaining around to the other side of the machine and operate it with the remote- or reinforcing all policies, whether new or old. To the control switch pending her return. As a consequence, he had no way of contrary is Hartline's credited testimony. Further, as observing the flaw in the carpet as it was produced, since the defect was shown elsewhere, the testimony of Salazar that she had visible, not from the operator's normal position, but from the inspector's previously known of no such disciplinary system is de- catwalk on the opposite side ort^he machine f pr eviously known of no such disciplinary system is de- catwalk on the opposite side of the machine. Salazar acknowledged that she was aware of a company policy requir- ing that an inspector first notify an operator before leaving the assigned " Another incident on April 3 and 4 clearly infuriated Martinez against post for a break, or to go to the restroom. She also acknowledged her Salazar. This had to do with his apprehension that she was undermining understanding of the purpose behind such policy, i.e., to allow the opera- explanations he had made to employees about working only 4 hours on tor to be on notice that he would be required to go to the opposite side Good Friday, and being paid for only 4 hours. However, I have conclud- of the machine and operate it by means of the remote switch while doing ed that Salazar's fate was already sealed by the time this incident oc- double duty as an inspector during the inspector's absence. curred, and that it therefore played no part in her discharge. WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 699 that Salazar was not at her appointed place" on the op- no alternative but to discharge Salazar.'" He did so, and posite side of the machine from the operator. So he issued her final paychecks to her. Salazar, although re- stopped the machine and waited for her to return. He fusing to sign any of the documents proffered her by asked the operator about Salazar's whereabouts and was Hartline, claimed that the accusations against her were told that the operator had not known she was absent. untrue, but to no avail. Though he had just seen Salazar talking to another em- The essence of the case of the counsel for the General ployee, he had not known then that she was not on an Counsel appears to rely heavily on the leadership role of authorized break. When she came back about 5 minutes Salazar in the organizational campaign during the fall of later, he told her of his observations. Then he reported 1979, and the suspicious timing of warnings which the the incident to Department Manager Frausto and Super- Company claims were given Salazar near the time of the visor Martinez. Among the items he had noted, and campaign's outset. Additionally, the fact of the prior ex- which he reported, was that machine no. 11 had run istence of a formal disciplinary system at the Company is some 60 to 70 feet of defective carpet before being called into question, as well as whether Salazar was ever stopped,.afforded any notice of her jeopardy thereunder. And, fi- On the next day, April 2, a Wednesday, having nally, the General Counsel contends that the evidence checked into the matter sufficiently to be satisfied that he demonstrates harsh, disparate treatment toward Salazar, knew what had happened, Martinez spoke to Salazar and with inadequate and unreliable documentation of the rea- Jose Martinez, the operator. He verbally warned them to sons underlying the seemingly sudden change in the use care, so as not to cause "seconds" produced. But no Company's view of Salazar's worth as an employee. disciplinary, or even counseling, action was taken against either employee. 2. Discussion and conclusions And that is apparently how matters would have re- mained had there not been another incident on Thurs- Neither the leadership role of Salazar in the organiza- day, April 3. This time, however, Martinez saw for him- tional campaign, nor the suspicious timing of disciplinary self that Salazar was again absent from her assigned post, actions taken against her at that time can be seriously which again happened to be as inspector/mender on ma- contested. chine no. 11. And, he saw that she was talking to other But the remainder of the counsel for the General employees. As he testified, "She knew, because she saw Counsel's contentions cannot withstand close scrutiny. me and right away she saw me, she run away." And "I The existence of the Company's policies regarding em- told Mr. Frausto, Homer, it is too much; she don't want ployee discipline is not, in my view, successfully at- to stop doing that." Accordingly, he decided to recom- tacked by the testimony of Salazar, and other witnesses, mend that a written warning be issued to her and that that they had no knowledge of such policies before their she be discharged. He did so and turned the matter over explanation by Hartline at a meeting called for that pur- to Frausto, who agreed and, in turn, submitted the issue pose on January 18, 1980. For, as demonstrated by the to Dan Hartline, the personnel director and the official previously noted failure of communication regarding the responsible for authorizing personnel actions such as dis- notices of the Company's intent to conduct individual in- charges. terviews, the fact that certain employees may testify, Thus, on Good Friday, April 4, 1980, Hartline sent for with evident veracity, as to their complete ignorance Salazar and called her into his office, with Frausto and about a particular policy does not necessarily establish Martinez present. He testified that he reviewed her the previous nonexistence of the policy. For it ignores record with her, including the fact that this incident con- the plausible, and credited, testimony of Hartline that fol- stituted her third warning. And, so the Company con- lowing the Company's acquisition by Westpoint-Pepper- tends, its policy was that any employee receiving a third ell, each policy required discussion and promulgation warning in any 12-month period was to be automatically among the Company's supervisory personnel, that a terminated. As a consequence, Hartline testified, he had series of meetings was held toward that end, and that the Company's policies on discipline were explained or rein- " The operator is capable of running the machine alone, at least for forced at Small group meetings of employees, as ques- relatively short periods of time, by utilizing a remote-control switch to . n . *_ in ih - _ i,... _„*;_,,„ stop the machine. However, he would not resort to this if the inspector t i o n s a ro s e , a s w e ll a s i n t h e l a rg e r e m p l o y e e m e e t in s left the area without first telling him that she was leaving, since, due to during the week of January 18, 1980. And nowhere is the intervention of the carpet and the machine, he would not be able to there direct evidence that the meetings during the week observe that the inspector was absent. of January 18, 1980, were called to announce new In this case Jose Martinez claimed not to have known that Salazar was r j . „___:__ __--._ o< «__in;;_ going to leave on April 1, thereby accounting for his failure to come Policy, as Opposed to an Ongoing program of explaining around to the other side of the machine and operate it with the remote- or reinforcing all policies, whether new Or old. TO the control switch pending her return. As a consequence, he had no way of contrary is Hartline's credited testimony. Further, as observing the flaw in the carpet as it was produced, since the defect was shown elsewhere, the testimony of Salazar that she had visible, not from the operator's normal position, but from the inspector's peiul nw fn uhdsilnr ytmi e catwalk on the oppositesor the mcn previously known of no such disciplinary system is de- Salazar acknowledged that she was aware of a company policy requir- ing that an inspector first notify an operator before leaving the assigned Another incident on April 3 and 4 clearly infuriated Martinez against post for a break, or to go to the restroom. She also acknowledged her Salazar. This had to do with his apprehension that she was undermining understanding of the purpose behind such policy, i.e., to allow the opera- explanations he had made to employees about working only 4 hours on tor to be on notice that he would be required to go to the opposite side Good Friday, and being paid for only 4 hours. However, I have conclud- of the machine and operate it by means of the remote switch while doing ed that Salazar's fate was already sealed by the time this incident oc- double duty as an inspector during the inspector's absence. curred, and that it therefore played no part in her discharge. WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 699 that Salazar was not at her appointed place" on the op- no alternative but to discharge Salazar.'" He did so, and posite side of the machine from the operator. So he issued her final paychecks to her. Salazar, although re- stopped the machine and waited for her to return. He fusing to sign any of the documents proffered her by asked the operator about Salazar's whereabouts and was Hartline, claimed that the accusations against her were told that the operator had not known she was absent. untrue, but to no avail. Though he had just seen Salazar talking to another em- The essence of the case of the counsel for the General ployee, he had not known then that she was not on an Counsel appears to rely heavily on the leadership role of authorized break. When she came back about 5 minutes Salazar in the organizational campaign during the fall of later, he told her of his observations. Then he reported 1979, and the suspicious timing of warnings which the the incident to Department Manager Frausto and Super- Company claims were given Salazar near the time of the visor Martinez. Among the items he had noted, and campaign's outset. Additionally, the fact of the prior ex- which he reported, was that machine no. 11 had run istence of a formal disciplinary system at the Company is some 60 to 70 feet of defective carpet before being called into question, as well as whether Salazar was ever stopped,.afforded any notice of her jeopardy thereunder. And, fi- On the next day, April 2, a Wednesday, having nally, the General Counsel contends that the evidence checked into the matter sufficiently to be satisfied that he demonstrates harsh, disparate treatment toward Salazar, knew what had happened, Martinez spoke to Salazar and with inadequate and unreliable documentation of the rea- Jose Martinez, the operator. He verbally warned them to sons underlying the seemingly sudden change in the use care, so as not to cause "seconds" produced. But no Company's view of Salazar's worth as an employee. disciplinary, or even counseling, action was taken against either employee. 2. Discussion and conclusions And that is apparently how matters would have re- mained had there not been another incident on Thurs- Neither the leadership role of Salazar in the organiza- day, April 3. This time, however, Martinez saw for him- tional campaign, nor the suspicious timing of disciplinary self that Salazar was again absent from her assigned post, actions taken against her at that time can be seriously which again happened to be as inspector/mender on ma- contested. chine no. 11. And, he saw that she was talking to other But the remainder of the counsel for the General employees. As he testified, "She knew, because she saw Counsel's contentions cannot withstand close scrutiny. me and right away she saw me, she run away." And "I The existence of the Company's policies regarding em- told Mr. Frausto, Homer, it is too much; she don't want ployee discipline is not, in my view, successfully at- to stop doing that." Accordingly, he decided to recom- tacked by the testimony of Salazar, and other witnesses, mend that a written warning be issued to her and that that they had no knowledge of such policies before their she be discharged. He did so and turned the matter over explanation by Hartline at a meeting called for that pur- to Frausto, who agreed and, in turn, submitted the issue pose on January 18, 1980. For, as demonstrated by the to Dan Hartline, the personnel director and the official previously noted failure of communication regarding the responsible for authorizing personnel actions such as dis- notices of the Company's intent to conduct individual in- charges. terviews, the fact that certain employees may testify, Thus, on Good Friday, April 4, 1980, Hartline sent for with evident veracity, as to their complete ignorance Salazar and called her into his office, with Frausto and about a particular policy does not necessarily establish Martinez present. He testified that he reviewed her the previous nonexistence of the policy. For it ignores record with her, including the fact that this incident con- the plausible, and credited, testimony of Hartline that fol- stituted her third warning. And, so the Company con- lowing the Company's acquisition by Westpoint-Pepper- tends, its policy was that any employee receiving a third ell, each policy required discussion and promulgation warning in any 12-month period was to be automatically among the Company's supervisory personnel, that a terminated. As a consequence, Hartline testified, he had series of meetings was held toward that end, and that the Company's policies on discipline were explained or rein- " The operator is capable of running the machine alone, at least for forced at Small group meetings of employees, as ques- relatively short periods of time, by utilizing a remote-control switch to . n . *_ in ih - _ i,... _„*;_,,„ stop the machine. However, he would not resort to this if the inspector t i o n s a ro s e , a s w e ll a s i n t h e l a rg e r e m p l o y e e m e e t in s left the area without first telling him that she was leaving, since, due to during the week of January 18, 1980. And nowhere is the intervention of the carpet and the machine, he would not be able to there direct evidence that the meetings during the week observe that the inspector was absent. of January 18, 1980, were called to announce new In this case Jose Martinez claimed not to have known that Salazar was r j . „___:__ __--._ o< «__in;;_ going to leave on April 1, thereby accounting for his failure to come Policy, as Opposed to an Ongoing program of explaining around to the other side of the machine and operate it with the remote- or reinforcing all policies, whether new Or old. TO the control switch pending her return. As a consequence, he had no way of contrary is Hartline's credited testimony. Further, as observing the flaw in the carpet as it was produced, since the defect was shown elsewhere, the testimony of Salazar that she had visible, not from the operator's normal position, but f ro m the inspec tor's pri^y known of no such disciplinary system is de- catwalk on the opposite side or the machine. peiul nw fn uhdsilnr ytmi e Salazar acknowledged that she was aware of a company policy requir- ing that an inspector first notify an operator before leaving the assigned Another incident on April 3 and 4 clearly infuriated Martinez against post for a break, or to go to the restroom. She also acknowledged her Salazar. This had to do with his apprehension that she was undermining understanding of the purpose behind such policy, i.e., to allow the opera- explanations he had made to employees about working only 4 hours on tor to be on notice that he would be required to go to the opposite side Good Friday, and being paid for only 4 hours. However, I have conclud- of the machine and operate it by means of the remote switch while doing ed that Salazar's fate was already sealed by the time this incident oc- double duty as an inspector during the inspector's absence. curred, and that it therefore played no part in her discharge. WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 699 that Salazar was not at her appointed place" on the op- no alternative but to discharge Salazar.'s He did so, and posite side of the machine from the operator. So he issued her final paychecks to her. Salazar, although re- stopped the machine and waited for her to return. He fusing to sign any of the documents proffered her by asked the operator about Salazar's whereabouts and was Hartline, claimed that the accusations against her were told that the operator had not known she was absent. untrue, but to no avail. Though he had just seen Salazar talking to another em- The essence of the case of the counsel for the General ployee, he had not known then that she was not on an Counsel appears to rely heavily on the leadership role of authorized break. When she came back about 5 minutes Salazar in the organizational campaign during the fall of later, he told her of his observations. Then he reported 1979, and the suspicious timing of warnings which the the incident to Department Manager Frausto and Super- Company claims were given Salazar near the time of the visor Martinez. Among the items he had noted, and campaign's outset. Additionally, the fact of the prior ex- which he reported, was that machine no. 11 had run istence of a formal disciplinary system at the Company is some 60 to 70 feet of defective carpet before being called into question, as well as whether Salazar was ever stopped,.afforded any notice of her jeopardy thereunder. And, fi- On the next day, April 2, a Wednesday, having nally, the General Counsel contends that the evidence checked into the matter sufficiently to be satisfied that he demonstrates harsh, disparate treatment toward Salazar, knew what had happened, Martinez spoke to Salazar and with inadequate and unreliable documentation of the rea- Jose Martinez, the operator. He verbally warned them to sons underlying the seemingly sudden change in the use care, so as not to cause "seconds" produced. But no Company's view of Salazar's worth as an employee. disciplinary, or even counseling, action was taken against either employee. 2. Discussion and conclusions And that is apparently how matters would have re- mained had there not been another incident on Thurs- Neither the leadership role of Salazar in the organiza- day, April 3. This time, however, Martinez saw for him- tional campaign, nor the suspicious timing of disciplinary self that Salazar was again absent from her assigned post, actions taken against her at that time can be seriously which again happened to be as inspector/mender on ma- contested. chine no. 11. And, he saw that she was talking to other But the remainder of the counsel for the General employees. As he testified, "She knew, because she saw Counsel's contentions cannot withstand close scrutiny. me and right away she saw me, she run away." And "I The existence of the Company's policies regarding em- told Mr. Frausto, Homer, it is too much; she don't want ployee discipline is not, in my view, successfully at- to stop doing that." Accordingly, he decided to recom- tacked by the testimony of Salazar, and other witnesses, mend that a written warning be issued to her and that that they had no knowledge of such policies before their she be discharged. He did so and turned the matter over explanation by Hartline at a meeting called for that pur- to Frausto, who agreed and, in turn, submitted the issue pose on January 18, 1980. For, as demonstrated by the to Dan Hartline, the personnel director and the official previously noted failure of communication regarding the responsible for authorizing personnel actions such as dis- notices of the Company's intent to conduct individual in- charges. terviews, the fact that certain employees may testify, Thus, on Good Friday, April 4, 1980, Hartline sent for with evident veracity, as to their complete ignorance Salazar and called her into his office, with Frausto and about a particular policy does not necessarily establish Martinez present. He testified that he reviewed her the previous nonexistence of the policy. For it ignores record with her, including the fact that this incident con- the plausible, and credited, testimony of Hartline that fol- stituted her third warning. And, so the Company con- lowing the Company's acquisition by Westpoint-Pepper- tends, its policy was that any employee receiving a third ell, each policy required discussion and promulgation warning in any 12-month period was to be automatically among the Company's supervisory personnel, that a terminated. As a consequence, Hartline testified, he had series of meetings was held toward that end, and that the Company's policies on discipline were explained or rein- " The operator is capable of running the machine alone, at least for forced at Small group meetings of employees, as ques- relatively short periods of time, by utilizing a remote-control switch to . n . *_ in ih - _ i,... _„*;_,,„ stop the machine. However, he would not resort to this if the inspector t i o n s a ro s e , a s w e ll a s i n t h e l a rg e r e m p l o y e e m e e t in s left the area without first telling him that she was leaving, since, due to during the week of January 18, 1980. And nowhere is the intervention of the carpet and the machine, he would not be able to there direct evidence that the meetings during the week observe that the inspector was absent. of January 18, 1980, were called to announce new In this case Jose Martinez claimed not to have known that Salazar was r j . „___:__ __--._ o< «__in;;_ going to leave on April 1, thereby accounting for his failure to come Policy, as Opposed to an Ongoing program of explaining around to the other side of the machine and operate it with the remote- or reinforcing all policies, whether new Or old. TO the control switch pending her return. As a consequence, he had no way of contrary is Hartline's credited testimony. Further, as observing the flaw in the carpet as it was produced, since the defect was shown elsewhere, the testimony of Salazar that she had visible, not from the operator's normal position, but f ro m the inspec tor's pri^y known of no such disciplinary system is de- catwalk on the opposite side or the machine. peiul nw fn uhdsilnr ytmi e Salazar acknowledged that she was aware of a company policy requir- ing that an inspector first notify an operator before leaving the assigned Another incident on April 3 and 4 clearly infuriated Martinez against post for a break, or to go to the restroom. She also acknowledged her Salazar. This had to do with his apprehension that she was undermining understanding of the purpose behind such policy, i.e., to allow the opera- explanations he had made to employees about working only 4 hours on tor to be on notice that he would be required to go to the opposite side Good Friday, and being paid for only 4 hours. However, I have conclud- of the machine and operate it by means of the remote switch while doing ed that Salazar's fate was already sealed by the time this incident oc- double duty as an inspector during the inspector's absence. curred, and that it therefore played no part in her discharge. 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD monstrably unreliable, for it became clear during her is so harsh as to itself bespeak a discriminatory motiva- cross-examination in the General Counsel's case on re- tion. As stated above, I do not believe that to be the case buttal that she must have had at least rudimentary under- here. standing of the very existence of the Company's disci- For Salazar was ultimately compelled to concede in plinary system, for she admittedly had been its subject her testimony that she did, contrary to her earlier repeat- more than once, her previous denials notwithstanding. ed and vehement denials, receive notice regarding the The Company's evidence was to the effect that Salazar counseling of September 4, 1979, the warning of Septem- was the recipient of a "counseling report""' for having ber 24, 1979, and the warning of October 1, 1979. While left her work station without permission and having in- she disputed the conclusion drawn by the Company re- terfered with the work of others on September 4, 1979. garding the September 4 incident, she ultimately ad- Then, on September 24, 1979, she received a written mitted, "There was an incident discussed." And, regard- warning for having left her work station and interfered ing the September 24 warning she finally admitted "Yes, with other employees' work by stopping to talk with em- I did [have a conversation with Frausto and Martinez], ployees instead of returning promptly from a permissible "and she went on, "There was an incident." And, with break. And, finally, on October 1, 1979, Salazar received respect to the October 1 matter, she eventually conced- a second "warning notice," for having punched another ed, "Some of the incidents were discussed." In fact, re- employee's timecard, in violation of company policy; of garding still another incident which occurred on Febru- particular interest in the context of this case is the lan- ary 9, 1980, she stated, "Manuel did mention something guage on the face of the "warning notice" to the effect about being more careful." And, if more is needed to es- that Salazar was given explicit warning of the jeopardy tablish that she did have notice of the Company's warn- she faced; i.e., that a third warning would require her ings to her (and, therefore, of its disciplinary policy's ex- discharge. istence), it seems that had she in fact been ignorant of the The General Counsel's attacks upon the validity of nul av notices outstanding against her record she would have these documents are not persuasive protested the evident inaccuracy of Hartline's statement The suspicions raised by the timing of the warnings of to her in the termination interview, that she had three September 24 and October 1i, 1979, are diluted by the . September 24 and October 1, 1979. are diluted by the warnings in her file. She did not. Instead, she but unper- fact that Salazar's next warning was not issued for over 6 warnis in her fle. She didnot Instead, she but uner- suasively stated that she failed in this respect because she months after the issuance of the second warning. It seems illogical to infer on the basis of such timing that was upset. the Company made hasty efforts to grease the skids be- Contrary to my findings regarding Salazar's testimony, neath Salazar's employment and yet, without apparent I found that Frausto and Martinez, the Company's key reason, failed to play its trump card, a third warning, witnesses regarding Salazar's discharge, were quite credi- until the passage of over 6 months. For this theory flies ble While each was shown to have erred in his testimo- in the teeth of the contention that the Company har- ny in minor ways, this failed to detract from the overall bored animus toward her activities throughout October favorable impressions they made. That is not to say that and November, 2 crucial months of the election cam- Martinez did not show unmistakable signs of being a paign, but failed to find a pretext to be rid of her influ- harsh and judgmental supervisor. But I am unable to ence. conclude that he was untruthful based on my assessment Nor do I believe that warrant exists for a conclusion of his demeanor and testimony. To the contrary, even if that the warnings issued to Salazar are so lacking in harsh, Martinez was shown to be a man determined to good cause, or are so tainted by evidence of disparate do what he thought to be right. application, as to bespeak discriminatory motivation And, finally, the counsel for the General Counsel's hidden by pretext. For it is clear that "[t]he Act ... rec- own evidence tended to disprove the critical element of ognizes the employer's right to terminate employment disparate treatment. For Hector Gonzales testified that for normal reasons." N.L.R.B. v. Waterman Steamship he, like Salazar, received warnings, without notice, for Corporation, 309 U.S. 206, 218-219 (1940). As we are fre- leaving his post and interfering with the work of other quently reminded, employers may discharge employees employees. for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. And For all the reasons mentioned above I find and con- "Board law does not permit a trier of fact to substitute lude that the General Counsel has not proven a prima his own subjective impression of what he would have facie case based on substantial and credible evidence. I done were he in [the employer's] position." Grand Auto, shall, accordingly, dismiss this allegation of the com- Inc., d/b/a Super Tire Stores, 236 NLRB 877 (1978). plaint. Even "[w]hile the discipline may seem extreme, it does not follow that the ascribed reason for the discharges is G. The Objection pretextual." J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 233 NLRB 946, 952 (1977). In short, unless unlawful motivation is By soliciting an employee's aid in preventing other shown, the Board cannot substitute its judgment for that employees from signing union authorization cards, by im- of an employer as to the grounds for punishment, or the pliedly promising benefs to employees, by interrogating tye of punishment, unless the punishment administered employees concerning their union sympathies, activities, and leanings, by creating the impression that employees' IS "Counseling reports" were placed in an employee's file, but did not union activies were being kept under surveillanoe, and serve to trigger a penalty, unlike "warning reports," which caused auto- by threatening employees with physical harm, all of matic discharge upon the accumulation of three in a 12-month period . which occurred within the critical period, the Company 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 0 monstrably unreliable, for it became clear during her is so harsh as to itself bespeak a discriminatory motiva- cross-examination in the General Counsel's case on re- tion. As stated above, I do not believe that to be the case buttal that she must have had at least rudimentary under- here. standing of the very existence of the Company's disci- For Salazar was ultimately compelled to concede in plinary system, for she admittedly had been its subject her testimony that she did, contrary to her earlier repeat- more than once, her previous denials notwithstanding. ed and vehement denials, receive notice regarding the The Company's evidence was to the effect that Salazar counseling of September 4, 1979, the warning of Septem- was the recipient of a "counseling report""' for having ber 24, 1979, and the warning of October 1, 1979. While left her work station without permission and having in- she disputed the conclusion drawn by the Company re- terfered with the work of others on September 4, 1979. garding the September 4 incident, she ultimately ad- Then, on September 24, 1979, she received a written mitted, "There was an incident discussed." And, regard- warning for having left her work station and interfered ing the September 24 warning she finally admitted "Yes, with other employees' work by stopping to talk with em- I did [have a conversation with Frausto and Martinez], ployees instead of returning promptly from a permissible "and she went on, "There was an incident." And, with break. And, finally, on October 1, 1979, Salazar received respect to the October 1 matter, she eventually conced- a second "warning notice," for having punched another ed, "Some of the incidents were discussed." In fact, re- employee's timecard, in violation of company policy; of garding still another incident which occurred on Febru- particular interest in the context of this case is the lan- ary 9, 1980, she stated, "Manuel did mention something guage on the face of the "warning notice" to the effect about being more careful." And, if more is needed to es- that Salazar was given explicit warning of the jeopardy tablish that she did have notice of the Company's warn- she faced; i.e., that a third warning would require her ings to her (and, therefore, of its disciplinary policy's ex- discharge. ~~~~~~~~~~~istence), it seems that had she in fact been ignorant of the The General Counsel's attacks upon the validity of nc t g sh o e ldave thesedocumentsarenotpersuasive. of thwprotested t h e e v id en t ina c c u r ac y o f Hartline's state m en t The suspicions raised by the timing of the warnings ol ohri h emnto neveta h a he September 24 and October 1, 1979, are diluted by the w n h er fl Sh e did nt.rIea, she but thre fact that Salazar's next warning was not issued for over 6 w a^ "ni s ln h e r nil e. S h e hdi n o t. I n s te ad , sh e b u t unper- fact that Salazafter's thext iua inge ws nt ise d foring.rIt suasively stated that she failed in this respect because she months after the issuance of the second warning. It wsust seems illogical to infer on the basis of such timing that p ,, „ the Company made hasty efforts to grease the skids be- Contrary to my findings regarding Salazar's testimony, neath Salazar's employment and yet, without apparent I f o u nd t h a t F r a ust o an d Martinez, the Company's key reason, failed to play its trump card, a third warning, witnesses regarding Salazar's discharge, were quite credi- until the passage of over 6 months. For this theory flies b l e. Whi le eac h w as sh o w n t o h a v e e rre d i n h is testimo- in the teeth of the contention that the Company har- ny in m ino r ways, this failed to detract from the overall bored animus toward her activities throughout October favorable impressions they made. That is not to say that and November, 2 crucial months of the election cam- Martinez did not show unmistakable signs of being a paign, but failed to find a pretext to be rid of her influ- h a rs h an d judgmental supervisor. But I am unable to ence. conclude that he was untruthful based on my assessment Nor do I believe that warrant exists for a conclusion of his demeanor and testimony. To the contrary, even if that the warnings issued to Salazar are so lacking in harsh, Martinez was shown to be a man determined to good cause, or are so tainted by evidence of disparate do what he thought to be right. application, as to bespeak discriminatory motivation A n d, finally, the counsel for the General Counsel's hidden by pretext. For it is clear that "[t]he Act . . rec- own evidence tended to disprove the critical element of ognizes the employer's right to terminate employment disparate treatment. For Hector Gonzales testified that for normal reasons." N.L.R.B. v. Waterman Steamship he, like Salazar, received warnings, without notice, for Corporation, 309 U.S. 206, 218-219 (1940). As we are fre- leaving his post and interfering with the work of other quently reminded, employers may discharge employees employees. for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. And For all the reasons mentioned above I find and con- "Board law does not permit a trier of fact to substitute elude that the General Counsel has not proven a prima his own subjective impression of what he would have facie case based on substantial and credible evidence. I done were he in [the employer's] position." Grand Auto, shall, accordingly, dismiss this allegation of the com- Inc., d/b/a Super Tire Stores, 236 NLRB 877 (1978). plaint. Even "[w]hile the discipline may seem extreme, it does not follow that the ascribed reason for the discharges is G. The Objection pretextual." J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 233 NLRB By .i. a e aid in p 946, 952 (1977). In short, unless unlawful motivation is B y s o l o c y t e n g a n sipgninu io d at preventing other shown, the Board cannot substitute its judgment for that pley fro m signing union authorization cards, by im- of an employer as to the grounds for punishment, or the p h ed l y promis"^ b en efkts t o employees, by interrogating type of punishment, unless the punishment administered em p lo y ees concerning their union sympathies, activities, and leanings, by creating the impression that employees' ** "Counseling reports" were placed in an employee's file, but did not u n ion activities were being kept under surveillance, and serve to trigger a penalty, unlike "warning reports," which caused auto- by threatening employees With physical harm, all of matic discharge upon the accumulation of three in a 12-month period,.which Occurred within the critical period, the Company 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 0 monstrably unreliable, for it became clear during her is so harsh as to itself bespeak a discriminatory motiva- cross-examination in the General Counsel's case on re- tion. As stated above, I do not believe that to be the case buttal that she must have had at least rudimentary under- here. standing of the very existence of the Company's disci- For Salazar was ultimately compelled to concede in plinary system, for she admittedly had been its subject her testimony that she did, contrary to her earlier repeat- more than once, her previous denials notwithstanding. ed and vehement denials, receive notice regarding the The Company's evidence was to the effect that Salazar counseling of September 4, 1979, the warning of Septem- was the recipient of a "counseling report""' for having ber 24, 1979, and the warning of October 1, 1979. While left her work station without permission and having in- she disputed the conclusion drawn by the Company re- terfered with the work of others on September 4, 1979. garding the September 4 incident, she ultimately ad- Then, on September 24, 1979, she received a written mitted, "There was an incident discussed." And, regard- warning for having left her work station and interfered ing the September 24 warning she finally admitted "Yes, with other employees' work by stopping to talk with em- I did [have a conversation with Frausto and Martinez], ployees instead of returning promptly from a permissible "and she went on, "There was an incident." And, with break. And, finally, on October 1, 1979, Salazar received respect to the October 1 matter, she eventually conced- a second "warning notice," for having punched another ed, "Some of the incidents were discussed." In fact, re- employee's timecard, in violation of company policy; of garding still another incident which occurred on Febru- particular interest in the context of this case is the lan- ary 9, 1980, she stated, "Manuel did mention something guage on the face of the "warning notice" to the effect about being more careful." And, if more is needed to es- that Salazar was given explicit warning of the jeopardy tablish that she did have notice of the Company's warn- she faced; i.e., that a third warning would require her ings to her (and, therefore, of its disciplinary policy's ex- discharge. ~~~~~~~~~~~istence), it seems that had she in fact been ignorant of the The General Counsel's attacks upon the validity of nc t g sh o e ldave thesedocumentsarenotpersuasive. of thwprotested t h e e v id en t ina c c u r ac y o f Hartline's state m en t The suspicions raised by the timing of the warnings ol ohri h emnto neveta h a he September 24 and October 1, 1979, are diluted by the w n h er fl Sh e did nt.rIea, she but thre fact that Salazar's next warning was not issued for over 6 w arnin g s ln h e r nil e. S h e dh cl n o t. I n s te ad , sh e b u t unper- fact that Salazafter's thext iua inge ws nt ise d foring.rIt suasively stated that she failed in this respect because she months after the issuance of the second warning. It wsust seems illogical to infer on the basis of such timing that p ,, „ the Company made hasty efforts to grease the skids be- Contrary to my findings regarding Salazar's testimony, neath Salazar's employment and yet, without apparent I f o u nd t h a t F raus t o an d Martinez, the Company's key reason, failed to play its trump card, a third warning, witnesses regarding Salazar's discharge, were quite credi- until the passage of over 6 months. For this theory flies b l e. Whi le eac h w as sh o w n t o h a v e e rre d i n h i s testimo- in the teeth of the contention that the Company har- ny in m ino r ways, this failed to detract from the overall bored animus toward her activities throughout October favorable impressions they made. That is not to say that and November, 2 crucial months of the election cam- Martinez did not show unmistakable signs of being a paign, but failed to find a pretext to be rid of her influ- h a rs h an d Judgmental supervisor. But I am unable to ence. conclude that he was untruthful based on my assessment Nor do I believe that warrant exists for a conclusion of his demeanor and testimony. To the contrary, even if that the warnings issued to Salazar are so lacking in harsh, Martinez was shown to be a man determined to good cause, or are so tainted by evidence of disparate do what he thought to be right. application, as to bespeak discriminatory motivation A n d, finally, the counsel for the General Counsel's hidden by pretext. For it is clear that "[t]he Act . . rec- own evidence tended to disprove the critical element of ognizes the employer's right to terminate employment disparate treatment. For Hector Gonzales testified that for normal reasons." N.L.R.B. v. Waterman Steamship he, like Salazar, received warnings, without notice, for Corporation, 309 U.S. 206, 218-219 (1940). As we are fre- leaving his post and interfering with the work of other quently reminded, employers may discharge employees employees. for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. And For all the reasons mentioned above I find and con- "Board law does not permit a trier of fact to substitute elude that the General Counsel has not proven a prima his own subjective impression of what he would have facie case based on substantial and credible evidence. I done were he in [the employer's] position." Grand Auto, shall, accordingly, dismiss this allegation of the com- Inc., d/b/a Super Tire Stores, 236 NLRB 877 (1978). plaint. Even "[w]hile the discipline may seem extreme, it does not follow that the ascribed reason for the discharges is G. The Objection pretextual." J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 233 NLRB By .i. a e aid in p 946, 952 (1977). In short, unless unlawful motivation is B y s o l o c y t e n g a n sipgninu io d at preventing other shown, the Board cannot substitute its judgment for that pley fro m signing union authorization cards, by im- of an employer as to the grounds for punishment, or the p h ed l y promis"^ b en efits to employees, by interrogating type of punishment, unless the punishment administered em p lo y ees concerning their union sympathies, activities, and leanings, by creating the impression that employees' ** "Counseling reports" were placed in an employee's file, but did not u n ion activities were being kept under surveillance, and serve to trigger a penalty, unlike "warning reports," which caused auto- by threatening employees With physical harm, all of matic discharge upon the accumulation of three in a 12-month period,.which Occurred within the critical period, the Company 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 0 monstrably unreliable, for it became clear during her is so harsh as to itself bespeak a discriminatory motiva- cross-examination in the General Counsel's case on re- tion. As stated above, I do not believe that to be the case buttal that she must have had at least rudimentary under- here. standing of the very existence of the Company's disci- For Salazar was ultimately compelled to concede in plinary system, for she admittedly had been its subject her testimony that she did, contrary to her earlier repeat- more than once, her previous denials notwithstanding. ed and vehement denials, receive notice regarding the The Company's evidence was to the effect that Salazar counseling of September 4, 1979, the warning of Septem- was the recipient of a "counseling report""' for having ber 24, 1979, and the warning of October 1, 1979. While left her work station without permission and having in- she disputed the conclusion drawn by the Company re- terfered with the work of others on September 4, 1979. garding the September 4 incident, she ultimately ad- Then, on September 24, 1979, she received a written mitted, "There was an incident discussed." And, regard- warning for having left her work station and interfered ing the September 24 warning she finally admitted "Yes, with other employees' work by stopping to talk with em- I did [have a conversation with Frausto and Martinez], ployees instead of returning promptly from a permissible "and she went on, "There was an incident." And, with break. And, finally, on October 1, 1979, Salazar received respect to the October 1 matter, she eventually conced- a second "warning notice," for having punched another ed, "Some of the incidents were discussed." In fact, re- employee's timecard, in violation of company policy; of garding still another incident which occurred on Febru- particular interest in the context of this case is the lan- ary 9, 1980, she stated, "Manuel did mention something guage on the face of the "warning notice" to the effect about being more careful." And, if more is needed to es- that Salazar was given explicit warning of the jeopardy tablish that she did have notice of the Company's warn- she faced; i.e., that a third warning would require her ings to her (and, therefore, of its disciplinary policy's ex- discharge. ~~~~~~~~~~~istence), it seems that had she in fact been ignorant of the The General Counsel's attacks upon the validity of nc t g sh o e ldave thesedocumentsarenotpersuasive. of thwprotested t h e e v id en t ina c c u r ac y o f Hartline's state m en t The suspicions raised by the timing of the warnings ol ohri h emnto neveta h a he September 24 and October 1, 1979, are diluted by the w n h er fl Sh e did nt.rIea, she but thre fact that Salazar's next warning was not issued for over 6 w arnin g s ln h e r nil e. S h e dh cl n o t. I n s te ad , sh e b u t unper- fact that Salazafter's thext iua inge ws nt ise d foring.rIt suasively stated that she failed in this respect because she months after the issuance of the second warning. It wsust seems illogical to infer on the basis of such timing that p ,, „ the Company made hasty efforts to grease the skids be- Contrary to my findings regarding Salazar's testimony, neath Salazar's employment and yet, without apparent I f o u nd t h a t F raus t o an d Martinez, the Company's key reason, failed to play its trump card, a third warning, witnesses regarding Salazar's discharge, were quite credi- until the passage of over 6 months. For this theory flies b l e. Whi le eac h w as sh o w n t o h a v e e rre d i n h i s testimo- in the teeth of the contention that the Company har- ny in m ino r ways, this failed to detract from the overall bored animus toward her activities throughout October favorable impressions they made. That is not to say that and November, 2 crucial months of the election cam- Martinez did not show unmistakable signs of being a paign, but failed to find a pretext to be rid of her influ- h a rs h an d Judgmental supervisor. But I am unable to ence. conclude that he was untruthful based on my assessment Nor do I believe that warrant exists for a conclusion of his demeanor and testimony. To the contrary, even if that the warnings issued to Salazar are so lacking in harsh, Martinez was shown to be a man determined to good cause, or are so tainted by evidence of disparate do what he thought to be right. application, as to bespeak discriminatory motivation A n d, finally, the counsel for the General Counsel's hidden by pretext. For it is clear that "[t]he Act . . rec- own evidence tended to disprove the critical element of ognizes the employer's right to terminate employment disparate treatment. For Hector Gonzales testified that for normal reasons." N.L.R.B. v. Waterman Steamship he, like Salazar, received warnings, without notice, for Corporation, 309 U.S. 206, 218-219 (1940). As we are fre- leaving his post and interfering with the work of other quently reminded, employers may discharge employees employees. for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. And For all the reasons mentioned above I find and con- "Board law does not permit a trier of fact to substitute elude that the General Counsel has not proven a prima his own subjective impression of what he would have facie case based on substantial and credible evidence. I done were he in [the employer's] position." Grand Auto, shall, accordingly, dismiss this allegation of the com- Inc., d/b/a Super Tire Stores, 236 NLRB 877 (1978). plaint. Even "[w]hile the discipline may seem extreme, it does not follow that the ascribed reason for the discharges is G. The Objection pretextual." J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 233 NLRB By .i. a e aid in p 946, 952 (1977). In short, unless unlawful motivation is B y s o l o c y t e n g a n sipgninu io d at preventing other shown, the Board cannot substitute its judgment for that pley fro m signing union authorization cards, by im- of an employer as to the grounds for punishment, or the p h ed l y promis"^ b en efits to employees, by interrogating type of punishment, unless the punishment administered em p lo y ees concerning their union sympathies, activities, and leanings, by creating the impression that employees' ** "Counseling reports" were placed in an employee's file, but did not u n ion activities were being kept under surveillance, and serve to trigger a penalty, unlike "warning reports," which caused auto- by threatening employees With physical harm, all of matic discharge upon the accumulation of three in a 12-month period,.which Occurred within the critical period, the Company WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 701 engaged in conduct sufficient to warrant overturning the ORDER 20 election and requiring that it be rerun. In this regard I Respondent, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., City of In- specifically reject the Company's argument that what- specifically reject the Companys argumentdustry, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as- ever conduct was objectionable here was isolated and/or ds, al de minimis. Compare Robert King d/b/a Regency at the 1 as an sis frm Rodeway Inn, 255 NLRB 961 (1981), and Caron Interna- 1. Cease and desist from: tional, Inc., 246 NLRB 1120 (1979), and cases cited (a) Soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other th erein employees from signing union authorization cards. (b) Impliedly promising benefits to employees in order IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES to induce them not to support a union. UPON COMMERCE (c) Interrogating employees concerning their own or others' union activities, leanings, or sympathies. The activities of the company, set forth in section III, (d) Creating the impression that employees' union ac- above, occurring in connection with the operation of the tivities are being kept under surveillance. Company described in section I, above, have a close, in- (e) Threatening employees with physical harm for en- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and gaging in union activities. commerce among the several States and tend to lead to (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights the free flow of commence. under the Act. v~.~ THE REMEDY 22. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post at the City of Industry, California, plant of Having found that the Company has engaged in cer- Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., copies of the notice attached tain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be or- and marked "Appendix." 2t Copies of said notice, on dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted the Act. by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in CONCLUSIONS OF LAW conspicuous places, including all places where notices to . The Co y is an e r e d in c e its employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- A2. The Union is a la organizatin wital. The notices shall be posted in both English and Span- 3ThCoping of Section 2(5) of the icAct. by ish, as translated by the Regional Director for Region 21, 3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by or his agents. soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other em- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in ployees from signing union authorization cards, by im- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what pliedly promising benefits to employees, by interrogating steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. employees concerning union sympathies, activities, or IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election of No- leanings, by creating the impression that employees' vember 30, 1979, be set aside and a new election direct- union activities were being kept under surveillance, and ed by threatening employees with physical harm. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce , In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the 5. Except as is set forth above, the General Counsel findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided has not established by a preponderance of the credible in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and evidence that the Company has violated the Act. become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto evidence that the Company has violated the Act. shall be deeed waived for all purposes shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of *1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by (c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- \0c) Inc.,1 246e 1120 (1979), an c s ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an mended: Order of the National Labor Relations Board." WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 701 engaged in conduct sufficient to warrant overturning the ORDER 20 election and requiring that it be rerun. In this regard I T Respondent, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., City of In- specifically reject the Company's argument that what- dustry, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as- ever conduct was objectionable here was isolated and/or s hall: de minimis. Compare Robert King d/b/a Regency at the 1. Cease and desist from: Rodeway Inn, 255 NLRB 961 (1981), and Caron Interna- l ~ s a. t e sT r -. , tiondlw Incn 246 NLRB 1120 (1979), and cases citedr (a) Soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other ti , . 2 1employees from signing union authorization cards. (b) Impliedly promising benefits to employees in order WV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES t o i n d u c e t h e m n o t t o Support a Union. UPON COMMERCE (c ) Interrogating employees concerning their own or others' union activities, leanings, or sympathies. The activities of the company, set forth in section III, (d) Creating the impression that employees' union ac- above, occurring in connection with the operation of the tivities are being kept under surveillance. Company described in section I, above, have a close, in- (e) Threatening employees with physical harm for en- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and gaging in union activities. commerce among the several States and tend to lead to (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights the free flow of commence. under the Act. V. THE REMEDY 2. T a k e t h e following affirmative action: (a) Post at the City of Industry, California, plant of Having found that the Company has engaged in cer- Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., copies of the notice attached tain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be or- and marked "Appendix." 2 1 Copies of said notice, on dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted the Act. by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in CONCLUSIONS OF LAW conspicuous places, including all places where notices to 1. The Company is an employer engaged in*commerce its employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce ,„ r - . - * u..1 * within the meaning of Section 26) and (7) of. the Act. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. dfcdorovedbanotrmtri 2. Te Uion s alabo oraniztio witin he man- are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- al. The notices shall be posted in both English and Span- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. „,,,., ish, as translated by the Regional Director for Region 21, 3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by or his agents. soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other em- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in ployees from signing union authorization cards, by im- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what pliedly promising benefits to employees, by interrogating steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. employees concerning union sympathies, activities, or IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election of No- leanings, by creating the impression that employees' vember 30, 1979, be set aside and a new election direct- union activities were being kept under surveillance, and ed. by threatening employees with physical harm. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce - - . , . ,i .m .4.. The aforesaidunfar labor practices affect commerce In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of Within the meaning Of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the 5. Except as is set forth above, the General Counsel findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided has not established by a preponderance of the credible i n Se c. 102 .4 i o f t h e Rules a n d Regulations, be adopted by the Board and evidence that the Company has violated the Act. -become its findings, cnclusions and Order, and all objections thereto evidence tht the Compay has violaed the Act.shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Upon the foregoing findings Of fact, conclusions of "1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United law, and Upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by \0(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- O r der o f t h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an mended: Order of the National Labor Relations Board." WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 701 engaged in conduct sufficient to warrant overturning the ORDER 20 election and requiring that it be rerun. In this regard I T Respondent, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., City of In- specifically reject the Company's argument that what- dustry, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as- ever conduct was objectionable here was isolated and/or s hall: de minimis. Compare Robert King d/b/a Regency at the 1. Cease and desist from: Rodeway Inn, 255 NLRB 961 (1981), and Caron Interna- l ~ s a. t e sT r -. , tiondlw Incn 246 NLRB 1120 (1979), and cases citedr (a) Soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other ti , . 2 1employees from signing union authorization cards. (b) Impliedly promising benefits to employees in order IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES t o i n d u c e t h e m n o t t o Support a Union. UPON COMMERCE (c ) Interrogating employees concerning their own or others' union activities, leanings, or sympathies. The activities of the company, set forth in section III, (d) Creating the impression that employees' union ac- above, occurring in connection with the operation of the tivities are being kept under surveillance. Company described in section I, above, have a close, in- (e) Threatening employees with physical harm for en- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and gaging in union activities. commerce among the several States and tend to lead to (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights the free flow of commence. under the Act. V. THE REMEDY 2. T a k e t h e following affirmative action: (a) Post at the City of Industry, California, plant of Having found that the Company has engaged in cer- Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., copies of the notice attached tain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be or- and marked "Appendix." 2 1 Copies of said notice, on dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted the Act. by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in CONCLUSIONS OF LAW conspicuous places, including all places where notices to 1. The Company is an employer engaged in*commerce its employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce ,„ r - . - * u..1 * within the meaning of Section 26) and (7) of. the Act. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. dfcdorovedbanotrmtri 2. Te Uion s alabo oraniztio witin he man- are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- al. The notices shall be posted in both English and Span- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. „,,,., ish, as translated by the Regional Director for Region 21, 3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by or his agents. soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other em- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in ployees from signing union authorization cards, by im- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what pliedly promising benefits to employees, by interrogating steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. employees concerning union sympathies, activities, or IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election of No- leanings, by creating the impression that employees' vember 30, 1979, be set aside and a new election direct- union activities were being kept under surveillance, and ed. by threatening employees with physical harm. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce - - . , . ,i .m .4.. The aforesaidunfar labor practices affect commerce In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of Within the meaning Of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the 5. Except as is set forth above, the General Counsel findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided has not established by a preponderance of the credible i n Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and evidence that the Company has violated the Act. -become its findings, cnclusions and Order, and all objections thereto evidence tht the Compay has violaed the Act.shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Upon the foregoing findings Of fact, conclusions of "1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United law, and Upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by \0(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- O r de r o f t he N a t i o na l L a b o r Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an mended: Order of the National Labor Relations Board." WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 701 engaged in conduct sufficient to warrant overturning the ORDER 20 election and requiring that it be rerun. In this regard I T Respondent, Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., City of In- specifically reject the Company's argument that what- dustry, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as- ever conduct was objectionable here was isolated and/or s hall: de minimis. Compare Robert King d/b/a Regency at the 1. Cease and desist from: Rodeway Inn, 255 NLRB 961 (1981), and Caron Interna- l * a e a a t e l T r m . , tiondlw Incn 246 NLRB 1120 (1979), and cases citedr (a) Soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other ti , . 2 1employees from signing union authorization cards. (b) Impliedly promising benefits to employees in order IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES t o i n d u c e t h e m n o t t o Support a Union. UPON COMMERCE (c ) Interrogating employees concerning their own or others' union activities, leanings, or sympathies. The activities of the company, set forth in section III, (d) Creating the impression that employees' union ac- above, occurring in connection with the operation of the tivities are being kept under surveillance. Company described in section I, above, have a close, in- (e) Threatening employees with physical harm for en- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and gaging in union activities. commerce among the several States and tend to lead to (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights the free flow of commence. under the Act. V. THE REMEDY 2. T a k e t h e following affirmative action: (a) Post at the City of Industry, California, plant of Having found that the Company has engaged in cer- Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., copies of the notice attached tain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be or- and marked "Appendix." 2' Copies of said notice, on dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted the Act. by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in CONCLUSIONS OF LAW conspicuous places, including all places where notices to 1. The Company is an employer engaged in*commerce its employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce ,„ r - . - * u..1 * within the meaning of Section 26) and (7) of. the Act. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. dfcdorovedbanotrmtri 2. Te Uion s alabo oraniztio witin he man- are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- al. The notices shall be posted in both English and Span- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. „,,,., ish, as translated by the Regional Director for Region 21, 3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by or his agents. soliciting the aid of employees in preventing other em- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in ployees from signing union authorization cards, by im- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what pliedly promising benefits to employees, by interrogating steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. employees concerning union sympathies, activities, or IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election of No- leanings, by creating the impression that employees' vember 30, 1979, be set aside and a new election direct- union activities were being kept under surveillance, and ed. by threatening employees with physical harm. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce - - . , . ,i .m .4.. The aforesaidunfar labor practices affect commerce In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of Within the meaning Of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the 5. Except as is set forth above, the General Counsel findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided has not established by a preponderance of the credible i n Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and evidence that the Company has violated the Act. -become its findings, cnclusions and Order, and all objections thereto evidence tht the Compay has violaed the Act.shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Upon the foregoing findings Of fact, conclusions of "1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United law, and Upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by \0(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- O r d e r o f t h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an mended: Order of the National Labor Relations Board."