M. A. Industries, Inc.

1140 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD M. A. Industries, Inc. and Industrial Union Depart- ment, AFL-CIO and Graphic Communications International Union. Cases 10-CA-20918, 10- CA-21010, 10-CA-21011, and 10-CA-21175 25 September 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BABSON, STEPHENS, AND CRACRAFT On 18 September 1986 Administrative Law Judge Eleanor MacDonald issued the attached de- cision. The General Counsel filed exceptions' and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross- exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in re- sponse to the General Counsel exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, M. A. Industries, Inc., Peachtree City, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and as- i The General Counsel seeks, inter alia, a visitatorial clause authorizing the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain discovery from the Re- spondent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to the su- pervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the circumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary to include such an order 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all' the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings We find it unnecessary to pass on the supervisory status of Walter Mask and whether he made unlawful statements. Violations stemming from his conduct would be essentially cumulative and would not materi- ally affect the Order We correct the judges' finding in sec II,B, pars 12 and 28 of his deci- sion that Bob Peacock, president of the Respondent, stated that he would never sign a contract with the Union No evidence exists in the record that Peacock ever made this statement to employees. However, the record is clear that the Respondent's agents did make such statements to the employees, violating Sec 8(a)(1) 3 We will modify the recommended Order to more closely conform to the violation arising from the 10 May 1985 conversation between Super- visor Wyche and employee Cathy McNeal. We disagree with the judge's conclusion that the facts of this case war- rant an extraordinary remedy requiring the president of the Respondent personally to sign the remedial notice See, e g , Marlene Industries Corp, 255 NLRB 1446 (1981) We will therefore modify the recommended Order accordingly signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(d). "(d) Threatening employees that they, will be forced to conduct an unfair labor practice strike and their jobs will be jeopardized." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b). "(b) Post at its facility in Peachtree City, Geor- gia, copies of the attached notice marked 'Appen- dix.' 1 I Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT order you to remove union appar- el or insignia. WE WILL NOT discipline you for wearing union apparel or insignia. WE WILL NOT interrogate you concerning your union activities. WE WILL NOT tell you that you have lost a raise due to your union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten you that you will be forced to conduct an unfair labor practice strike and your job will be jeopardized. WE WILL NOT threaten that we will never sign a contract with a union. 285 NLRB No. 141 M. A. INDUSTRIES WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances and promise to correct them if you abandon your union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL remove from our files any references to the unlawful suspensions of Nancy E. Quick, Cathy McNeal, Gail Woodward, and Portia Jones, and WE WILL notify these four employees in writing that this has been done. M. A. INDUSTRIES, INC. Gaye Nell Hymon, Esq., for the General Counsel. John F. Wymer, III, Esq. and Weyman iT Johnson, Jr., Esq. (Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker), of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent. Jeffrey P. Sweetland, Esq. and Harold McIver, of River- dale, Georgia, for Industrial Union Department, AFL- CIO. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ELEANOR MACDo*ALD, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Atlanta, Georgia, on 12 and 13 November 1985. The complaint alleges that Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, so- licited employee grievances, promised to resolve griev- ances, interrogated its employees, promised its employees benefits, threatened its employees, directed its employees to remove union caps and shirts, withheld a scheduled wage increase, suspended its employees, and refused to bargain with the Union. The complaint alleges that the Union is the majority representative of the unit employ- ees and that the possibility of erasing Respondent's unfair labor practices is slight; the complaint requests issuance of a bargaining order. Respondent denies that it has com- mitted any unfair labor practices. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent in January 1986, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent, a Georgia corporation with a plant in Peachtree City, Georgia, manufactures plastic products. Annually, Respondent purchases goods in excess of $50,000 directly in interstate commerce. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that IUD and Graphic (jointly the Union) are each a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. IL THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR' PRACTICES A. Background On 6 June 1985, a representation election was held at the plant in Peachtree City, Georgia.' Of the approxi- mately 48 eligible voters, 23 voted for the Union and 24 against union representation, with 1 nondeterminative challenged ballot. The Union, which had previously filed certain charges in the instant case, filed objections to the election based on events allegedly occurring on the day of the election; it did not seek a bargaining order. Re- spondent admitted that on the day of the election, man- agers told unit employees to remove union caps and T- shirts. During the morning of the election, the Union's observers had'worn the union apparel over Respondent's objection, and in the afternoon the presiding board agent had asked the observers to remove their insignia. Re- spondent suspended two employees for refusing to remove their union apparel on the day of the election and suspended two others on the following day for the same reason. No safety or other business considerations were cited by Respondent for its action. On 10 June 1985, Respondent told the four suspended workers to return to work; the employees received full backpay and benefits for the suspensions and the disciplinary actions were rescinded. The Union asked that,the rerun election be conducted away from Respondent's premises or by absentee, ballot, but the Regional Director ordered that the second elec- tion be conducted on Respondent's premises. When this decision was reached by the Regional Director, the Union filed an amended charge in the instant proceed- ings seeking a bargaining order. B. Incidents Involving Walter Mask Nancy E. Quick is a' mold operator. During the time relevant to this proceeding her supervisor was Diane Madden. Quick testified that all the union meetings were held at her house and that she handed out a union peti- tion and union literature. She visited employees' houses to explain the''Union to them, she was an observer at the election, and she wore a union cap and T-shirt. On 14 April 1985 Quick was at the home of Walter Mask whom she described as a supervisor Mask's wife took care of Quick's young son while Quick was at work and Quick considered Mask her friend. She told Mask about the organizing campaign and said that she hoped it would not interfere with their friendship. Quick dis- cussed with Mask a number of issues including Madden's attitude toward the employees. Mask stated that he would get Peacock (apparently Bob Peacock, president of Respondent) to meet with the employees and said the employees should not do anything before the meeting. Mask said, "They will not accept a union." On 22 April 1985, when Quick brought her son to the Mask home, Walter Mask asked how the union meeting ' The unit stipulated for the election was all production and mainte- nance, shipping and receiving, and quality control employees employed by Respondent in its molding division, excluding all other employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors - 1142 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD went and if several people had shown up.2 Quick said "quite a few" employees had attended the meeting. Mask said, "that we were messing up, that we were going to get a 50-cent raise that week, that it was in progress that week, and that now- we wouldn't even get a damn thing, probably wouldn't even have a job." On 23 April 1985, while she was at the Mask home, ,Walter Mask asked Quick if all second- and third-shift employees had ' signed up for the Union. Quick said, "Yes, all but Francis." The General Counsel -asserts that Mask's questions about the union activities of other employees, his state- ment that organization would be futile, and his statement that the employees would have gotten a 50-cent raise but, because of their union activities, they would not get a thing and probably would not have a ,job violates Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent urges that Mask is not a supervisor and that the allegations based on his conduct should be dismissed. - The employees clearly believed Mask was a supervi- sor. Quick stated that Mask was a supervisor. Cathy McNeal testified that Mask was her supervisor ' in the packing department and remained her supervisor even when she later spent part of her time in molding; not until 2 weeks before the election,did James Wyche tell her that Madden was her supervisor.3 Mask and Madden, about whose supervisory status there is no dis- pute, both kept the employees supplied with materials. Mask did not punch the timeclock as the unit employees did. He gave McNeal permission to leave early and she reported her absences to him. Mask had interviewed McNeal for her position and had hired her. Mask- had told McNeal that he was a salaried employee. McNeal recalled that in May 1985, Mask had warned employee Pat Jones that if she did not do her work, she would be sent home. Jones then did the work. Wyche testified that Mask is hourly paid and receives overtime; however, Mask is paid at a higher rate than others in the packing department. Wyche stated that Mask had been demoted from supervisor to leadperson in the printing and comb packing operation sometime in the fall of 1984. No de- tails were furnished to back up this contention. Indeed, Mask had been identified as a supervisor on a list posted by Respondent in 1976. This list remained posted until sometime in 1985.. Wyche did not specify whether the list was removed from the bulletin board before or after the material events in April 1985. Mask did not testify in this proceeding. The evidence clearly shows that Mask had been a su- pervisor but that he became a leadperson at some point before the instant trial. However, it ' is not clear when Mask was demoted. Wyche stated that Mask was demot- ed in the fall of 1984, but Mask's name'remained posted as a supervisor on a bulletin board where employees could see it daily until an unspecified - date in 1985. Wyche's testimony is not specific enough for me to make a finding that Mask was in fact demoted in 1984. By con- trast, the testimony of McNeal was specific that she was not told that Mask was no longer her super-visor until 2 2 There had been a union meeting at Quick's home the day before 2 Wyche is plant manager of Respondent weeks before the election in June. 19,85. Thus, I find that at the_ time relevant to this proceeding, Mask was still a supervisor. The testimony of Quick shows that she volunteered in- formation about the union organizing campaign to Mask on 14 April. Quick made no secret of her support for the Union. Later, on 22 April 1985, Mask asked Quick if people had shown up for the meeting held at her house. Standing alone without any threats this question to Quick might not meet the test for unlawful interrogation set forth in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). However, Mask followed his question with the comment that the employees were "messing up," that they had been about to get a raise and would now not get a "damn thing" and "probably wouldn't even have a job." He thereby threatened employees that they were losing a raise and might lose their jobs because of the Union. These threats were unlawful and thus made coercive the accompanying question about how many people had at- tended the union meeting. I further find that Mask's statement to Quick on 14 April that Respondent would "not accept a union" unlawfully conveyed to employees that their union activities were futile. Given this back- ground of unlawful interrogation and threats, Mask's question to Quick on 23 April whether all second- and third-shift employees had signed for the Union was also coercive. Respondent has thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. Meetings of Respondent's Managers with Quick and Woodward Quick testified that on Monday morning, 15 April 1985, Wyche called Quick into his office. At Quick's re- quest, she was accompanied by ' employee Gail Wood- ward. Wyche said he had heard the employees were or- ganizing a union and that "he wanted to talk to us and try -to settle our problems, work them out." The three then discussed retirement, income, seniority recognition, dental and health insurance, the quality control person, and supervisors.4 Wyche took notes in a little notebook. He told Quick and Woodward that he would try to get Bob Peacock to meet with them. Quick said everyone wanted to talk to Peacock, not just Quick and Madden, and Wyche said Peacock was very busy. Wyche stated that he would handle the supervisors and other matters, but that retirement, insurance, and a wage increase would have to be discussed with Peacock. Wyche con- cluded by saying "that he should have gotten rid of Gail a long time ago, that his job was on the line." During this meeting, Quick told Wyche there would be a union meeting that afternoon. Later on the morning of 15 April, Quick and Wood- ward met Wyche, Bob Peacock, and Herb Frady, vice president and general manager, in Wyche's office. Pea- cock raised the issue of the Company's growth and dis- cussed retirement. He referred to the Company's social security contributions. The group, discussed health insur- ance, the attitude of supervisors, and quality control in- 4 The employees were concerned that Madden spoke to them in "ugly" language M. A. INDUSTRIES - spectors. Frady told Wyche he was not aware of the su- pervisor "talking to us in that way and that he wanted it to stop." Wyche said seniority was recognized except in instances of poor performance. When Peacock asked if they could work things out, Quick said all the employees would have to be consulted. Peacock said "he would not sign a contract for anyone, that he had never signed a contract for the salesmen or anyone else working with him, that he would not do it now." Peacock said the company was making more money than ever and that Respondent was willing to share it with the employees. Then Frady said he had some credit union papers on his desk, that the matter was in progress. Peacock asked the employees to wait and not sign a union card until the following Thursday; Quick said yes but she would have to check with the others.5 Woodward testified that at the first meeting with Wyche on 15 April, Wyche told her and Quick "I've heard . . . that you all are trying to get a union to come in." He asked them if they had signed cards and they an- swered "no." Then, Wyche said, "I want to talk to you and try to work these problems out without a union." Wyche asked them to tell him what their problems were, and they discussed the items detailed above. Wyche said "his job was on the line now because he didn't get rid of me a long time ago." Woodward asked what he meant, but Wyche did not explain his comment. Woodward recalled that at the meeting with Wyche, Frady, and Bob Peacock, she and Quick detailed their problems in response to Peacock's question about what their problems were and why, they felt they needed a union. Peacock said "he was making more money now than he had ever made and he was willing to share it with us." Frady mentioned he was working on a credit union. Peacock asked the two to hold off on any further union activity until he and Frady returned from an up- coming business trip and said that they would talk more at that time. Woodward said she would wait but she was not sure what the other employees would decide at the meeting scheduled for later that day. According to Woodward, Wyche came over to Wood- ward's machine later on 15 April and told her that he was disappointed in her and that she complained too much about her supervisor. He said he should have gotten rid of her a long time ago. By then, employee Portia Jones had joined them and Woodward asked "why." Wyche would not give a reason for his com- ment. Then Wyche told Jones that if the Union came in "you''re' not going to be able to come over here and talk to her like this." Woodward told him he was wrong. According to Wyche, on Friday, 12 April 1985, em- ployee Debbie Clark told Wyche there was a union meeting at Quick's house. On Monday morning, 15 April 1985, Mask told Wyche that Quick wanted to talk to him, Bob Peacock, and Frady about the Union. Wyche then saw Quick and asked if she wanted to meet with him. She said yes so he invited Quick into his office. 5 In fact, the employees were not signing authorization cards Instead, they were signing a series of sheets that stated, "This will authorize the AFL-CIO and/or its appropriate affiliate to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer. This will also authorize said union to use my name for the purpose of organizing M A Industries, Inc " 1143 Woodward came running in saying she wanted to see him, having left her machine without permission a few moments later. Wyche took notes. 'Quick said the em- ployees had been planning a union petition. Wyche asked if it had been filed with the NLRB and the employees said it had not. The employees then raised issues relating to working conditions and said they needed answers that day or they would file the petition. Wyche said he could not answer their questions. He said he would check com- plaints about Madden. Mask had told Wyche the em- ployees wanted to meet with Bob Peacock and Herb Frady, and Wyche arranged the meeting within 15 min- utes of his talk with Quick and Woodward. The two women told the three men that Madden was "talking ugly." Both Wyche and Frady said they would look into that. The employees complained about dental insurance, lockers, and wages. Bob Peacock said he had been think- ing about a raise but that he would have to think about it before deciding how much of a raise to give. The two employees asked about retirement and also a "personal contract without a union." Bob Peacock said he did not give individual contracts. At the close of the meeting, Bob Peacock said he would like Quick and Woodward "to wait before they did anything else until he got back on Thursday and could talk to them further." Frady testified that on 15 April, Wyche told him and Peacock that Quick and Woodward had in their posses- sion a petition and that they wanted to meet with man- agement before turning it over to the Union. When the meeting began, the, two employees said they had a peti- tion and that "they wanted to discuss this matter with us prior" to filing with the Union. They asked about retire- ment, supervisors, personal contracts, dental benefits, health insurance, and pay raise. Regarding the pay raise, Respondent said the pay practices were being evaluated. Frady said he would investigate the complaint about the supervisor. No promises were made. Respondent told the employees they would have a meeting. Bob Peacock testified that on 15 April 1985 he and Frady were getting ready to go to Memphis on business. Wyche called and said that Quick and Woodward wanted to meet with them; they had a petition to file for a union and they wanted a meeting before they filed the petition to see if things could be worked out. Peacock, Frady, and Wyche met with Quick and Woodward. One of them mentioned a pay raise. Peacock responded by saying that Respondent's policy was to remain competi- tive but that the employees had received a cost-of-living increase in January. Peacock also said, "We had under consideration the pay scale at all of our departments there because we had lost several employees . . . be- cause they were going to other places for higher pay." Wyche had brought that to Peacock's attention in Febru- ary or March 1985, and Respondent was considering what could be done about it. He did not make any prom- ises. Other benefits were discussed. Peacock said "they stated they wanted a personal contract" but he told them no one had a personal contract and he did not intend to have one. The employees asked about other working conditions and Peacock dealt with the questions raised. When the employees complained about Madden's talk 1144 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and her behavior, Frady said he would look into it, and this was done. Because Peacock had to leave for Mem- phis he told Quick and Woodward that he would meet with the employees when he returned on Thursday, 18 April 1985. He asked, "Am I to understand that no action will be taken on this petition until we can get back and meet with you again on Thursday?" He did not recall asking the employees to hold off until Thursday. The employees agreed there would be no action taken. In, the event, the petition was filed on Wednesday, 17 April, and no meeting took place. As noted above, Mask, the conduit for the employees' purported requests, did not testify on behalf of Respond- ent. I found Quick and Woodward to be exceptionally strong and convincing witnesses; they answered all ques- tions cooperatively, they did not shift on cross-examina- tion and they had a good recall for events related to the instant controversy. Their demeanor was especially im- pressive. I shall rely on the testimony of Quick and Woodward. Wyche's version of the events is not plausible. If Quick had indeed asked for a meeting, she would have specified that Woodward was to attend and there would have been no need for the latter to run into Wyche's office, leaving her machine without permission. Further, if Quick and Woodward wanted to extract concessions as Respondent's witnesses maintained, instead of filing the petition on the next day, they would have waited for Peacock's return to see if Respondent would be forth- coming and satisfy their demands. Moreover, it is clear that a great many of the unit employees had signed the authorizing petition and it strains credulity to urge that at that'late stage of an organizing campaign, two major employee activists would be willing to forego unioniza- tion for the promise of concessions from management. Thus, I do not find that Quick and Woodward initiated the discussions with Respondent's management as a means of extracting concessions under the threat of an organizing campaign. Rather, I find that Wyche, having been told about the union, activity by both Clark and Mask, called Quick into his office to see what he could do to forestall the union campaign. Thus, I find that Wyche mentioned the union campaign and said he wanted to try to "settle" the employees' problems and "work them out." I find that Wyche offered to deal with a problem -the employees had with Supervisor Diane Madden. Respondent thereby violated' Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find, based on the testimony of Quick and Woodward, that Bob Peacock discussed the employees' complaints and concerns and asked the employees -if they could work things out. As Peacock himself testified, he said, "Am I to understand that no action will be taken [with respect to filing a union petition] until we can get back and meet with you on Thursday?" Peacock was asking the employees to hold off on union activity until he could discuss their demands further. During this cson- versation, Frady offered to deal with the supervisory problem and Peacock said the Company was making more money than ever and he was willing to share it. Peacock and Wyche testified that the employees asked for a "personal contract." I do not credit this testimony. I find instead that- Respondent repeatedly told its em- ployees that Peacock had no contracts with any of his employees and that he would never sign a contract with the Union. Respondent stressed that it would meet with the employees Thursday if they did not take steps to gain union representation before that day. It is clear that Respondent solicited grievances --at this meeting and promised to look into and correct the problem involving Madden. Further, Peacock stated he was going to give a raise, but had not decided on the amount. These prom- ises of future benefits were predicated on the employees' holding off on signing or filing documents in connection with union representation. Thus, the solicitation and im- plication of corrective action interfered with and re- strained and coerced the employees in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, as did Peacock's statement that he would never sign a contract with the Union. Both Quick and Woodward testified that on Wednes- day, 17 April 1985, they sought to present the petition signed by the employees to Wyche. Wyche told them they were cutting their own throats. Wyche then brought Director of Operations Don Peacock over to Quick and Woodward and told them that Don Peacock was in charge of the Company.6 Woodward gave Don Peacock the petition; as he read it, Wyche mold the two women that the employees had been going to get a raise but that they were cutting their own throats with the Union. Then Don Peacock said, "I've been fighting for several months trying to get you all something better, but seems like that's all in vain if you go through with this Union." These statements of Wyche and Peacock violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in that they informed employees that Respondent was going to give a raise but would not because of the employees' union activity. D. Incidents Involving Madden Employee Cathy McNeal testified that she attended union meetings and gave out handbills. On 7 May 1985 Madden came up to McNeal and employee Pat Jones and asked how they felt about the Union. McNeal did not reply and Jones said, "No comment." Then'McNeal said she was all for it because working conditions and benefits needed improvement. Madden replied, "We couldn't make Bob Peacock do anything if we got a union in. . . . The company was too small for a union, that if we didn't like the way things were going why didn't we just talk to Mr. Peacock himself." Employee Julia Warr is a machine operator. Madden was her supervisor during the time relevant to this pro- ceeding. On 30 April 1985 Madden walked up toWarr at machine 10 and asked, "I want to know what made you all do this." Warr said she did not want to discuss it, but Madden insisted. Then, Warr said it was in part be- cause Bob Peacock had not kept his promises made during the last union campaign. The two discussed the benefits currently being received by the employees. Fi- nally, Madden said, "Well, bringing in the union is not 6 Don Peacock is the son of President Bob Peacock. He did not testify in this proceeding M. A. INDUSTRIES going to accomplish you anything because Bob Peacock is not going to sign a contract." Warr complained about retirement and about her wages. Madden said, "If you all go on strike you all could be permanently replaced." The two women argued about whether this was true. Then Madden said, "Well, you know about that raise you were going to get, didn't you?" Leaning into Warr's face, Madden continued, "it was 50 cents, but you all had to bring the union in before they could give it to you." Madden suggested that if the employees had wanted more benefits they should have spoken to man- agement. Then she said, "If this union comes in . . . you might even have to settle for less than what you're get- ting now." Portia it Jones is a machine operator. During the rele- vant time, her supervisor was Diane Madden. During the Union's campaign, she wore a union cap, and she signed the union petition. Jones testified that, on 3 May 1985, Madden spoke to Jones at machine 8. Madden twice asked Jones what she thought about the Union despite Jones' saying that she did not want to discuss it. Madden said Jones could have come to management about her problems. She stated, "If the union comes in you will lose your job.',' Madden was referring to a strike. Jones said there would have to be a majority 'vote before a strike could be called, but Madden said, "No, not neces- sarily, not without a contract." Jones told Madden that after the strike, employees would get their jobs back. Then Madden said that the Union would want to negoti- ate "and probably they'll take away all your benefits except your insurance." After some discussion of the dif- ficulty of a supervisor's lot, Madden said that union men were just like salesmen . She closed by' saying Pearl Hayes and Betty Duncan "are old and they wouldn't want to go out and look for another job." Madden testified that she and Wyche talked about the Union almost every day. Wyche wanted Madden to know the Company's position and he wanted her to keep up with what was going on in the campaign. Madden re- called that the employees began talking about the Union in April and from then on she informed Wyche of any talk she heard on the-plant floor. Madden tried to get an idea of how the employees felt about the Union and what was going on. Wyche did not tell Madden what to say to the employees; however, in May 1985, Manage- ment Consultant Bob Wright came to the plant and dis- cussed what supervisors could say to the employees about the Union. After this occasion, Madden distributed literature to the employees. Madden generally denied telling employees they would lose their jobs and their benefits if the Union came in. Madden testified that no one in management mentioned a 50-cent raise; however, she acknowledged that Wyche told her about the meet- ing of Quick and Woodward with members of manage- ment and that the Company was considering a raise. Madden maintained that she heard about a 50-cent raise from several employees right after this meeting. Madden could not recall many of the events she was asked about. Madden recalled approaching McNeal in May 1985 to get a discussion going about the Union. She discussed the 50-cent raise with McNeal. Madden denied asking McNeal how she felt about the Union, but she may have 1145 asked what the employees thought a union could do for them. Madden denied telling McNeal that Peacock would not sign a contract with the Union. I credit McNeal's version of the conversation with Madden. I found McNeal a convincing witness. Further, Madden did not impress me as having genuine recall of the events. Thus, I find that Madden, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, told McNeal that it would be futile to select the Union as a bargaining representative. Madden recalled speaking to Warr but she denied saying Peacock would never sign a contract; in fact, Madden testified, the signing of a contract was not men- tioned. However, Madden also testified that she told Warr that no one knew what would be in the contract, until it was signed. Madden denied asking Warr why she supported the Union. I credit Warr''s version of her con- versation with Madden. Thus, I find that Madden coer- cively interrogated Warr about her support for the Union, told Warr that Peacock would never sign a con- tract and told her that the employees had lost a 50 cents raise because they supported the Union. Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Madden could not recall a conversation with Portia Jones. Jones testified that Madden told her that in the event of a strike she and other employees might lose their jobs. I credit this testimony. However, it is clear that the two also discussed the fact that strikers retained certain job rights. Therefore, I do not find a violation based on Madden's comments to Jones. E. Incidents Involving Wyche Portia Jones testified that on 22 April, while Jones was working at machine 2, Wyche walked up to her and told her he had been made plant manager and that he was going to try to change things. He said his door was always open if she wanted to discuss a problem. Wyche told Jones that Quick and Woodward had disappointed Bob Peacock by sending in the petition despite his re- quest that they wait until he returned from a business trip. Wyche said, "I told them .. . they was going to give a 50 cent raise." He said Quick and Woodward had "messed it up" and that because the "letter request" (union petition) had been sent "they could not promise us anything." Jones then discussed other working condi- tions with Wyche. Employee Tyani Sherkey joined the discussion and Wyche said that Bob Peacock told him that "he would not sign a contract and he never will sign one.,, McNeal testified that, about 10 May 1985, Wyche ap- proached her in the print department and asked if she had heard about the Union. Wyche said, "Bob Peacock won't like the union stuff at all. If you all get a union in the first thing they're going to do is . . . ask to get money out of your paycheck. Bob doesn't have to .. . Bob Peacock will not sign a contract. He will not go for this at all. You all will be forced to go on strike and you'll be permanently replaced." About 14 or 15 May, Wyche handed McNeal some literature. Then he said that all Bob Peacock had to do was sit down and bargain in good faith with the Union. It might take 3, 4, 5 years 1146 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and he might never sign a contract. During this time, all wages and benefits would be frozen. Wyche testified that he could not recall any specifics of conversations with Jones or McNeal. I credit the testimony of Jones and McNeal; I find that Wyche told employees that Respondent had been going to give a 50-cent raise but that union activity had messed it up, and he told employees that Respondent would never sign a contract and that the employees would be forced to go on strike. These statements violated Section 8(a)(1) of theAct. F. Respondent's Failure to Grant a Wage Increase The evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion urged by the General Counsel that Respondent withheld a scheduled 50-cent-an-hour wage increase because of its employees' union activities. The testimony shows that Respondent was aware of wage competition in the area and that it had some idea that its wages were no longer sufficient to retain its valued employees. Further, Frady testified that he had begun a preliminary investigation with the object of deciding on a higher wage scale. And at the meeting with Quick and Woodward, Bob Peacock said he had a wage increase in .mind because of the Com- pany's increased profitability, but he had- not decided on the amount. Based on these facts, I can not find that Re- spondent had decided on a wage increase. Once the union campaign was well on the way, however, several employees were told by Wyche, Madden, and Don Pea- cock that but for their union activiity, they would have received a 50-cent-an-hour increase. I have found above that these statements violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. G. Suspension of Four Employees Respondent admitted that it directed four employees to remove union apparel and that it suspended four em- ployees on 6 and 7 June 1985 for refusing to remove clothing bearing union insignia.? On 10 June Respondent recalled the employees with full backpay and benefits. Respondent also rescinded the disciplinary actions.8 Re- spondent's instructions to employees to remove union ap- parel and its suspension of four employees violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. H_ Requestfor a Bargaining Order The General Counsel requests the issuance of a bar- gaining order pursuant to NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S 575 (1969). The General Counsel urges that Re- spondent's conduct in the instant matter is "outrageous and pervasive" within the meaning of the Gissel case; in the alternative, the General Counsel maintains that Re- spondent's actions meet the second highest standard of Gissel in that they have a tendency to undermine majori- ty strength and impede the election process. The General 4 These were Quick, Jones, Woodward, and McNeal a There is no evidence that after recalling the suspended employees Respondent publicized to all of its employees their right to wear union insignia However, the testimony of several witnesses shows that some employees continued to wear union apparel in the plant - for several months after the election Counsel relies mainly on Vinyl-Fab Industries, 265 NLRB 1097 (1983). I have found above that four employees were unlaw- fully suspended by Respondent for refusing to remove union insignia as directed on the day of the election. I have found that Supervisor ' Mask now employed as a leadperson, coercively interrogated an employee, told her that because of union activity the employees would lose a projected raise and probably would not have a job, and told her that Respondent would not 'accept a union. I have found that Supervisor Madden coercively interrogated an employee, told two employees that it was futile to select the Union and that' the president of Respondent would never sign a contract and told an em- ployee that a raise had been lost due to union activity. I have found that Plant Manager Wyche told two employ- ees that the president of Respondent would never sign a contract and that the employees would be forced to go on strike. Finally, I have found that in a series of joint meetings with the two chief employee spokesmen in the plant, Plant Manager Wyche, Vice President Frady, and Director of Operations Don Peacock offered to investi- gate and correct grievances if employees refrained from union activity and told employees they had lost a raise due to their union activity. Finally, Bob Peacock, the president of Respondent, told the two spokesmen that he was looking into a raise for the employees and that he would discuss all their problems if they would suspend union activity pending his discussions of employee griev- ances and demands. Peacock also stated that he had ,never signed a contract for anyone and that he would not sign a contract now. There is no doubt that these violations are serious and, in some instances, especially so because they were en- gaged in by the top management of Respondent. Howev- er, I do not find that the violations committed by Re- spondent are "outrageous and pervasive" within the meaing of Gissel, supra. Therefore the question to be de- cided is whether the "possibility of erasing the effects of past practices and of ensuring a fair election . . . by the use of traditional remedies is slight." 395 U.S. 614. In Vinyl-Fab, supra, the case relied on by the General Counsel, the,plant manager threatened the leading union activist with loss of jobs by employees and more onerous working conditions for employees. The two occasions, the plant manager gave the union activist unlawful warn- ings. The managers of Respondent, including its presi- dent held unitwide meetings at which employee com- plaints were solicited, and threats of layoffs and more onerous working conditions, were made. The company president also sent a letter to all employees unlawfully soliciting complaints and promising to remedy them without the Union. -The Board emphasized that the threats and solicitations were unitwide and were made by top management, and that the, unlawful conduct was repeated throughout the campaign and after the filing of the petition and demonstrated Respondent's continued hostility toward the Union. In the instant case, the un- lawful conduct was directed at the leading union activ- ists who acted as spokesmen for the employees when Re- spondent's top management learned of the organizing M. A. INDUSTRIES campaign. The unlawful conduct continued after the onset of the campaign; employees were told they had lost a raise because of the union activity; and Bob Pea- cock's statement that he would not sign a contract was repeated to the employees. Finally, on the day of the election itself, four' union activists were unlawfully di- rected to remove union apparel and insignia and were subsequently suspended for refusing to do so. Whether a bargaining order is warranted in this case is a very close question. Having reviewed the facts in light of the applicable Board precedents, I am constrained to find that a bargaining order should not issue.9 I cannot say that the possibility of erasing the unlawful effects of Respondent's conduct is slight nor that the Board's tradi- tional remedies are insufficient to deal with Respondent's unfair labor practices. In contrast with Vinyl-Fab, supra, there were no repeated threats of job loss, layoff, or dis- ciplinary warnings in the instant case. Although four em- ployees were unlawfully suspended, on their reinstate- ment, they and others continued to wear union insignia for some months after the election. A review of the cases shows that interrogation, threats that Respondent would never sign a contract, and the statement that the employ- ees' union activity had lost them a raise are the kinds of unlawful acts for which the Board's usual remedies are generally deemed adequate. Because Respondent's man- agers and supervisors, including President Bob Peacock, repeatedly told employees that Bob Peacock would never sign a contract with the Union, I find that it is necessary that Bob Peacock himself sign the remedial notice to Respondent's employees. 1. Request for a Visitatorial Order The General Counsel requests that the recommended Order include a visitatorial clause authorizing the Board to engage in discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to monitor compliance with the Board. I shall not issue such a recommended Order be- cause no need for such a provision has been made out in the instant case. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By ordering its employees to remove apparel bear- ing union insignia and suspending its employees for fail- ing to remove the apparel, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 2. By interrogating its employees about their union ac- tivities, informing its employees they had lost a raise due to their union 'activities, telling employees they might lose their jobs because of their union activities, telling its employees that Respondent's president Bob Peacock would never sign a contract with the Union and solicit- ing employee grievances and promising to correct them if the employees would forgo support for the Union, Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The General Counsel has failed to prove any other violations of the Act. 9 Radio Broadcasting Co_, 277 NLRB 1112 (1985), Clark Equipment Ca, 278 NLRB 498 (1986) Cf Studio SJT, 277 NLRB 1189 (1985), Quality Aluminum Prodz{cts, 278 NLRB 338 (1986), Dayton Auto Electric, 278 NLRB 551 (1986), Well-Bred Loaf dne, 280 NLRB 306 (1986) 1147 REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- edlo ORDER The Respondent, M. A. Industries, Inc., Peachtree City, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Ordering its employees to remove union insignia and disciplining them for failure to remove union insig- nia. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning union ac- tivities. (c) Telling employees they have lost a raise due to their union activities. (d) Threatening employees that they may lose their jobs due to their union activities. (e) Threatening employees that Respondent would never sign a contract with the Union. (f) Soliciting employee grievances and promising to correct them if employees abandon their support for the Union. (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful suspensionsof Nancy E. Quick, Cathy McNeal, Gail Woodward, and Portia Jones, and notify these four em- ployees in writing that this has been done. (b) Post at its facility in Peachtree City, Georgia, copies of the attached notice, marked "Appendix."" Copies of the notice, an forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by Bob Peacock shall beposted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. I i If 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 Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 1148 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT FURTHER IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found.