Neo-Life Company Of America

. 72 .DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD “Neo-;Life ,eompany.O1.-America andAVarehouse, Mail , Order & Retail Employees Union, Local 853, International .Brotherhoodi of:Teamsters, nChauf- ,i-feurs; .„VV, ,arehousemen and _Helper's , of ;America. • Case,32-CA745,29,, „ , 30 tIsToember -1984 AND:ORDER P,OTSO,N,AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN *ND Ht_iNTER _ :Oñ3 May -,1983 Administrative Law =Judge Earl- deari:V.-S.•711Obbins--issued ,the :attached decision. •The.Respdrident 'filed! eiCeptiOns rand •A--Supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a copy lof,his brief to the administrative law judge. - The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board his'donsidered the decision and the record in lightl'Of the'ekeptioni and' briefs and has decided' to affirtn' the 'jtidge's-fulings;- findings, and conclUsions only to' the extent consistent With this i-Deeisionjand:Ordet.' • - - We agree'. with the cjiidge that the;.Respondent •vicilated` SectiOn'8(a)(1) of the' ACt 'by -several state- ments made in the course; of,the June 1983 meeting .ofithe Respondent's ,executive•vice president Albert Miller, Patson Lines_owner_Milford Patterson, and Patson employee William Regan. Miller asked, Pat- tersOn-and Regan to come ,to his office one morn- ding when Patterson was visiting the Respondent's plant, and he began,thejmeeting, by ,.asking -Regan why he was attending union meetings with the Re- spondent's employees:7We Agree •with, the judge that this question •Was coercive ,within: the meaning of Section .8(a)(1).- - While Miller asked Only one,question'of a gener- al nature he did so in a coercive context. He was the Respondent's highest official in the' warehouse, and calling Regan and Patterson into his office cre- ated a setting of unusual formality. Moreover, Miller told Regan he did not want him attending the meetings 'and Patterson threatened he could lose his job as discussed below. Finally, Miller con- cluded the meeting -by directing Regan not to talk to other employees. In these circumstances the question was coercive.' The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by Miller's statements that a strike was inevitable.- We agree -that Miller's statements about bargaining and a strike violated Section 8(a)(1) for the following reasons. The issue, as we see it, is Whether Miller threatened that if the em- - I See Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984) 273 NLRB No. 15 ployees selected the Union, the Respondent would violate Section , 8(a)(5) , by failing to bargain in good faith,' therebY fOrcing a str1ke. 2 Such threats are co- erciVe and violate Section 8(a)(1); see Peabody, ,Coal Co. 'v. NLRB, 725 F.2d 357 (6th Cir. 1984);,Lawthti Co., 267 NLRB 463 (1983);. T&tmsters. Local 164, '267, NLRB. 8, 9' 0983); W,dOclyieiV 'Rehabilitation 'Center, 265 1■ILkB 838, '841- (1'982); Kay Motors, 264. •NLRB .1030'(19,82). Miller did nOt say' directly that the Respondent would ,not bargain but that 'message Was',iinplied by a series of statements_ taken in ,the. ,context Of„the entire Regan. conVersition. AccOrding . to .1egan's ..credited, testimony, Miller, told `hirti that if the Re- ' Sporiderit'S ,employees voted . for the= Union the ,Re- Spondent `,`would not want to bargain" with 'it, that the Resporicient. would have to bargain lint wOuld not have to sign a contract, and' that if there were no contract a strike would follow :'`Scabs7. Would come in, and there would be "areal mess outside." • Miller , did inOt make these_ Statements 'separately or in iSolation„ and' we'lmus`t asses -tfieir' coercive .thipaCt taken as a, WhCile, Peabody , Coal NLRB," sup4i.. Hicki..-Pondep Co„ 186 NLRB 71,2, 725 fn. 7 (1970), .cited _in- Eagle ,Comtronics, 263 , NLRB 515 (19,82): 3. We ,find, three other unlawful , • statements' in the same conversation . with ,Regan; thus -the Re45Ondent. demonstrated not only 'its uniOnAnimuS.,hut its willingness to`yiolate_ the Act. In' this coriteXt it Can 'be inferred" thatif the:Re- _spondent did_ note, "want- to': nor ,"have •fo' !: sign a contract, it woiild ifot sign one, and a _strike , would .follOw.•Thus the Respondent threatened to baigain in ! bad faith so ai to prevent an agreement and force a strike.- , We, also adopt . the judge's finding of an '8(a)(1) violation in•. the :threat . that Regan could' lose his job. The Judge relied for this finding on Patterson's statement to Regan that the Union would insist that the Respondent cancel its contract with Patson Lines; according to Regan's credited testimony, this was presented as a certain result of uniciniza- tion that the Respondent presumably would be unable or unwilling to resist. -In addition we note Patterson's testimony that he told Regan, "[I]f you have a contract . . . that contract is going to come up . . . and any time there's a problem with one of 2 That is what the complaint alleged 3 In Eagle Comtronics, we held that an employer's Incomplete state- ment of the law is not coercive unless "it may fairly be understood as a threat or is explicitly coupled with threats — 263 NLRB at 516 In that case the employer's statements and omissions were found in a speech that contained no other unlawful statements, ,and the Board found that no threat was implied In this case, the Respondent's statements were cimpled with other coercive statements Moreover, we find the threat to force a strike clearly implied in the succession of statements, and not merely by omission We therefore do not need to consider those state- ments as an explanation of law that omitted some details NEO-LIFE CO OF AMERICA , 73 your employees, with one of -your clients, there's always the possibility, of losing that business." This statement more directly threatened reprisal by the Respondent for Regan's own activity. 4 • ,' . -- While Patterson is -not employed by the Re- spondent and Patson Lines is not a respondent in this' proceeding, Patterson referred hi 'Miller's-pres- ence to 'aCtion that Mil161-'1:night or might not take. We find that Miller adopted the statements 'by his silenC'e and the Respondent thereby violated Sec- ,. . .. • tion 8(a)(1).5 . • • • We do not agree With the judge that any 'of the Respondent's statements to_ employee Mary , Fer- nandez were unfair labor practices, and we- will dismiss those portions 'of,the complaint. Fernandez; a union supporter, squirted water and used obscene language toward a- fellow employee who was not a union supporter; that 'employee- reported the inci- dent to a supervisor and Fernandez was given--a written warning. Fernandez„coniplained . to Super- visor Jack Winter, alleging that she received the warning because of her union sympathies. Winter replied that "none of this would have happened if it were -not for Spencer"; Spencer Was' a discharged prounion employee , who at the time was picketing the warehouse. Later Fernandez told Miller that she felt her fellow 'employee -had complained out 'Of antiunion motivation, and Miller replied that `all that was going on with' the warehOuse had Made enemies out of the best'of friend."' • • •,,, The judge found that'both thee statements vio- lated Section 8(a)(1), , but. on their face they siihply: observed the intense feelings that . the uniOn cam= paign had generated among employees. Those feelF ings were not,. unfair ,labor practices. by the Re- spondent and its .commentary on them implied no threat . of reprisal: The Respondent could lawfully express such opinions. . :.•. • ' 'The judge also construed those statements as.ad,-. missions that the Respondent issued' the warning WC- Fernandez 'for antiunion reasons; we find no' such adniission. Fernandez did not say that the , Re- spondent had such motivation; only 'that , her fellow' employees did.- Both- sUpervisors conceded that that might be true; it does not follow that the' Respond-, ent was obliged to examine it ,employees'. motives', in reporting one another's,misconduct.5, 4 Member Hunter would adopt the'judge's finding but does-not rely on Patterson's other statement quoted above • • 5 The Judge found an add/mina{ vfolati4 of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act based on Regan's testimony that Miller said kiinethirtg to the' effect that the ResPorident would get 'rid 'of PafSon if 'Regan intended " to -stay volved in the union problem However, as the Judge noted, Regan did not recall , precisely what Miller said Contrary to the Judge, we conclude that this testimony is insufficient to establish a violation - - 6 Member Zimmerman agrees with the Judge for the reasons set .forth in his opinion that the statements • made' by Winter and Miller to Fernan- dez violated Sec 8(a)(I) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By coercivelyAnterrogating..:,employee William Regan concerning 'his_ union activity, threatening him with loss of.ernployment,,warning him/not to discuss the ,Union with ,)other...employe,es, and threatening not to bargain in gOod'faith irits ein- ployees selected the , Union to ,..,represent e „them, thereby forcing a. strike, the litesPondeni, ha en- gaged in unfair labor practiCes affecting .,Commerce, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) arid Section 2(6) and (7) of tbe Act. '2 • 's • - with other employees. ''(e) in 'any' like' or ''relaied' Manner iriter'fering with, restraining, or coerCing ' eMplOyees'iii the-vi-` ertise of the rights guaranteed-them' by SeCtion' 7 of the Act. - -" - • " '2. Take' the follOWing affirmative' actiOn' sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at_ its place of business in Hayward, Cali- fornia, copies of the ` attached' 'notice marked "Ap- pendix." 7 Copies of the, notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 32, .after being signed by ,the 'Respondent's 'authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted . by. the Respo_nclent,imme- diately upon. receipt and maintained , for 60 consec-: utive days in conspicuous ;_places places where :notices to employees:are customarily.. posted. Reasonable, -steps be-takeyby the•Re- spondent 'to 'ensure that -the notices are . not - altered, defabed, or covered by any io-ther cmaterial.- ' • " - (b) 'Notify "the ,' RegiOrial _Direct& '`'Writing within 20 days from 'the 'date 'of' thii -Order' what • steps the Respondent has'taken to - - - • ' t, ,17s, - - . If this Order, is enforced by a -judgment-of a United States Court, of Aiipeals, the words in the reading "Posted by 'Order Of iheNa- tional Laba Relations Board" shall read-"Posted Purstfahuto a•JUdgment: of the United States,. Court of •Appeals Enforcing, an Order of the.,Nation;. al Labor Relations Board " ORDER The National_ Labor Relations Board,orders that the Respondent, Neo-Life , Company, -of 'America, Hayward, California„ its officers, ...agents,succes- sors, and assigns, shall J. ,Cease and desist from , (a) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their union activities. (b) Threatening' 'em' ploYeeSlthat ir riokt 'bar- gain in tgood faith with Teamsters 'Local . 8531f-,ilie Respondent's emploYees select it to 'represent them, thereby ,foréing a' Strike. = (c) ThreateningeinplOyees With loin of :employ-_ ment for engaging in union adtlyities. '(d) Warning'employees'not to discuss the Union . ,, • 74'‘ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .--APPENDIX , 'NOTICE TO.:EMPLOYEES-- POSTED' BV ColibEOfftHE , NATIOI•ikL`LABOR REI!AffON'S-BOARO 'An kien-gy” .Of the'iJuited States Government .,` - _ - - - The NatiOlfar'ljahiir Relations Board has found that We vipiatga-thieNartiohil'Labor Relations Act and has.:*orde'red:ug;io-Pasi à-Ad abide by this notice. Section 1 of the .Act gives employes these •rights. - To organize -. To form, join; or aSsist any union thrdugh represeiiti- •tiVes%ot ,their Own chOice-s. - - °- -To -ict together för other- inlitual aid or pro--: tection To _choose riot to :engage iii any -of 'these PieciteCted;-ciiiricdited activities:" WE WILL NOT coerciVely interrogate employes regarding their union aCtiVities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with -,less of emplOYmentIoi engaging in Union actiyity. , " WE WILL NOT threaten ..tha't we will not bargain in good faith With:Teaniiteis.tOcal 853 ifour eM- ployees select it as their collective bargaining resentative, and thereby force a Strike.' , WE-4watt. No,T.warn employee's- not to discuss the Union,.With:otheri eMplOyees, WE WILL NOT An= any like or. ,relaied manner interferewith, restrain, -or coerce you in the exer7 cise of the_ rights gtiaranteed ypu by 'Section -/- of - - the" Act. , , - , • t7... •, • NEO-.LIFE COMPANY OF AMERiCA' " - , _ - -s - ' - DECISION'. ' •• •- • • •_. OF'THE CASE - , Eat.' rii,A-NI.,! •$? •kciimmisig,' Administrative Law' Jridge: This C. aSe ■iias!he'aid"befg-i&ifie in Oiklind,--,California,-on! Januaryr:311 '-1983.' Thehárgewàfi1ed by Wdtehons-6,:, Mail Met, Retair-EMployees- UniOn;lxical 853, Inter-.: national:BrOtherhood' : Of:' Teamsters,- Chauffeuis, .Ware-, housemeiL'atid--HelperS,sof,America,(the Union), on May 24, 1982, and-served Neo:Life-lCompany of America (Respondent),- dn.; May, ,25, 1282.- The complaint„ which issued, on :August 26,1982, alleges that ReSpondent has violated :Section 8(41) 4,0r -the- -National Labor -Relations Act (the Act):- -the p"rincipai 'issue is 'Whether RespOndent" ,violated the Act by certain statements and interrogations•- On the entire red'Ord;-'inCindineri-ix,'Obsersiation" Of the 'demeanor-of.t.he iwitnesses,'_ and after due consideration' of the briefs' filed by the parties,1 make the following FINDINGS 0.F.FACT I JURISDICTION At all times material Respondent,- a California corpor- tion` with an office and place of -busienss, in Hayward, California, has -been , engaged in the -manufacture and nonretail distribution of food and supplements, household cleaners,,,cosmetics, and related -goods. During the 12- , month period preceding' the issuance of the complaint, Respondent, in the courie and conduat of its business op- erations, sold and shipped goods or 'services valued in excess of 550,000_ directly to 'customers located outside the State of-California. ---.. The complaint alleges, Responderil'admits, and I find that _at all times material Respondent- has been and em- ployer engaged in 'commerce Within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2); (6), and (7) of the Act .i _ .-. . •.• . .-, • •II.LABOR ORGANIZATION .. • -The ‘domPlaint alleges, RespOndent -admits, and I find that the-Union is now, - and alai! times material has been, a -organization within the Meaning' of Section 2(5) of the /Vet. • , • , ;Ht.- THE, ALLEGED UNFAIR .LABOR PRACTICES , • A. The Regan In&dent Respondent utilizes_ common .carriers to make deliv- eries to its customers. At the times material, Patson Lines has.,performeddelivery services for Respondent under,,,a verbal agreement, terminable at nwill, ,A P,atson employee, Wilharit Regan, is assigned. full time lb, make- deliveries- fok RespOndent. -Regan works out of Respondent's Hay- ward; , California warehonse,' makin'g deliveries in Northern California from the geneial'area of Watsonville ' tOihe Russian Riiét Althotigh' 'he is the onlY . Patson em- ployee working outof the Neo-Life .-facility, and thei:e"is no PatSbn •Supeivisor at this facility, his work is not di:- recily Supervised by -Respondent. 'MilfOrd -Patterson, the owner of Patson Lines, visits the Neo-Life facility peri- odically.- Regan is paid, weekly- by mail and the truck driven by him is garaged at-his residence. During an av- erage. week,: according to Regan, he is actually at the Neo-Life premises 5 to 10 hours at the most.- During that period; he does his paperwork, makes , out his route, calls' distributors to tell them they are going to be receiving products_ that day, and loads his truck , His work hours depeild" on the volume of deliveries, which are made in accordance' with bills of lading prepared by Respondent's_ warehouse emPlOyees and left fn 'a 'slot in the warehouse for Regan. Regan picks up the bills of lading, loads his vehicle, and proceeds to make the required deliveries. - _In the spring of 1982, the Union commenced an orga- nizing „campaign among Respondent' warehouse, em- ployees Regan. became aware of the _Union's _campaign, through-- Mike Spencer, an employee of. Respbndent,2 • ' The main•Patson facility ,is located in Southern California .- 2. Spencer was subsequently discharged by Respondent and picketed Respondent's facility in protest of his discharge _ - NEO-LIFE CO OF AMERICA 75 and thereafter attended two of the Union's organizing meetings A representation- petition was filed with the Board, in May 1982. 6, An election was held on July 30. The Union lost the election and a certification of election results issued in December. Regan testified that sometime in May or June, around the time that Spencer, a union activist, was discharged,4 Patterson was at the ,Neo-Life facility. Patterson and Regan went to a restaurant for breakfast Shortly after they returned to the warehouse, between 10.30 and 11.30 a.m1, 6 they were summoned to the office of Albert Miller, executive vice president of Respondent. 6 Accord- ing to Regan, when he and Patterson arrived at Miller's office, Miller asked why Regan was attending union meetings Regan said a notice of the meeting was posted for everyone to see and he did not feel he was violating anything by attending the meeting. Miller said he did not want Regan attending the meeting. Regan said his inter: est was academic, that he considered himself to be the best educated person in the warehouse and he was look- ing after the interests of his fellow workers for whom he felt a certain amount of compassion; so he attended the union meetings to ensure that the Union was not offering the employees a "bum deal." Miller said it was not nec- essary for Regan to attend the meetings, that he would explain the process to Regan. Miller then stated, according to Regan, that if the em- ployees were to Vote for the Union, Respondent would not want to bargain with the Union, a strike would ensue, "scabs" would come in and there would be a "real mess outside " However, Regan admits that Miller also said thât • if the employees did vote for the Union, Respondent would have to bargain with the Union but would not have to sign a contract Miller said he did not feel there was a need for a union and explained -why Miller further said that the problem with the country and business these days was unions and he cited two ex- amples—the closure of Shaklee in Hayward and the clo- sure of General Motors Miller said something to the effect that if Regan intended to stay involved in this union problem, he would get, rid of Patson; however, Regan does not recall precisely what he said. Regan further testified that Patterson said, "We don't want you going to these union meetings. If we get a union into this company,- Patson Lines would be out the door" Patterson also said that the Union would not want Patson, a nonunion employer, in there, that the Union would bring its own union drivers and Patson's contract would "be kaput" Both -Miller and Patterson told Regan not to talk to Respondent's employees about the union problem. Regan . promised that he would not attend union meetings and _that he would not talk to the warehouse .employees. Miller said that when the new warehouse was finished, they were going to locate Regan's office at the back of the warehouse. Regan said, 3 All dates will be in 1982 unless otherwise indicated 4 A charge was filed with the Board alleging that Spencer's discharge was unlawful The charge was pending at the time of the hearing 5 Usually Regan leaves the warehouse with his loaded truck between 8 30 and 9 30 a m 6 Miller is responsible, for Respondent's operations excluding finance and sales since he was a problem, to them, why did they, not lay him off. Both Miller and Patterson said there 'was no need for that, they did not want to lay him off. Patterson instructed Regan not to get involved in the union prob- lem. The conversation lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes. According to Regan, when he left Miller's office, a warehouse employee, Tara, apologized to him for telling Miller that he had gone to the union meeting. Further, Regan testified, as he walked through the warehouse, he told employees that he could not talk to them any longer and that he was going to be moved to the back of, the warehouse when it was completed Employee Fred Lemmo asked Regan what had happened Regan told Lemmo that he was instructed not to talk to the employ- ees because of the union problem and that he was going to be moved to the back of the warehouse when it was completed. He told other employees that he could not talk to them, that he had been banished. Miller admits that he did have a meeting with Regan in' mid-June. According to him, he had observed Regan talking to other employees in the warehouse on several occasions and was concerned about Regan being disrup- tive. He therefore telephoned Patterson and requested a meeting with Patterson and Regan on Patterson's next visit to the Neo-Life facility According to Miller, the meeting occurred between 9 and 10 a.m- Miller began the conversation' by asking Regan why he was attending a union meeting with Respondent's employees. Regan said he was just curious, he did not understand what was going on, and he went out of curiosity. He said he had no experience with union activity. Miller explained to him the basic procedures—that employee signed cards for representation, then there would be a petition to the NLRB for an election date and, if the election was in favor of union representation, Respondent would sit down and negotiate a contract; but, in the event they were unable to reach agreement on a contract, the alter- native would be a strike by the employees. At this point, according to Miller, Patterson told Regan he should not be involved in the internal affairs of Respondent. Regan suggested that Patterson did not want to create problems and that perhaps Regan should be laid off Patterson said, no, that was not the point, that he was concerned about his business should the warehouse become union He mentioned his experience with Shaklee and said that, if there were a union ware- house, there might be problems with Patson not being able to pick up orders of work out of the warehouse Patterson said Regan had an assigned area, his respOnsi- bility was to transport Respondent's products which he could pick up at the back door where they were staged for him, so it was not necessary that he talk to all the warehouse employees Miller denies saying that, if employees voted for the Union, Respondent would not bargain with the Union, or that, if employees voted for the, Union a strike would definitely occur. He admits explaining to Regan that, if the agreement was not reached, the alternative was, a strike. According to him, his statements to Regan on this subject were no different than those made to Respond- 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent's employees. He denies saying to Regan that if the employees voted for the Union, "scabs" would come in. He further denies stating that if Regan intended to stay involved with the Union, he would get rid of Patson Lines or instructing Regan not to talk to Respondent's employees regarding the Union. On cross-examination, Miller testified that when he explained to Regan that if the Union won the election, Respondent would be obli- gated to bargain in good faith, Regan asked "what hap- pens if you don't reach agreement"; to which Miller re- sponded that the alternative would be a strike, that the employees would have the right to strike but Respondent would have the option of hiring additional employees in such event. Patterson voiced concern that, if Respond- ent's operation were to become union, it would be detri- mental to Patson and related an experience that he had with Shaklee. He said he had no contract with -Respond- ent, and if the warehouse became union there was a pos- sibility that Patson, a nonunion carrier, would not be al- lowed to haul out of the warehouse. Patterson further said he did not want Regan interfering in Respondent's operation, that Regan was a Patson employee, not a Neo-Life employee, and Patterson did not want his busi- ness jeopardized. Patterson testified that within a month or two prior to this conversation, Miller casually mentioned to him that Regan was known to talk a lot. There is no evidence that Patterson ever related this to Regan. Patterson did testify that prior thereto he had admonished Regan about excessive conversation with Respondent's employees A month or two later, according to Patterson, Miller tele- phoned him requesting a meeting the next time Patterson was at the Neo-Life facility regarding some problems with Regan. Patterson inquired as to the nature of the problems but Miller said they would get into it when Patterson arrived. Patterson was not sure whether Miller told him at that particular time that Regan was observed talking to Mike Spencer on the picket line. Two or three days later, Regan and Patterson met with Miller in his office. 7 According to Patterson, Miller asked Regan why he was attending the union meetings Regan said he was there for informational purposes, out of curiosity to see what was going on Miller then ex- plained the union organizational and election process, however, Patterson cannot recall his exact words. Patter- son told Regan that he was concerned regarding Regan talking to employees or creating any problems whatso- ever with the employees. He explained to Regan that he could not create any problems with the Company with which he was doing business, that anything regarding union problems could have an effect on Patson Lines. He said he had experience with this before when he was doing business with Shaklee in the early 1970s and they had a union problem. Patterson said Regan's job was to deliver the product and keep as extreme a low profile as possible. He said that any problems could jeopardize Pat- son's business which constitutes Regan's job also, since the two were hooked together; that Regan works for Patson and if Patson does not have any business, then Regan is in trouble. Regan agreed this was true and said, "If it is going to be a case of you losing your business, I would rather that you lay me off," or either he said, "I'll quit." Patterson said, "I am not here to lay you off or fire you, I am just here to get things straightened out and prevent the problems before anything further develops." Patterson further said, "I'm not interested in creating problems, I just want to prevent problems." Patterson testified that he said Regan was a Patson employee, he had nothing to do with Respondent's oper- ation, that his job was to pick up the product in the morning and deliver it. Patterson also said that if there is a problem with a client, as a common carrier, some- where down the line the contract is going to come up and there is always the possibility of losing that business, that all a client has to do is pick up the telephone and say, "We have no pickups today," and you don't pick up until they call you again. According to Patterson, he does not recall Miller saying if employees voted for the Union, there would definitely be a strike. He denies that Miller said if Regan remained involved with the Union he would get rid of Patson or that Miller instructed Regan not to talk to employees about the Union Nor does he recall any conversation about the possibility of a stnke except that when he was explaining to Regan the situation that existed with Shaklee, he could have said that if Respondent's employees went out on strike Patson could possibly be hurt. I credit Regan as to the conversation with Miller and Patterson. He impressed me as an honest, reliable witness and, in view of the timing and other circumstances, Regan's version seems the more probable one. Thus, Miller testified that the purpose of the meeting was to express his concern that Regan's talking was generally disruptive and both Miller and Patterson deny that Regan was instructed not to talk to employees regarding the Union. Yet, even though Regan had been talking to warehouse employees for several months, it was only after he attended the union meetings that Miller found his activities to be unacceptable. In this regard, Patterson testified that the only previous mention of Regan talking tO employees was a casual comment by Miller in April or May that Regan was known to "talk a lot" The casu- alness of the comment is underscored by the fact that Patterson apparently did not relate to Regan that Miller was concerned regarding him talking to warehouse em- ployees 8 There is no evidence that talking among the employees in the warehouse or between Regan and Re- spondent's employees had previously been discouraged by Respondent or that Regan's verbal contacts with Re- spondent's employees had increased or, beyond Miller's bare assertions, that such contacts were actually disrup- tive. It is undisputed that Miller requested the meeting, stat- ing that he wanted to discuss problems with regard to Regan and, according to Patterson, this may have been the time that Miller said he had observed Regan talking to Spencer on the picket line. It is further undisputed Patterson does not recall whether he had breakfast with Regan that 8 Patterson testified that he had previously admonished Regan regard- ing excessive conversation with warehouse employees morning NEO-LIFE CO OF AMERICA 77 that Miller commenced the meeting by asking why Regan had attended union organizational meetings. Thus, at the outset, he clearly identified his principal concern and, even if I credited Patterson's or Miller's version of the conversation, there was no discussion of Regan's conduct being disruptive except insofar as it related to union activities. In these circumstances, I conclude that Regan was called into Miller's office for the purpose of admonishing him with regard to union activities and that the enusing conversation made this purpose clear. I fur- ther conclude that the instructions to Regan not to talk to Respondent's employees were intended to restrict Regan's union activities and could reasonably be expect- ed to be so understood by him, even assuming arguendo that this intention was not explicitly stated Accordingly, I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act despite Respondent's contention that Miller's various statements and his interrogation of Regan regard- ing why he had attended union meetings were not coer- cive since they were not directed toward a Neo-Life em- ployee. This argument is not persuasive. It is well settled that an employer may violate Section 8(a) of the Act by actions affecting employees with whom it does not have an immediate employer-employee relationship. Lucky Stores, 243 NLRB 642 (1979). Here, Miller initiated the meeting, and made it clear at the outset that he was con- cerned about Regan's union activities and Miller and Pat- terson, in Miller's presence, made it clear that Regan's continued employment depended on Respondent. In these circumstances, I also find that Miller's interroga- tion of Regan was coercive and therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that Miller's statements regarding a strike and the threat to Cease doing business with Patson constituted threats as to the inevitability of a strike and consequent disruption of- Regan's employment and a threat of loss of employment if the Union was selected as the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees Accordingly, I find that these statements vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The Fernandez Incident Mary Fernandez, who was employed in Respondent's warehouse from March until the first part of August, tes- tified, without contradiction, that in June she received a written warning for using obscene language and squirting a fellow employee from a squirt bottle on work premises. Thereafter, she told Warehouse Manager Jack Winters, an admitted supervisor, that she felt the reason she was written up for swearing was because she was extremely prounion and was outspoken in this regard. Winter said none of this would have happened "if it was not for Spencer out there."9 Fernandez further testified, again without contradiction, that several days later she told Miller she did not feel that it was fair that she was writ- ten up for swearing because at one time or another swearing had been done by every person in the ware- house, including Winter and Miller She further said that the person who made the complaint with regard to the squirt bottle knew that it had not been aimed at her and that she felt that the reason for the complaint was be- cause she was prounion and people thought that she was taking Mike Spencer's place as a union activist. Miller said that all that was going on with the warehouse had made enemies out of the best of friends. I find, in the context of - Fernandez' statements that she felt that the complaint against her and the resulting warning were motivated by her prounion sympathies and the failure of Winter and Miller to deny any unlawful motivation as to the warnings, that the statements made by Winter and Miller were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. , CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co- erced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating an employee regarding his union activities; by threatening an employee with loss of employment and the inevitability of a strike and the consequent disruption of his employment if the Union were selected as the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees; by telling an employee that the employees' union activities had made enemies out of the best of friends, that other employees would not have made complaints against her and she would not have re- ceived a written disciplinary warning if it had not been for the employees' union activities; and by warning an employee not to discuss the Union with other employees. 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respond- ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 9 Spencer was picketing Respondent's facility following his discharge