Propellex Corp.

PROPELLEX CORPORATION Propellex Corporation, a subsidiary of Essex Cryo- genics Industries, Inc. and District No. 9, Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 14-CA-13672 and 14-RC-9114 January 27, 1981 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On August 26, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Propellex Cor- poration, a subsidiary of Essex Cryogenics Indus- tries, Inc., Edwardsville, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held in Case 14-RC-9114 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 14 to conduct a new election when he deems the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representa- tive. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. 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 adopting the Administrative Law Judge's findings. Member Jenkins disavows his reliance on Caron International Inc., 246 NLRB 1120 (1979), and Thermo King Corporation, 247 NLRB No. 48 (1980). See Member Jenkins' separate opinions in these Decisions 254 NLRB No. 37 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- nity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through represen- tatives of their own choice To engage in activities together for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from the exercise of any or all such activities. Accordingly, we give you these assurances: WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of wages or overtime compensations, with the loss of insurance, seniority, or vacation bene- fits, or with the imposition of more onerous working conditions in the event that you select a union as your collective-bargaining agent. WE WILL NOT discourage you from mem- bership in or activities on behalf of District No. 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by threatening to dis- charge you or threatening to otherwise dis- criminate against you in any manner in regard to your rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of your employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. PROPELLEX CORPORATION, A SUBSID- IARY OF ESSEX CRYOGENICS INDUS- TRIES, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS R. WI.KS, Administrative Law Judge: The hearing in this consolidated proceeding was held on May 19 and 20, 1980, at St. Louis, Missouri, based upon unfair labor practice charges filed against Propellex Corpora- 839 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, a subsidiary of Essex Cryogenics Industries, Inc., herein called Respondent, by District No. 9, Internation- al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and a complaint issued by the Acting Regional Director for Region 14 on April 29, 1980, and the Regional Director's Report on Objections and Recommendations and Order Directing Hearing and Order Consolidating Cases and Notice of Hearing issued by the Regional Director for Region 14 on May 1, 1980. (All dates herein are 1980 unless other- wise noted.) The complaint alleges that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by a certain conduct of its production manager, James R. Grayson, and by its al- leged supervisors and agents, leadpersons Loretta Lewis, Susan Wildgrube, and Avria Anderson. Respondent filed an answer which denied the commission of unfair labor practices and further denied the supervisory status and/ or agency status of the aforenamed leadpersons. Pursuant to a petition for an election filed on February 28, 1980, and a Stipulation for Certification Upon Con- sent Election approved by the Regional Director on March 18, an election by secret ballot was conducted in Case 14-RC-9114 on April 3 and 4, under the supervi- sion and direction of the Regional Director for Region 14 in the unit consisting of: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the employer's Springfield Road, Ed- wardsville, Illinois, facility, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. The tally of ballots is as follows: approximate number of eligible voters, 116; void ballots, 1; votes cast for Peti- tioner, 44; votes cast aqainst participating labor organiza- tion, 60; valid votes counted, 104; challenged ballots, 0. The challenges were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election and a majority of the valid votes counted plus challenged ballots had not been cast for the Union. On April 9 the Union timely filed objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. On May 1, the Regional Director issued his Report on Objections and Recommendations in which he recom- mended that the Petitioner's Objections 2 and 3 be over- ruled and concluded that Objection I and "other acts and conduct" raised substantial and material questions of fact which were identical or closely related to that con- duct alleged in the unfair labor practice proceeding and therefore should be best resolved after a hearing before an administrative law judge. Accordingly he recom- mended that the remaining objections be consolidated with the unfair labor practice proceeding. On May 20, there being no exceptions to the Regional Director's report, the Board issued an order overruling the Union's Objections 2 and 3. On July 1, briefs were submitted by Respondent and the General Counsel. Upon the entire record in this case including my ob- servation of the witnesses, their demeanor, and an evalu- ation of the inherent probability of their testimony, and after consideration of briefs I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is and has been at all times material a cor- poration duly authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Illinois and has maintained an office and place of business in Edwardsville, Illinois, herein referred to as the plant, where it has been engaged in the manu- facture, nonretail sale, and distribution of ammunition and related products. During the 12-month period ending March 31, 1980, which period is representative of its op- erations during all material times, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations manufac- tured, sold, and distributed at its Edwardsville, Illinois, plant products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from said plant directly to points located outside the State of Illinois. It is admitted and I find that Respondent is now and has been at all material times an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted and I find that the Union is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent is engaged in the production of ammuni- tion and explosives at a multibuilding manufacturing complex at a rural location near Edwardsville, Illinois. Production work, which essentially consists of the assem- bly of cartridges and shells, is confined to six buildings each of which houses a varying number of workers. Most buildings accommodate between 5 to 15 employees although some buildings have had assigned to them as many as 40 employees. The chief operating officer is Vice President Edward Williams. Directly subordinate to him is Production Manager James Grayson. Subordinate to Grayson is As- sistant Production Manager Melba Spiller who is in charge of approximately 70 to 80 female production workers. Also subordinate to Grayson are approximately 6 other supervisors who are responsible for employees in their respective departments which encompass 5 mainte- nance employees, 3 to 12 packing employees, 6 to 7 in- spectors, I warehouseman, 5 to 15 machine shop work- ers, and 5 to 15 engineering and special production em- ployees. Production work is maintained on three shifts. The workweek consists of four 10-hour days which com- mence at 7 a.m. and end at 5:30 p.m. The production workers receive a one-half hour lunch break and a 15- minute break in the morning and in the afternoon. They are paid until 5:30 p.m. but they are permitted paid time within which to clean up at the end of the shift. Over- time compensation is received for all work in excess of 8 hours for each workday. Seventy-five percent of the pro- duction employees are paid at the minimum wage rate of 840 PROPELLEX CORPORATION $3.10 per hour, and they receive employer funded hospi- talization and health insurance, paid holidays, and vaca- tion pay. The only seniority benefits enjoyed by the em- ployees is that in the event of layoffs Respondent seeks to retain the more senior workers. Vacations are assigned on a first-come first-served basis. From 1967 through 1972, Respondent's employees were represented by another labor organization. Since 1972 they have been unrepresented by any union. In 1977 the Union failed to obtain certification in a Board conducted election. In 1979 the Union made an aborted organizational effort. B. Supervisory and Agency Status of Leadpersons Melba Spiller is responsible for the 70 to 80 female production workers located in 6 different buildings. Her supervisory authority is admitted. Hiring, firing, punish- ing, and rewarding the employees is effectuated by her. She assigns work to production workers by composing weekly work assignment sheets which in part specifically assign an employee by name to a specific job task or which assign a named employee to a specific building where each job function though not exactly identical is virtually interchangeable. Each employee can perform each job in those particularly buildings to which Spiller has not made a specific assignment. Spiller makes at least two daily visits to each building. She testified that she attempts to spread her time evenly at each building but conceded "this is a problem." On her first round she spends one-half hour in each building. The amount of time she spends on the next round de- pends upon the existence of problems. If no problems arise she spends one-half hour in each building. She also spends time in the office preparing production schedules or tending to matters relating to production. Spiller issues disciplinary warning slips or so-called yellow slips directly to employees for work deficiencies or misbehav- ior as well as for safety rule violations. These forms have a signature space entitled "foreman." Grayson testified that Respondent has a policy of progressive discipline with respect to nonsafety violations and specifically with respect to absenteeism but that with respect to safety violations no policy exists because no employee has com- mitted the same breach more than once. Essentially the only breaches of safety rules that occur concern the fail- ure of employees to wear safety glasses. Historically one warning for failure to wear safety glasses has proven to be sufficient. The quality control manager, Dweight Arne, Grayson, and Williams, decide upon specific work procedures for each job. These are reduced to written form and are posted. Each employee is expected to follow those procedures. Admittedly Spiller relies upon the leadpersons (re- ferred to in the record and hereafter as leadladies). At the time of the election in this case there were four such persons: Loretta Lewis, Susan Wildgrube, Thelma Shermer, and Avria Anderson. Spiller explained the need for leadladies as follows: Well because I can only be one place at one time. We've got all the buildings operating, we need someone there to help maintain the jobs. It is clear that the leadladies serve as the eyes and ears of Spiller, Grayson, and Williams. Spiller assigns a lead- lady to a specific building. She reads the assignment sheet to each leadlady who in turn relates the assignment to each employee. The leadladies, with the exception of Shermer, spend most of their time in nonproduction work. Although it is not entirely clear what percentage of time they do spend in actual production work, the record indicates that is occurs when production falls behind or when it is necessary for them to fill in for an absent employee. The leadlady takes it upon herself to do such work when she deems it necessary. The balance of the leadlady's time, which would appear to be the preponderance of her time, is spent monitoring the work of the production worker, training new employees, or training employees in job functions to which they are un- familiar. The leadladies are charged with the responsibility of knowing the job procedures. They are also expected to convey those procedures to employees and they are called upon by Grayson to explain why the quantity of production is not meeting designated and announced time targets although, as Grayson testified, they are not held personally responsible for poor production. The leadladies check the work of the employees to ascertain whether they are properly following the job procedures. If in their judgment the employees are not properly ex- ecuting their job function or are working at too slow a pace in order to maintain the flow of work, it is their duty to advise the employee that her work is unsatisfac- tory and further advise her how she should properly per- form. If the employee does not follow her instruction, the leadlady will report her intransigence to Spiller or Grayson. The leadlady utilizes her own discretion as to whether the employee should be reported. Because of the hesitancy of some leadladies to become involved in personal confrontations, the leadlady is not obliged to demand that the employee take corrective action but she may in her discretion report to Grayson. Grayson testi- fied that when such deficiencies are reported to him he proceeds to communicate directly with the employee whom he orders to follow the instruction of the lead- lady. Leadladies are expected to report to Spiller and/or Grayson production problems arising from the flow of work as well as from work deficiencies. Spiller, Grayson, and Williams discuss production problems and agree upon new procedures. In doing so they engage in meet- ings where the recommendation and advice of leadladies is entertained. The leadladies are advised of new proce- dures and are held responsible to convey them to the employees. In fact they do so by telling the employees that the "office" requires certain things done and they proceed to instruct the employees on how to do them. They also deliver paperwork from the office to the em- ployees, i.e., insurance forms, approved vacation re- quests, etc. They also convey messages of managerial dissatisfaction with work productivity. Reports of a breach of discipline or personal antago- nisms are investigated independently and directly by Grayson and Spiller. Both the employee and the lead- 841 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lady are interviewed. There is no evidence that the lead- lady's version is automatically accepted without investi- gation or that the leadlady effectively recommends disci- pline. Personal confrontations that may arise between employees and leadladies are resolved by the transfer of the employee to another building. Respondent employs inspectors who check the quality of the employee's work. If the inspectors find deficien- cies, they report their findings to the leadladies who are obliged to first tell the employees to correct their work performance and thereafter if necessary to report the em- ployee's noncompliance to Grayson or Spiller as in the manner described above. Although leadladies do not make formal evaluations of employees, according to Wildgrube's testimony, they report to Spiller their opin- ion that a particular employee is doing a good job. There is no evidence that Respondent has acted upon such an evaluation without making any independent investigation.Leadladies are authorized to issue "yellow slips" for safety rule infractions but they have done so on a very sporadic basis. With respect to the assignment and the direction of work, the leadladies do not appear to exercise indepen- dent judgment. The work is generally simple, routine, and repetitive. According to Grayson the leadlady may send an employee to another building on the occasion when work in her buildinq is down and work is available in the other building. The ability of the leadladies to re- solve employees' complaints is limited to the resolution of minor problems between coworkers, e.g., arguments over the use of particular tools. They may take correc- tive action with respect to obvious mechanical problems such as incorrectly adjusted thermostats or leaky faucets but they cannot resolve grievances concerning matters of substance when a policy decision must be made, e.g., a denied pay raise or a denial of a leave of absence request. They are not authorized to grant substantial time off nor are they involved in the enforcement of Respondent's at- tendance rules. Their participation in the formulation of vacation schedules is limited to the solicitation of infor- mation by Grayson or Spiller as to the state of the work flow. They do not participate in decisions as to hiring, demotions, suspensions, layoffs, leaves of absence, perma- nent job transfers, bonuses, or raises. The leadladies receive 10 to 15 cents more per hour than other production workers, but they enjoy no other extra fringe benfits. They do not wear special uniforms or badges. They share the same facilities in the plant with other employees. Several employees who testified on behalf of the General Counsel when asked to name their immediate supervisor responded "Melba Spiller." Although the leadladies cast challenged (nondetermin- ative) ballots in the 1977 election, they were not chal- lenged in the instant election involving virtually the same unit description. However, the Union's employee observ- er who failed to challenge them was called upon as a last-minute substitute and received no instructions from the Union. Because the leadladies names appeared on the list of voters prepared by Grayson, the observer did not challenge them. However, several admitted supervisors names including that of Spiller were also on the same list. Grayson testified that in 1979 he had obtained a Board publication entitled "A Guide to Basic Law and Proce- dures Under the National Labor Relations Act," from the Board's Regional Office. He testified further that during the 1980 campaign he had heard rumors that the Union was advising employees that they would receive wage increases if they selected the Union as bargaining agent and that such raises were inevitable. He and Wil- liams discussed those rumors and deliberated as to how they could be rebutted. At the time Grayson was pon- dering the means of rebuttal, leadlady Loretta Lewis en- gaged in a conversation with Grayson wherein she ad- vised that employees had asked questions concerning purported union-electioneering promises. He testified that at that time he had on his desk the aforesaid Board pamphlet which he pointed to and that he told her "there it is, that's the law." According to Grayson he re- ferred her to page 26 of the pamphlet and to certain un- derlinings he had made referring to collective bargaining. He testified that he then told her to take the pamphlet and let the employees read it. Thereafter Lewis took the booklet and engaged in certain conversations with em- ployees. She gave the booklet to leadladies Wildgrube and Anderson who also engaged in certain conversations with employees wherein they also showed them the booklet. The issue of supervisory status of the leadladies is not susceptible to an easy resolution. The exercise of and possession of any of the supervisory indicia set forth in the Act is sufficient to establish supervisory status ac- cording to the plain language of the statute. The leadla- dies herein would appear to have some authority with respect to maintaining the quantity and quality of Re- spondent's work. Their power to affect the status of an employee or her working conditions in other respects is negligible or sporadically exercised. However, I cannot conclude that in the exercise of their authorities that the leadladies exercised sufficient independent judgment and discretion as to constitute supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act. However, they clearly served as Williams, Grayson, and Spiller's eyes and ears through- out the complex of six different buildings. Not only were they charged with the duty of reporting to Grayson and Spiller the deficiencies in production and behavior of employees, they also importantly served as the means by which managerial decisions were conveyed to the em- ployees. These decisions, orders, and information were identified by the leadladies to their charges as coming from the "office." Thus, the employees must necessarily have understood that as far as management's policy was concerned the leadladies were authorized to speak for Respondent. In situations of employee intransigence to the instructions of leadladies, Grayson told the employ- ees to follow the instructions of the leadladies. Thus he implicitly told them that she spoke for him. It was no mere fortuity that Grayson seized upon the use of Lewis as the answer to his and Williams' quanda- ry of how to rebut union propaganda. As in the past Lewis, as leadlady, was used as a means of conveying Respondent's position. This time, however, its position related to the election campaigning and not production 842 PROPELLEX CORPORATION policy. In view of Respondent's past utilization of leadla- dies as authorized channels of information, it is reason- able that employees would conclude that the leadladies acted with as much authority with respect to the union campaign. Indeed, as will be detailed hereafter, Lewis made clear to the employees whom she approached with the booklet that she had obtained it from "the office." (According to Lewis' testimony the "office" was under- stood to mean Grayson, Spiller, or Williams). Clearly there was no basis for the employees to conclude that Lewis, or any other leadlady who engaged in antiunion campaign activity was acting independently and without authority. It is my conclusion that during the election campaign, as before, the leadladies by virtue of their historic role as the conduit for Respondent's information and orders were clothed by Respondent with the apparent authority of its agents, were put in a position by Respondent to be understood by employees to be agents of Respondent, and therefore their actions should be imputed to Respon- dent. Samuel Liefer and Harry Ostreicher, a Copartnership d/b/a River Manor Health Related Facility, 224 NLRB 227, 230-231 (1976); Clevenger Logging Inc., 220 NLRB 768, 778 (1975); Hanover Concrete Co., 241 NLRB 936 (1979). I further conclude that the leadladies' authority to speak on behalf of Respondent was so manifest that the failure of the Union to challenge their ballots could not somehow have caused the employees to have considered them as anything less than spokespersons of management; c.f. Welsbach Electric Corporation, 236 NLRB 503, 516, fn. 31 (1979). This conclusion is further enhanced by the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses whom I credit and which will be discussed below as to the manner in which the leadladies engaged in conversations concerning the effects of unionization. In any event, re- gardless of any tentative oral acquiescence by union rep- resentatives at the time of the election agreement, leadla- dies were not explicitly included in the unit description. No written stipulation as to their eligibility was agreed upon, they were challenged in the preceding election, and no representations were made to the employees during the election campaign that they were not supervi- sors, agents, or representatives of management for pur- poses of the employer's labor management policies. C. The Alleged Threats I. Paragraphs 5(A) and 5(E) of the complaint- threats by Loretta Lewis. Norma Pollard, who at the time of the hearing was employed by Respondent, testified as to a conversation with Loretta Lewis on or about March 31. According to Pollard, Lewis, her leadlady, approached her and several other employees as they engaged in production work in building 23 and announced that she had just come from a meeting in the office and that "they" said that if the Union "came in" the employees would be put on a 5- day, 8-hours-per-day workweek, that overtime pay would be lost, that employees would be required to pay the total cost of their insurance coverage, and that their union dues would amount to $7.50 per month with an initiation fee of $50. According to Pollard she protested that the initiation fee and dues would not be that high as represented by Lewis. Pollard testified that on April 2 at 4 p.m. Lewis again approached her and five other coworkers in building 23 and told them that she had just come from a meeting in the office and that she was obliged to circulate a booklet among the employees and that "they" i.e., the office, had told Lewis that if the Union was successful in the elec- tion "they" would lower the employees' wages to 3.10 per hour, and that the employees would lose their paid vacations, employee seniority, and insurance. According to Pollard she protested that wages would not be lower than $3.10, the minimum wage and that Respondent would not lower everyone to that level but Lewis re- sponded "watch and they will." Lewis showed to them the Board pamphlet directing their attention to the un- derlinings on page 26. Pollard protested that nothing on that page suggested Respondent could reduce the wages. She further expressed to Lewis doubt that Respondent would take such action. Pollard's doubts, as she testified, were based upon her reading of the underlined words on page 26 of the booklet which stated in essence the obli- gations of parties to bargain in good faith about certain stated mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the law does not require the making of a concession. She did not read page 19 of the booklet which referred to the unlaw- fulness of threats of loss of job or work benefits. The meeting ended when Lewis said she had to show the booklet to other employees in other buildings. In cross-examination, Pollard testified that 10 to 15 employees met with union agent Knotts shortly before the election and the foregoing alleged statements of Lewis were raised and discussed, that Knotts told them that he did not "think" Respondent could lower all em- ployees to the minimum wage level, that its "Up to the Labor Board," and that the Union would commence ne- gotiating at the present wage level and seek to obtain in- creases in wages. Employee Virginia Phillips testified that in building 22 she was engaged in work duties in the late afternoon with 4 or 5 other employees when Lewis entered and ap- proached an employee and spoke to her at a press which that employee wes operating. Phillips did not hear what was said. Lewis then walked over to Phillips' work sta- tion and talked to her and the employees working along- side of her. According to Phillips, Lewis stated that she had come from the office and then handed Phillips a booklet identified by Lewis as a labor relations book re- questing her to read it and stating "it's the law." Phillips testified that Lewis then stated that "they" said that if the union "came in" the employees would be reduced to the minimum wage, that they would lose their vacations and hospitalization benefits and seniority rights, and that the employees would "go back to square one." One of the employees present, Blanche Thayer, protested: "When did they ever go by seniority!" Lewis left and proceeded to confront other employees in the building, handing each of them the booklet. Phillips had read the underlined words when Lewis gave her the booklet. Phillips was positive that Lewis 843 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD made no reference in her oral remarks to "negotiations." In cross-examination, Phillips admitted that she had heard various rumors throughout the plant as to the dollar amount of a raise the Union would obtain for the employees, and that employees engaged in arguments at lunch over the amount of a raise the Union would be able to obtain. However, she also testified in cross-exami- nation that she heard rumors that had circulated from building to building that Respondent would not give the employees any raises, but rather that it would move the plant away if the Union were elected as bargaining agent. She testified that rumors were also prevalent that anyone affiliated with the Union was going to be dis- charged or laid off from "Eda (Cox) on down." She also heard rumors that the Union observers would be fired. Lewis' testimony with respect to the foregoing inci- dents was uncertain, hesitant, shifting, evasive, and in- consistent. Upon being confronted by counsel for the General Counsel with her pretrial affidavit which was given to a Board agent at the plant in the presence of Respondent's attorney, she modified or recanted much of her testimony. She conceded that Grayson had instruct- ed her to take the pamphlet to the emp'oyees and to show it to them and that she did show it to "quite a few people," and to groups of employees. She admitted that Grayson engaged in a more extensive conversation than merely referring her to the booklet and that he explicitly referred to wages and benefits as subject matters for ne- gotiations. She admitted that she told the employees that she had received the booklet from Grayson in the office and that he told her to show it to them. After much eva- sion, she admitted that she had told the employees that they "would" lose insurance benefits and vacations and the company "would take it all away because it would have to go to the bargaining table if the Union got in." Lewis further admitted that in a discussion with differ- ent groups of employees she had told them "that if the Union got in the plant would go back to a 5-day week and that the employees would lose their overtime." She could not recall the identity of the employees nor the date of this conversation." Lewis was called initially as a witness by the General Counsel but was subsequently examined by Respondent's counsel at which time she testified that when she gave her pretrial affidavit she was nervous and did not read it carefully. She again modified her testimony upon further examination by counsel for Respondent. However, she revealed that her pretrial affidavit was given to the Board agent at the plant office while Respondent's attor- ney sat passively in attendance throughout the interview. She admitted that she had read her affidavit before she signed it and had initialed the changes and corrections. She disclosed that Grayson had identified Respondent's attorney to her prior to the interview and that she was asked whether she wanted the attorney present but that she merely responded that she "didn't care." She con- ceded that the attorney had come to "brief us on what this guy [the Board agent] wanted of us, you know." Given under such circumstances, I do not find persuasive the argument that Lewis' affidavit was the result of an unfair investigative technique. Respondent argues that Pollard and Phillips should be discredited because of a prounion bias. Pollard indeed was scheduled to have been the union observer on the first day of voting but was disqualified by the Board agent because Pollard wore a prounion "tee shirt." In- stead Pollard wore a coat over her T-shirt and was per- mitted to carry a sign to each department to release voters. Clearly Pollard espoused the cause of the Union and Phillips served as the union observer on the second day of voting. However, I cannot conclude that because these employees actively supported the Union their bias was so strong as to render their testimony unreliable. Pollard and Phillips, as all General Counsel employee witnesses were presently employed by Respondent when they testified. They gave testimony which was adverse to the interest of the employer and by so doing they risked the enmity of their employer. They had no direct personal gain in testifying. Moreover, they testified in a convincing, certain, and responsive manner. Pollard was particularly impressive. She responded without hesitancy to a cross-examination which illicited facts that were fa- vorable to Respondent. Respondent adduced the testimony of employee Kathy Gray who testified that she recalled that a few days before the election several employees had directed "some questions" to Lewis, concerning the election campaign. (Apparently those employees recognized Lewis as one who could give them authoritative responses.) In re- sponse to those questions Lewis departed and shortly re- turned carrying a booklet which she gave to these un- identified employees. Gray testified haltingly in general and conclusionary terms. She testified that Lewis did not "threaten" them, that the employees asked more ques- tions and that Lewis said "everything would be negotia- ble." She was asked a series of questions by Respondent's counsel as to whether Lewis said that wages would be reduced, vacations eliminated, etc. To each she respond- ed "no." When asked if Lewis said that these matters would be negotiable she responded "yes." I find Gray's testimony conclusionary, generalized, and cryptic and not an effective contradiction of Pol- lard's and Phillips' more detailed testimony which I fully credit. I discredit all contrary testimony of Lewis. 2. Paragraphs 5(C) and 5(F)-threats by Leadlady Wildgrube Susan Belcher testified that on April 2 at 11:30 a.m. she was engaged in her work duties in building 15 at her work station in one of the open bays. Employee Theresa Jordan and employee Lois Walters were in the next bay. Conversations in a slightly louder tone of voice could be carried on between adjoining bays. Belcher at that time asked Jordan and Walters if they would like to have a 5- day workweek instead of a 4-day workweek. (Belcher admitted that she preferred a 5-day week.) However at this juncture in the conversation Wildgrube joined in the conversation stating that the employees would not re- ceive a $5 or $6 raise if the Union "got in" but rather that they would lose their insurance and that they would return to a 5-day week. Belcher protested to Wildgrube 844 PROPELLEX CORPORATION that no one was talking about the Union at that point in the conversation. Susan Belcher testified that at the same at day 5 p.m. she was sitting in her bay filling out production slips with employee Kathy Woods nearby when Wildgrube passed Belcher and instructed Belcher not to enter any fiqures on her production slip. Moments later Wildgrube returned and asked Belcher what she had just said. Belcher denied saying anything and responded that em- ployee Colley, who had now joined her, was the person who had spoken. According to Belcher, Colley then vol- untarily disclosed that indeed she was the one who had been talking. Wildgrube then told Belcher that she was not to be quitting at 5 p.m. Belcher responded that she had run out of parts and, according to Belcher, Wild- grube shouted: "Well lady when your union gets in you'll have to work until 5:25 p.m." Belcher protested that she did not have to tolerate Wildgrube's "scream- ing" and that if she did not "get off [her] back," that Belcher would "go to Jim Grayson." Wildgrube re- sponded that Belcher would have to "take it" as long as she worked for her. Wildgrube was called as a witness by the General Counsel. She testified that "shortly" before the election she had a conversation with Susan Belcher, Theresa Gordon, and Lois Walters. She testified that there were also other employees involved. (Her pretrial affidavit only named the foregoing three employees.) She insisted that it is a small building and then speculated that other employees could have heard it. She denied that she made any inquiries as to whether anyone overheard her con- versation. (Later in her testimony she admitted making such inquiries.) She did not recall the date of the conver- sation with Belcher, Gordon, and Walters. 1 She testified that she told those employees that "if the Union got in that insurance and wages would have to be negotiated up to where the employees were now." She testified that she told them that "if the Union got in, they couldn't give them a guarantee of $7 an hour which some people were expecting," and that "now the company pays our insurance and our dependents, and everything would have to be bargained in order to keep that. She testified that she had a conversation with Sue Belcher wherein she told her to stop working at 5 p.m. Wildgrube recalled that Kathy wood was present and that she "vaguely recalls," "something like" telling Belcher that once the Union got in she would have to work until 5:25 p.m. She characterized it as a "slip of the tongue." (In her pretrial affidavit she stated that she had no recollection of that statement). Wildgrube further tes- tified that when asked whether Respondent would return to a 5-day workweek that she answered "most prob- ably." In cross-examination, Wildgrube testified that she viewed it as her responsibility to see to it that employees "give a full days work." She explained that she was angry with Belcher because she feared that if Grayson, Spiller, or Williams, observed employees signing out pro- ' Respondent's records indicate that Belcher and Woods were not at work on April 2. However, in light of Wildgrube's admissions I conclude that a conversation did take place on or about April 2, and that Belcher was in error as to the precise date duction slips at 5 p.m. that she would "get into trouble." Wildgrube explained that it is her function to keep em- ployees working up to cleanup time. It is clear that cleanup time on occasion may be as little as 5 minutes but generally lasts much longer and has been as long as 15 minutes. Wildgrube testified in general terms that her conversa- tions occurred in a context of employee discussion of possible benefits of union representation; that employees had asked her whether they would lose insurance bene- fits if the Union was elected; and that some employees were asserting that the Union would obtain a $7-per- hour wage increase. Furthermore, after suggestive ques- tioning by Respondent's counsel, she testified that she told some employees that when another labor organiza- tion had represented the employees at the plant, insur- ance benefits for all dependents were paid by the em- ployees. As a witness, Wildgrube's demeanor revealed hostility to the General Counsel. She was most responsive to sug- gestive questions of Respondent's counsel whereas her testimony in response to the General Counsel's questions were hesitant, evasive, and inconsistent. Throughout she lacked certitude. She conceded that her memory was poor. Belcher testified in a clear, coherent, responsive manner. Her demeanor was marked by a convincing, un- rehearsed certitude. She admitted that a personality con- flict had existed between herself and Wildgrube for a long time. However, she gave no evidence of bitterness or hostility toward Respondent nor any bias for the Union such as would impair her apparent objectivity. Respondent argues that an adverse inference should be drawn from the General Counsel's failure to adduce cor- roborative testimony of fellow employees. However, in- asmuch as Respondent made no effort to adduce any re- buttal testimony from those same employees I can draw no such adverse inference. Cf. Hitcherner Manufacturing Company, 243 NLRB 927 (1979); Atherton Cadillac Inc., 225 NLRB 421, 422 (1976). I credit the testimony of Belcher and discredit any contrary testimony of Wildgrube. 3. Paragragh 5(D)-threats of Leadlady Avria Anderson Employee Gayle Berry testified that on April 2 she was engaged in her work duties in building 22 in the company of 3 or 4 other employees. She could only recall the identity of Helen Belcher as one of those em- ployees (not to be confused with Susan Belcher). The employees were working at tables placed 4 feet apart. Berry's leadlady, Avria Anderson, appeared with a book- let and stated that she had just come from "the office" and she instructed the employees to look at the booklet. According to Berry, Anderson told the employees that the booklet was a labor relations book. Berry did not look at it closely. Anderson stated that if the Union "got in" that "they" would take away the employees' senior- ity; that the employees would revert to a 5-day week; that the employees would lose their insurance, and that they would lose their raises, i.e., that they would revert 845 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the minimum wage. Furthermore, Anderson told these employees that she "heard this straight from the office." Nothing further was discussed. At that time Berry was earning $3.20 per hour or 10 cents more than the mini- mum wage. In cross-examination Berry conceded that Anderson did not specify the name of the person in the office who had told her this, but she explained that when Anderson customarily told the employees that when the "office said something," it was understood by the employees that the reference was to Grayson or Williams. 2 In cross-examination by Respondent's counsel, Berry testified that during the campaign she had heard rumors circulated by employees that Helen Belcher would be fired if the Union's campaign were successful. However, she conceded that at the time of the hearing Helen Belcher had the position of leadlady. Berry conceded that some employees had expressed among themselves a preference for cash rather than insurance benefits. She conceded that during the campaign she had read the union literature which asserted that "we start at the point that benefits and wages you have now and negoti- ate upward, and not backward or down." However, it was Berry's recollection that Anderson made no refer- ence to negotiations when she spoke to the employees. Anderson, a witness called by Respondent testified that on or about April 2 Loretta Lewis "brought the book down" to her and said that she wanted "people to read it." According to Anderson, Lewis explained that the booklet had reference to negotiations and that the "Union had to negotiate with the company before any union could give or take." Lewis initially testified that she and Sue Wildgrube proceeded to go to building 22 with the booklet. She did not explain how at this junc- ture Wildgrube became involved. Wildgrube's only testi- mony with respect to the booklet was that she became aware of it when she came upon it by chance as it was lying open on a table. It was at that point, according to Wildgrube, that she read the booklet. Wildgrube made no reference to receiving the booklet from Lewis or ac- companying Anderson with the booklet. Anderson testi- fied that she and Wildgrube proceeded with the booklet to employees in building 22. She testified: "Well we started ro read it and she said, no here, you take the book and you can read it for yourself; and she gave them the book and let them pass it around." Anderson testified that she did not say anything during this confrontation. Most of the balance of Anderson's direct testimony con- sisted of "yes" and "no" responses to Respondent's coun- sel questions as to alleged threats, etc., and as to her job duties. At the end of her testimony she testified that it was she and Loretta Lewis who took the booklet to the employees in building 22. In cross-examination Anderson testified that Lewis ex- plicitly told her that she had received the booklet "from the office." She testified that she read the underlinings si- lently to herself and she did not read it aloud to the em- 2 This is in accord with the testimony of Lewis when she testified as to the manner in which she relayed orders from Grayson or Spiller. I do not find reliable Lewis' subsequent testimony adduced through leading, suggestive questions by Respondent's counsel to the effect that the office is a building not a person. ployees. In her pretrial affidavit Anderson testified that she read the third full paragraph on page 26 directly to the employees. She insisted that there was no inconsis- tency in this testimony. Berry's demeanor as a witness was subdued and quiet. However, she exhibited more certitude and less hesitancy than Anderson. Moreover, Berry exhibited no personal bias and had nothing to gain by testifying adversely to the interest of her employer. Anderson's testimony was confused as to who accompanied her to building 22. It is inconsistent with her pretrial affidavit as to whether she said anything aloud to the employees. Berry impressed me as the more spontaneous, certain, and convincing wit- ness. I credit her testimony and discredit the contrary testimony of Anderson. 4. Paragraph 5(B)-threat by Production Manager Grayson Eda Cox had been employed by Respondent for sever- al years. She is Norma Pollard's mother. Cox served as a union observer on the first day of voting as the last minute substitute for Pollard. Cox actively supported and assisted the Union in its organizational drive. Grayson was aware that she was "the most outspoken" prounion employee. In 1979 Respondent entered into a settlement agree- ment of unfair labor practice charges which inter alia in- volved the discharges of employees Karen Travis and Kathy Long. Those charqes were settled and a notice to employees was posted in November 1979 which in part recited that Travis and Long did not desire reinstatement but would be paid backpay. Employees, including Cox, were aware of that notice. On April 2, 1980, Grayson decided to visit Cox at her work station. Grayson explained that he was aware that the substance of conversations he held with Cox would be related by Cox "to everybody else." Grayson testified that before he visited Cox he had heard that there were rumors in the plant that Cox and Pollard would be dis- charged if the Union won the election and that Cox feared for her job. He testified that these rumors were "pretty common" in the plant. The encounter between Cox and Grayson occurred between 11 and 11:30 a.m. in building 15 at Cox's work area which is located in a 6- to 8-square foot bay. Sever- al bays containing employee work stations were arranged in a row. Employee Lois Walters was in the next bay. Cox testified that Grayson approached her and that they first discussed Cox's recent trip to Florida. Cox testified that she then stated to Grayson that she had heard rumors that she would he discharged and that Grayson responded, "No Eda, we can't fire you because [of] the union today, but watch out Monday if you lose." (Monday was the first workday to follow the election.) According to Cox, Grayson departed but returned there- after with a booklet and stated to her "this booklet says I can't fire you because of the Union, but watch out and make no mistakes because we'll be watching .... It won't be a Karen Travis or Kathy Long deal this time. Grayson thereupon started to depart and as he proceed- ed down the corridor he said to her in a louder voice: 846 PROPELLEX CORPORATION "well good luck Eda. I'm sure glad you're not for the Union." At that point he laughed at Cox who in silence watched him depart. Lois Walters testified that at the time of Grayson's conversation with Cox she was working in the adjoininq bay and that she was aware of talking going on but that she did not hear all of the words spoken. She testified that at one point it was necessary for her to leave her bay and retrieve certain supplies from a nearby closet. As she was out of her bay she testified that she had heard Grayson say to Cox, "I wouldn't fire you today or tomorrow but maybe I'll just wait until Monday." On cross-examination when pressed by Respondent's counsel as to what else she had heard, she testified that she had heard Grayson tell Cox that he would be watching her but that she did not hear the words preceding this state- ment. She also heard Grayson state to Cox as he depart- ed "Good luck" and that he was "glad" Cox was not "going into the Union." Walters testified further that one-half hour later Gray- son came to her work bay with a booklet. She did not view it closely enough to identify but she noticed that on an inside page there were underlinings under certain words. According to her, Grayson stated that the book- let represented that he could not discharge her for "join- ing an organization." He also stated that "if someone came around harassing [you] come and let me know." She responded "okay" and he departed. Susan Belcher had testified that on April 2 she worked in the bay next to Walters. She was not questioned by any party as to whether she overheard the Grayson con- versation. However, it does not appear that she worked immediately adjacent to Cox. Moreover, Respondent's records indicate that she was absent on April 2 and that she was mistaken as to the exact date. Grayson testified that he visited Cox on April 2 in order to assure her that she would not be discharged. He testified that after they discussed the Florida trip he showed her the Board booklet and said to her that she could not be harassed, or discharged, br punished for being involved in the union organizing effort. When spe- cifically asked by Respondent's counsel, he answered negatively as to whether he told her that he was "going to fire her after the election." Grayson denied the testi- mony of Cox as paraphrased to him by Respondent's counsel. He had no recollection of his conversation with Walters but testified that after hearinq Walters' testimony he recalled that he did tell Cox: "I'm sorry, I can't wish you good luck." Grayson explained that he made that statement because he had considered Cox and himself to have occupied adversary positions. He could not recall anything further of his conversation with Cox. Thus, his testimony consisted principally of a denial of Cox's ver- sion, but very little of what was actually said. With re- spect to the rumors of discharge, Grayson did not assure Pollard that she would not be discharged because, he tes- tified, that he assumed Cox would do so. Indeed there is no evidence that Respondent took any other action to explicitly disavow these rumors. As we have seen, the employees' attention when presented with the booklet was not drawn to the page which described their protec- tion against reprisals but rather was directed to that sec- tion on collective bargaining. The General Counsel argues that Cox's testimony should be credited as it conforms logically with Gray- son's subsequent conversation with Walters which the General Counsel argues consist of an interrogation or surveillance, i.e., Walters supposedly was told to reveal the identity of prounion persons harassing her in the ab- sence of evidence of substantial harassment. The General Counsel cites L'Eggs Products Incorporated, 236 NLRB 354, 389 (1978). However, although Grayson's oblique comments to Walters are susceptible of such an interpre- tation, they might also be construed as an instruction to her to report any harassment of supervisors or antiunion employees. The statement is too ambiguous to support any conclusion as to its meaning. In any event, the inci- dent is not alleged as violative conduct. Additional reference by the General Counsel to an in- cident whereby Grayson acknowledged Cox's open dis- tribution of union paraphernalia is not helpful in resolv- ing the credibility issue. Nor do I consider helpful Pol- lard's uncontradicted testimony that in the summer of 1979 Grayson engaged her in a conversation wherein he told her that he was aware of union organizing efforts and wherein he asked her what the employees com- plaints were. Respondent argues that Grayson must be credited be- cause it is "incredible" that Grayson would simulta- neously point out to an employee her rights in an NLRB publication and then thereafter threatened the same em- ployee. Respondent argues that Cox was a staunch union supporter and therefore her testimony is suspect. Al- though Cox was a prounion activist she was also at the time of the hearing employed by Respondent and was put into a position of rendering testimony adverse to the interest of her employer who maintains control over her economic well being. Thus one possible psychological bias, a desire to help the union, is counterbalanced by an- other perhaps more immediate bias, i.e., the fear of an- tagonizing one's employer. In any event, nothing was ad- duced in cross-examination that causes me to believe that Cox was so biased as to have concocted her testimony. Furthermore, Cox, to a very important degree, was cor- roborated by Walters. There is no basis to argue that Walters was biased because of any leadership role in the union drive. Walters did not appear to have anything to gain by testifying adversely to Respondent. Moreover, her demeanor revealed her to be a quiet, calm, restrained but responsive, cooperative, and unshaken witness in both direct and cross-examination. I was most impressed by the demeanor of both employees which failed to reveal any trace of a lack of candor. Grayson was not a convincing witness. His testimony as to the duties of leadladies was shifting, internally in- consistent, and inconsistent with the testimony of Spiller and the leadladies. One example of the internal inconsis- tency of his testimony in another area is his reference to an incident that occurred after the election wherein Cox resisted an instruction of leadlady Wildgrube and in so 847 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD doing explicitly utilized a gross vulgarism. 3 In one por- tion of his testimony Grayson made light of the incident and characterized in as a personality conflict which called for the mere transfer of Cox to another depart- ment. (Cox candidly admitted her conduct). Grayson tes- tified that to have disciplined Cox for such an intemper- ate outburst would have been inconsistent with his past dealings with employees and he stated: "you just don't fire them because they are upset that day." However, elsewhere in denying that he threatened Cox with dis- charge, Grayson testified that the use of the vulgarism had indeed provided a sufficient valid basis for the dis- charge of Cox and yet he had not discharged her. Finally as to the incidents concerning the alleged threat, Grayson's testimony is cryptic and far less de- tailed than that of Cox. Additionally, Grayson's demea- nor revealed a hesitancy and lack of certitude. I credit the testimony of Cox. I conclude that although Grayson did refer to the Board publication and did make a super- ficial acknowledgment of her right to engage in union activities, the thrust of his message to Cox was that he would scrutinize her work performance and seize upon a pretext for her discharge which would successfully mask his unlawful motivation. B. Conclusions as to 8(a)(1) Violations Based upon the foregoing credited testimony I con- clude the following: On or about April 2, Respondent's agent, Leadlady Loretta Lewis, announced to a group of employees at their work stations in buildinq 23 that if the Union were designated by them as their bargaining agent they would lose overtime pay, paid insurance coverage, vacation pay, and seniority benefits; and that their work- week would be changed to a 5-day, 8-hour day, work- week. On or about April 2, Respondent, by its agent, Leadlady Susan Wildgrube, told at least two employees at their work stations in building 15 that the employees would lose their paid insurance coverage and that the employees would be placed on a 5-day workweek. On or about April 2, Respondent, by its Leadlady Avria An- derson stated to a group of employees at their work area in building 22 that, if the union were selected as bargain- ing agent, Respondent would eliminate their seniority privileges, that their pay would revert to the minimum wage level, and that the employees would be put on a 5- day, 8-hour day, workweek. Respondent argues that such conduct was not coercive because most employees were at the minimum wage level, that some employees favored a 5-day, 8-hour day, workweek, and that the statements were made in a con- text wherein the employees were presented with a Board publication which set forth their rights under the Act. However, it is difficult to perceive just how a threat to the wages of at least 25 percent of the employees in the unit is anything less than coercive. It is plainly coercive as is the threat to eliminate vacation and insurance bene- fits. As to the latter, although some employees may have preferred cash to fringe benefits, the elimination of vaca- 3 Coa places the evetnt shortly before the election, Grayson places it after the election. He particularly places it as I or 2 eeks before the instant hearing. tion and insurance benefits was not posed to the employ- ees as a possible quid pro quo in future collective bargain- ing. Respondent also argues that the reversion to a 5-day workweek consisting of 8 hour workdays was not detri- mental to employees inasmuch as many of them pre- ferred a 5-day workweek. However, the record indicates that in past years the employees did in fact work on a 5- day, 8-hour-a-day, schedule but that subsequently they voted to change to a 4-day, 10-hour workday, and that thereafter Respondent adopted that schedule pursuant to their expressed desires. That schedule of course now in- cluded overtime compensation inherent in the 4-day 10- hour workweek. Despite the turnover in employees since that vote, it is reasonable to infer that most employees still desired the 4-day workweek with its concomitant overtime compensation. Certainly the reversion to a 5- day week was posed to the employees as a detriment along with the threat of other losses. Respondent contends that employees enjoyed no se- niority benefits and, accordingly, a threat to eliminate se- niority privileges could not be considered to be detri- mental. Indeed the seniority privileges of the employees were minimal as was protested by one of the employees when she was faced with the threat of the loss of senior- ity. However, it cannot be said that the employees en- joyed such a vast array of fringe benefits that the loss of what seniority benefits they did enjoy with respect to layoffs and job retention was so negligible as to be of little concern to them. I conclude that the retention of seniority rights for Purposes of job retention in layoff sit- uations is a substantial benefit, and that the threat to de- prive employees of that benefit would tend to affect them adversely. On or about April 2, Leadlady Wildgrube told em- ployee Susan Belcher in the presence of another employ- ee that when the Union "gets in" she would thereafter receive only a 5-minute paid cleanup time. Inasmuch as employees generally received more than 5-minute paid cleanup time, Wildgrube's statement constituted a threat to the effect that Respondent would become more rigid in the allotment of paid cleanup time if the employees se- lected the Union as their bargaininq agent. Wildgrube clearly intended it to be understood as a punishment as she conceded her anger with Belcher. Therefore, the statement could not reasonably be considered by Belcher as anything but a threat of the imposition of a more onerous working condition in the event the employees selected the Union as their bargaining agent. As to the context of these confrontations between the employees and the leadladies, based upon testimony which I have credited, none of the expected losses an- nounced to the employees were postured in terms of what might be lost within the give and take of collective bargaining. Rather, the leadlady statements constituted absolute statements of what would occur prior to any collective bargaining, and that the operative factor for these losses was the Union's election per se. Moreover, the simultaneous presentation of the Board publication which contained, amidst 59 pages of printed material, some assurances of employee rights, in no way mitigates 848 PROPELLEX CORPORATION the coercive nature of these threats of losses of benefits. For the most part the employees' attention was directed to page 26 and in particular to certain underlined words thereon and not to page 19 which had reference to Sec- tion 8(aXl1) of the Act. There were no underlinings on page 19. In any event, the employees had already been exposed in 1979 to a Board settlement which contained assurances of their rights under the Act. However, an awareness by employees of their legal rights does not necessarily instill in them an immunity against fear, par- ticularly if the employer's agents simultaneously engage in conduct proscribed by that very law. I do not find that within the circumstances herein, the leadladies gave any bona fide assurance to the employees of their rights. Rather, the reference to the Board publication constitut- ed nothing more than a mere perfunctory allusion to the statute. The thrust of the leadladies' messages was deliv- ered orally. In this setting it is unreasonable to conclude that the employees were assured of their rights. Indeed, Respondent adduced evidence that the employees were concerned about the leadladies' threats so much so, de- spite the allusion to the booklet and despite doubts ex- pressed by one of them, that they raised the matter of those threats at a union meeting. The guarded response of the union agent to the effect that he doubted the law- fulness of such conduct was hardly sufficient to allay the employees anxieties. Finally the overall context of these threats must be considered and not merely the context of the individual meetings. Nor must undue attention be focused on the substance or lack of substance of each individual benefit to be lost. During the preelection campaign the employ- ees were subjected to rumors which were circulated from building to building to the effect that the union ac- tivists were to be discharged; that employees "affiliated" with the union cause would be fired; and that not only would Respondent not give the employees any pay raise but it would rather move the plant if the unionization effort were successful. In such an atmosphere, the state- ments of the leadladies described above necessarily tended to impress upon the listeners that Respondent in- tended to retaliate against them if they voted for the Union. Against such a background the loss of the specif- ic benefits involved necessarily took on a cumulative effect. I conclude that the conduct of Respondent by its agents and Leadladies Lewis, Wildgrube, and Anderson on or about April 2 as set forth above constituted a pat- tern of coercive conduct calculated to discourage em- ployees from supporting the Union and as such violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On or about the same date that the leadladies were systematically threatening em- ployees with loss of benefits and at a time when employ- ee rumors were spread throughout the plant complex concerning discharges and plant closure, Grayson threat- ened Eda Cox, the chief union protagonist, with ultimate discharge because of her union activities under the arise of some pretextuous reason that Grayson expected would subsequently arise. By the conduct of its production manager James Grayson, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The Objections It is the Board's normal policy to direct a new election whenever an unfair labor practice occurs during the critical preelection period inasmuch as conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is "afortiori conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election." Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786 (1962). An exception to this policy is that an election will not be set aside despite vio- lative conduct when it is concluded that such conduct is virtually impossible to interfere with the election in light of the paucity of violations, lack of severity, no dissemi- nation, the small size of the unit, and other such relevant factors. Super Thrift Markets, Inc. t/a Enola Super Thrift, 233 NLRB 409 (1977). Thus a supervisor's threat of dis- charge violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act may not, per se, require a new election, particularly when only one employee in a unit of 850 employees is affected. Caron International, Inc., 246 NLRB 1120 (1979); see also Thermo-King Corporation, 247 NLRB No. 48 (1980). In the instant case, Respondent's conduct was not iso- lated. On the very eve of the election, agents of Respon- dent, i.e., the leadladies engaged in a systematic effort to combat the Union's election campaign by personally cn- fronting employees throughout the plant complex. The credited evidence reveals that they exceeded the bounds of legitimate campaign activity by coercively threatening employees with the loss of fringe benefits and wages. These threats were uttered to groups of employees in at least three separate buildings. Given the fact that rumors abounded as to expected retaliatory action by Respon- dent it is only reasonable to infer that the leadladies' threats were not only disseminated but that they also gave credence to those already extant rumors. Similarly, Manager Grayson's threat to Cox, overheard in part by another employee, could not reasonably be expected to remain encapsulated in employee indifference. Grayson admitted that he fully expected Cox to propagate his message. Thus instead of disavowing the rumors of im- pending Respondent retaliation he revivified those rumors at the most crucial point in the campaign. As stated by the Board in Pittsburgh & Newo England Truck- ing Co., 249 NLRB 833 (1980): A threat of loss of employment, whether through plant closure, discharge, or layoff, is one of the most flagrant means by which an employer can hope to dissuade employees from supporting a union. And, 'the spector of job loss . . . once con- jured up is not easily interred.' El Rancho Market, 235 NLRB 468, 476 (1978), enfd. 98 LRRM 1153, 87 LC 11593 (9th Cir. 1979). I conclude that Respondent's conduct was egregiously coercive and widespread and tended to affect adversely the preponderance of the voters and thus I find that Re- spondent interfered with the election process. Respondent argues that the election ought not be set aside because a party to the election had knowledge of and an opportunity to disavow coercive threats but failed to do so. Respondent refers to the Union but cites 849 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in support of his argument Skogrand-Buessing, Inc., 241 NLRB 292 (1979). That case involved the application of the Board policy whereby an employer's objection to an election will not be sustained when it is premised upon the conduct of the employer's own agents which the em- ployer did not disavow during the campaign. The Union herein did not premise its objections upon the conduct of its own agents. Respondent's reliance upon the Skogrand case is misplaced. Finally, Respondent argues that because of the large margin of the Union's defeat that it must be concluded that the objectionable conduct did not affect the election. However, it can as easily be argued that the wide margin of defeat was directly attributable to the coercive con- duct. In any event, speculation based upon arithmetic re- sults of the election is immaterial to the issue of whether Respondent's conduct tended to interfere with the elec- tion. As I have concluded that it did, I find that the ob- jections are meritorious. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co- erced employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the acts of its agents and leadladies in threatening employees with a loss of wages and overtime compensa- tion, with the loss of insurance, seniority, and vacation benefits, and with the imposition of more onerous work- ing conditions in the event that the employees select the Union as their bargaining agent; and by the conduct of its production manager in threatening an employee with discharge because she supported the Union. 4. Respondent has engaged in conduct which has in- terfered in the free choice of employees in the Board- conducted election. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent engaged in conduct which interfered with the election in Case 14-RC-9114, I recommend that the election be set aside and a second election be directed. Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER4 The Respondent, Propellex Corporation, a subsidiary of Essex Cryogenics Industries, Inc., Edwardsville, Illi- nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees with the loss of wages and overtime compensation, with the loss of insurance, seniority, and vacation benefits, and with the imposition of more onerous working conditions in the event that they select the Union as their collective-bargaining agent. (b) Discouraging its employees' membership in or ac- tivities on behalf of District No. 9, International Associ- ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by threatening to dis- charge them or threatening to otherwise discriminate against them in any manner in regard to their rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Edwardsville, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep- resentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 4 i) the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulationls f the Nationlal Lahor Relations Board. the find- ings. coTnclusioins, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules ad Regulations, he adopted by the Btoard and become its findings, conclusions and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes s In the evetnt that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National abor Relations Hoard" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court f Appeals Enfircing an Order of the National L.abor Relations Board 850