Kent Products, Inc.

824 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kent Products, Inc., White Cloud Division and Thomas C. Stout. Case 7-CA-26649 July 13, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On October 21, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Walter H. Maloney Jr. issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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 brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order. The judge concluded that the Respondent violat- ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in November 1986 when Jackie Bulson spoke to Charging Party Thomas C. Stout. During their conversation Bulson asked Stout, inter alia, about the identity of employees involved in an organizational effort, and Stout's opinion of the union activity. Bulson fur- ther told Stout that she would relay the informa- tion Stout gave concerning the identity of the em- ployees who were organizing to the plant manager but would leave Stout's name out of the report. The Respondent excepts to the judge's finding of violations based on Bulson's remarks, contending that Bulson was not a statutory supervisor at the time of this conversation. We find merit in the Re- spondent's exception. The Respondent is a manufacturer of shifters for Ford automobiles. During November 1986, Bulson, the welding department leadperson on the first shift, was also assigned to work 2 additional hours on the second shift in order to train Stout in his duties as a robotics technician. Although the judge found that Bulson was a supervisor during her normal shift, as well as during her overtime work with Stout when the alleged unlawful conversation took place, we find that her duties and responsibil- ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an admimstrative 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 note that in the last sentence of sec. I,B, par. 6, of his decision, the judge inadvertently named Joann Nelson rather than Jackie Bulson as the person to whom Debbie Griffis Vincent and Kenny Miller complained about the lack of premium pay for their shift ities were insufficient at that time to establish her as a supervisor under the Act.2 As the work leader of 12 employees on the first shift, Bulson turned on the machines in the depart- ment, provided supplies, charted and gauged parts, answered questions, and submitted production cards and production sheets for her shift. The record does not show that Bulson's responsibility for assigning work entailed the exercise of inde- pendent judgment, since assignments were made by first seeing what jobs were ready to be done and which employees had reported to work, and then directing the workers to operate the machines nec- essary for the jobs at hand. There was no evidence demonstrating that Bulson exercised discretion in assigning work to employees or determining the priority of work. Bulson did have authority to allow employees to leave work early due to illness or medical appointments, although she could not authorize days off. She had no power to hire or fire, but did participate in oral warnings for exces- sive absences. However, while she identified cases when a warning might be appropriate, no warning was given unless her supervisor and the plant man- ager concurred, and even then Bulson and her su- pervisor together discussed the problem with the employee and signed the forms documenting the warning. Bulson testified that such oral warnings were rare and that her recommendations were not always adopted by her superiors. Finally, Bulson indicated that she did not handle problems with employees who would not perform their duties, but rather would inform her supervisor of the matter. The foregoing evidence indicates that Bulson's assignment of work to employees was routine and that her role in giving oral warnings did not dem- onstrate the exercise of discretion or independent judgment. Further, her allowing employees to leave work early if they were ill or had medical appointments is insufficient to establish supervisory status. We therefore conclude that Bulson was not a supervisor in November 1986 and that the Re- spondent did not coercively interrogate Stout and place employee union activities under company surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1). AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Delete Conclusions of Law 2 and substitute the following: "2. By threatening an employee with plant clo- sure and discharge if employees engaged in strikes 2 We note that from early January 1987 Bulson served in positions which the Respondent admits were supervisory positions This fact, how- ever, is insufficient to affect our finding that at the time of her conversa- tion with Stout in November 1986 Bulson was not a statutory supervisor. 289 NLRB No. 105 KENT PRODUCTS or voted to support a union, the Respondent violat- ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." ORDERS The Respondent, Kent Products, Inc., White Cloud Division, White Cloud, Michigan, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees with plant closure and discharge if they engage in a strike or vote to support a union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at the Respondent's White Cloud, Michi- gan plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of the notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme- diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consec- utive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 2 The judge's recommended Order includes a visitatorial clause allow- mg the Board to obtain discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure in the event that the Order must be enforced through contempt proceedings Under the circumstances of this case , we find it unnecessary to include such a clause See Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988) 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." 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. 825 WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis- charge or plant closure if they engage in a strike or vote to be represented by a union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. KENT PRODUCTS, INC., WHITE CLOUD DIVISION Mark D. Rubin, Esq., for the General Counsel. Gregory M. Palmer, Esq., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALTER H. MALONEY JR., Administrative Law Judge. This case came on for hearing before me at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on June 25, 1987, on an unfair labor practice complaint,' issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 and amended at the hearing, which alleges that Respondent Kent Products, Inc., White Cloud Division,2 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. More particularly, the amended complaint alleges that the Respondent in- structed employees not to engage in concerted protected activities, threatened to close the plant if a union were voted in, interrogated employees concerning their union activities, and discharged Charging Party Thomas C. Stout because he engaged in concerted, protected activi- ties. The Respondent denies each of these allegations and asserts that it discharged Stout because Stout engaged in a fight on company property that was provoked, at least in part, by disparaging statements and scandalous accusa- tions that he had made about a fellow employee. On these contentions the issues were drawn.3 FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED Respondent operates a manufacturing facility in White Cloud, Michigan, where it produces auto parts for the Ford Motor Company. Recently Respondent was pur- chased by the Sparton Corporation. At White Cloud it i The principal docket entries in this case are as follows Charge filed by Thomas C Stout, an individual, against the Respond- ent on February 17, 1987; complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 7, against the Respondent on March 26 , 1987; Respondent's answer filed on April 4, 1987, hearing held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on June 25, 1987; briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent on August 17, 1987 2 I find that the Respondent is a Michigan corporation that maintains its principal place of business in White Cloud, Michigan, where it is en- gaged in the manufacture and sale of automotive parts. During the fiscal year ending July 1, 1986, in the course and conduct of this operation Re- spondent purchased at its White Cloud, Michigan plant directly from points and places located outside the State of Michigan goods and maten- als valued in excess of $50,000 . Accordingly, the Respondent is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 3 Transcript correction is noted and corrected 826 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employs approximately 125 production and maintenance employees. They were formerly represented by a labor organization, but, at some point in time not disclosed in the record, the Union was decertified. Until January 1987, the Respondent maintained a two- shift operation. The first shift reported at 7 a.m. and left at 3:30 p.m. The second shift reported at 3:30 p.m. and stayed until midnight. The second shift received a 10- cent-per-hour shift premium. Because production was backlogged and the Respondent's robotic machines were not utilized 8 hours each day, Plant Manager Vince Sweezey, in consultation with certain supervisors, decid- ed to put the plant on a three-shift basis and posted a notice to that effect. The notice, dated January 9, 1987, read: Please be advised effective January 12, 1987, the robots will have an added third shift. Please note the following schedules. 3:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 1st shift no premium 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2nd shift 10 cent premium 7:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. 3rd shift 15 cent premium Charging Party Thomas C. Stout was transferred to the new first shift from the former second shift. By virtue of this transfer he stood to lose his shift premium.' His reaction to the shift change constitutes a significant portion of this case. Stout was hired by the Respondent in July 1986, as a robotics technician and was placed under the supervision of Maintenance Supervisor Frank Gavinski. He also came into frequent contact with Supervisors Jackie Bulson and Joann Nelson.5 During the fall of 1986, Bulson was assigned to give Stout special training as a robot maintenance man because he was having difficulty learning the job. After finishing her regular tour of duty as a first-shift leadlady in the welding department, she would return to the plant in the evening during Stout's * In fact, because of a clerical error, Stout was not actually deprived of his shift premium during the week in which the three -shift operation was in effect S Gavinski exercised general oversight of maintenance personnel. He could and did evaluate and reprimand employees for shortcomings in their job performance The record reflects that he was empowered to suspend employees and did in fact suspend Stout . I conclude that Ga- vmski is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act Joann Nelson car- ned the title of supervisor of the pressroom and welding department, which consists of about 35 employees . She can discipline and discharge employees. I conclude that she is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act From January 6, 1987, until June 1, Jackie Bulson was an acting su- pervisor on the second shift After June 1 she was given the title of su- pervisor At some period of time in 1986, she was also an acting supervi- sor During the months of October, November, and December 1986, she was a leadperson on the first shift As lead welder, she performed qual- ity-control work, set up work in her department each day, made sure that the 12 employees in that department had supplies , and that they properly filled out production cards and production sheets She earned 5 percent more in this position than other employees Although claiming that she did not administer discipline, she could give oral warnings, the first step in the Respondent's five-step progressive discipline system, with the con- sent of her own supervisor She regularly assigned work each day to the employees under her supervision Based on these factors, I conclude that Jackie Bulson was a supervisor both when she was a leadperson and when she was given titles indicating higher supervisory authority shift and give him 2 hours of assistance and training in robotics maintenance and repair.6 I credit Stout's testimony7 that, during one of these evening training sessions in November, Bulson asked Stout if he had heard anything in the shop concerning a union. She said she wanted to know who was spreading unionization "rumors" and who was organizing. Stout asked if he would get into trouble if he told her. She as- sured him that he would not. Stout then mentioned the names of Nick McGraw, Simon Quintanilla, and Bill Seply as union sympathizers, saying that he had dis- cussed unionization with them. She then asked Stout about his own feelings but he declined to reply. She told Stout that she would relay the information that he had given her to plant management but would leave Stout's name out of her report. Bulson reported her conversa- tion with Stout to Nelson, and both of them took the in- formation to Sweezey. When Sweezey learned of the rumor, he phoned his supervisor, Gary White, the manu- facturing manager for Kent Products, and relayed the in- formation to him. White asked Sweezey how plant morale was faring. When Sweezey said he thought that morale was good, White told him simply to "sit tight" and not react. About the time that the shift change notice was posted,8 a number of employees objected to the new 3 a.m. starting time and the fact that this shift carried with it no shift premium. They began to criticize the change among themselves. Among those who were opposed to the change were Debbie Griffis Vincent, Laurie Pace, Scott Carpenter, and Stout. Vincent and fellow employ- ee Kenny Miller went to see Bulson about the change. They told her that they thought it was unfair that they should be asked to report to work at 3 a.m. and not re- ceive any shift premium for their trouble. Bulson replied that the 3 a.m. shift was considered the first shift so em- ployees assigned to it were not eligible for a premium. After returning to their duty stations, they were criti- cized by Supervisor Gary Clark for taking their com- plaint to Nelson rather than to him. Stout asked Vincent and Miller what had happened. They related that they had made a complaint about the shift change and were chewed out for doing so by Clark because he felt they should have come to him rather than to Bulson. Stout said that he would take the com- plaint to Nelson and he did so. After voicing to Nelson Bulson did not cease to be a supervisor because she worked overtime in the evening instructing Stout. She was paid her regular wage for this extra service, and there is no reason to believe that she had less authority during evening hours than she exercised during the day 7 Bulson was not an impressive witness She was biased, not only in an institutional sense but in a personal one She was intimately involved in the events that led up to Stout's discharge She repeated Stout's question- able remarks to Simon Quintanilla , Stout's antagonist in the fight which led to the discharge of both men. But for her act the fight would never have taken place Moreover , the propriety of her relationship with Qinn- tanilla was seriously challenged by Stout, who made remarks to her that reflected badly on her character Accordingly, I would discredit any controverted testimony that she gave. 8 There is some conflict in the testimony as to whether Stout's com- plaint about the shift change took place immediately before or immediate- ly after the Monday on which the change took place. It is immaterial to this case whether he complained just before or just after the event KENT PRODUCTS and Clark the complaint that the shift change was unfair because it deprived 3 a.m. shift employees of a shift pre- mium, Nelson told him that Sweezey had designated the 3 a.m. shift as the first shift and that it would have no premium connected with it. Stout said that he thought it was unfair because the new shift, which began at 3 a.m., was actually part of an old shift that paid a shift premi- um. He suggested that they ask Sweezey how he would like to get up at 3 a.m. in order to be at work when he was used to getting up at 10 a.m. The two supervisors told Stout that they would relay his complaint to Swee- zey and in fact they did so. An hour or so later Stout had a lengthy discussion with Gavinski. He had previously asked Gavinski for a raise and, in response to that request, Gavinski went to Stout's personnel records and looked at Stout's resume. The resume was a lengthy one. Instead of merely recit- ing Stout's previous jobs, the resume went into great detail concerning the job content of the position that Stout had vacated in order to come to work for the Re- spondent, itemizing 11 different elements or components in his former position. Gavinski told Stout that he did not think that his performance to date for the Respond- ent had measured up to the expectations that the Compa- ny had when it first saw his resume.9 Stout told Ga- vinski that he thought that all employees, including him- self, who worked on the newly constituted first shift should receive a shift premium and mentioned that he had brought the same complaint to the attention of other supervisors. Gavinski replied that, if Stout had talked about it with other supervisors, the matter was surely being taken care of. I credit Gavinski that he did not tell Stout that he should gust watch out for himself and fur- ther find that he did not tell Stout on this occasion that he could fire him if he wished. I discredit Stout and credit Nelson with respect to a statement, assertedly made by Nelson to Stout after his conversation with Ga- vinski, to the effect that Nelson told Stout that he would have been better off to have kept his mouth shut. Nelson denied even having made this statement. On January 19, the Respondent discontinued the three- shift operation, which had been in effect the previous week, and returned to the two-shift operation it previ- ously utilized. Various reasons for the discontinuance of the new shift arrangement were given in the record, but it appears clear that Stout's protest and the unhappiness of first-shift workers played a large role in the Compa- ny's decision to go back to its former practice. Sometime in mid or late January, Stout told Vincent, Pace, and Carpenter that he would bung up the dispute over the pay premium at the next company meeting. About this same point in time, Stout spoke with Bulson concerning the shift premium dispute. I credit his testi- mony to the effect that he complained to her that the failure of the Company to pay a shift premium on first shift was a raw deal and both he and others were upset about it. In the course of his protest he stated, "Now you can understand why some people had union sympathies." Bulson replied that, if employees voted to unionize, the 9 I credit Gavinski that , during this interview , he did not accuse Stout of falsifying his resume 827 Company would close the plant, any people who went on strike would lose their jobs, and the Company would just reopen under another name. About midnight on January 20-21, just before Bulson was leaving the plant for the evening, she had a brief conversation with Stout. In the course of that conversa- tion, Stout referred to employee Quintanilla by an ob- scene variation of his name and suggested to Bulson that she and Quintanilla were a "hot little number." 1 ° She denied the accusation, saying that Stout must be "on drugs." She asked Stout where he obtained this informa- tion. He replied that he had heard it in the shop, both from Quintanilla himself and from another employee, John Winks. Stout suggested that, if she did not want this matter to get back to her husband, she should stop seeing Quintanilla. According to Stout's version of the conversation, she said she was going to do so. According to Bulson, she denied to Stout any such relationship ever existed. In any event, on her way home from work she stopped at Charlie's Bar, where Quintanilla was drinking beer with two or three individuals, and recounted to Quintanilla the conversation between Stout and her. Quintanilla went to the plant about 4 a.m. and sought out Stout. There is no factual dispute that Quintanilla had been drinking or that he was not authorized to be on company property at that time since he was off duty. i i Quintanilla accused Stout of having a "big mouth" and stated that he was always causing trouble. As he made this accusation, he began poking Stout in the chest. Stout pushed his hand away and Quintanilla hit Stout in the mouth, causing him to fall into a bandsaw. Stout was dazed but got up and saw Quintanilla come toward him threatening to "beat the living shit" out of Stout. Stout warned Quintanilla to get out of the shop before both of them were fired. Quintanilla replied that it was just one person's word against the other as to who threw the first punch, but eventually he left the plant through the back door. Stout noticed that he was bleeding and decided to go to the hospital for treatment. He called Bulson at her home, reported what had happened, and told her that he was in the emergency room. She said that he could not leave the others on his shift unsupervised. Stout suggest- ed that she put Phil Vincent in charge and she agreed. He also said he knew that a fight would occur if she re- peated to Quintanilla what he had said to her earlier in the evening. About 10 a.m. Stout received a call at his home from Gavinski, who told him that he was being put on suspen- sion pending an investigation. Stout insisted that the fight with Quintanilla was not his fault and told Gavinski that he was retaining counsel. He also told Gavinski that he did not think that he would be able to work the balance of the week because of the injuries he had sustained. Ac- cording to Gavinski, the purpose of the call was to get Stout's version of the incident. Gavinski observed in the course of his testimony that various reports that he had 10 Stout admits most of the conversation, as reported by Bulson, but denies he used the word "hot " 11 Qumtanilla did not testify so Stout's version of this incident is un- contradicted in the record 828 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD received concerning the fight basically jibed. Stout told Gavinski that he was going to file a complaint against Quintanilla with the Newaygo County sheriffs depart- ment. In fact he did so and Quintanilla was brought to trial for assault. No criminal action was taken against Stout. On January 27, Sweezey sent identical letters to Stout and Quintanilla that read: After review of the situation that occurred on January 21, 1987, White Cloud Products has no other alternative than to follow the Employee Handbook, page 6, paragraph 2 and item #4 and item #10. As of today January 27, 1987 your name has been removed from the Seniority List at White Cloud and your employment has been terminated. The paragraph in question covers grounds for discipline. Item 4 is "disorderly conduct" and Item 10 is "unpro- voked assault." II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Violations of Section 8(a)(1) by Threats and Interrogation I have found that early in November 1986, Supervisor Bulson asked Stout if he had heard anything in the shop concerning unionization and asked him specifically who was spreading unionization "rumors." She also asked Stout what his own feelings were on the subject. Stout expressed apprehension that he might get into trouble by answering her questions. She assured him that he would not but did tell him that she would be passing the infor- mation along to higher management without using his name. In fact, she did relay the information she received from Stout to higher management, including the name of one or more individuals mentioned by Stout as union ac- tivists. By these statements and actions, the Respondent engaged in coercive interrogation and in placing the union activities of employees under company surveil- lance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Having discredited Stout's assertion that Nelson told him that he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut instead of protesting the failure of the Re- spondent to pay a shift premium, I would dismiss so much of the amended complaint, which alleges a viola- tion of the Act in this regard. In response to a complaint from Stout about why em- ployees might want to unionize, Bulson told him that, if the employees voted to unionize, the Company would close the plant, strikers would lose their jobs, and the Company would reopen under another name. These statements constitute threats to take reprisal for union and protected activities that violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so find and conclude. B. Stout's Concerted Protected Activities There is no question that the shift change and the fail- ure of the Respondent to pay shift premiums to employ- ees scheduled to report for work at 3 a.m. caused consid- erable consternation among those who were adversely affected. Vincent and fellow employee Kenneth Miller protested the matter to Bulson. When they got nowhere, they discussed the problem and their unsuccessful efforts with Stout and he also protested the matter to Nelson. In turn she carried the protest to the plant manager and the grievance was ultimately resolved in the employees' favor. Stout also raised the question with Gavinski. The Respondent admits that Stout 's complaint was, at least in part, responsible for the elimination of the three-shift schedule and its return to a two-shift schedule. It is clear from these facts that Stout engaged in concerted protect- ed activities with his fellow employees and the Respond- ent was well aware of this fact. It is also undeniable that Stout's protests took place not long before he was dis- charged. C. Stout's Discharge Despite the fact that Stout engaged in concerted pro- tected activities and made prounion remarks not long before his discharge, it remains incumbent on the Gener- al Counsel to establish by a preponderance of the evi- dence that Stout's sentiments and activities were respon- sible, at least in part, for his termination. Although the General Counsel has presented an arguable position, I am forced to conclude that the Respondent was not assert- ing a pretext when it fired Stout, that its stated reason for terminating him was also its real reason, and that the portion of the amended complaint alleging a discrimina- tory or illegal discharge of Stout should be dismissed. Admittedly there is a certain lack of abstract logic in asserting that each of two participants in a fight has en- gaged in an unprovoked assault on the other. The facts appearing in this record and the facts ascertained by the Respondent in the course of its own investigation of the incident demonstrate that Quintanilla, not Stout, was the aggressor in the fight that occurred on the morning of Stout's suspension. At the time of the fight Stout was working at his assigned duties, whereas Quintamlla, who was under the influence of alcohol, came on company property without authority, sought out the Charging Party, and started accusing him and poking him in the chest. That these facts make out an assault by Quintanilla on Stout under the criminal statutes of the State of Michigan is a matter of concern for the prosecuting at- torney for Newaygo County. It is the Board's province to examine the links in the chain of causality that lead to Stout's discharge and to see if protected concerted ac- tivities or union activities were among those links. In the absence of such causality, the Respondent may discharge Stout for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, even if it appears that he was the victim and not the per- petrator of an assault. Had the Respondent discharged Stout and retained Quintanilla, a good argument for pretext could be made out, but such was not the case. If Stout bore no responsi- bility at all for the events immediately preceding his dis- charge, it could be argued that the Respondent was merely lying in wait for an irritating employee on its list of undesirables to make a mistake. Having been present- ed with an occasion to act by virtue of a fight, which occurred in its plant, the Company then took advantage KENT PRODUCTS of the incident to rid itself of an employee whom it wished to fire for totally unrelated reasons. However, Stout himself set in motion the chain of events that led to the fight. He had, on more than one occasion, referred to Quintanilla in a vulgar manner . Within a few hours before this fight Stout confronted his immediate supervi- sor with the accusation that she was seriously misbehav- ing with a fellow employee and warned her of the conse- quences of her alleged actions. Even the slightest reflec- tion should have made Stout realize that such remarks could have explosive consequences. The Respondent was well within the bounds of prudence in believing that such accusations and talebearing could have and would have serious adverse consequences on the morale in its shop. The fact that Quintanilla was guilty of a criminal assault and that Stout was his victim does not bar the Respondent from concluding that it did not want scan- dalous accusations being circulated in its plant and wished to prevent such talk from generating similar inci- dents in the future. In the chain of causality that led up to the January 21 incident, union activities and concerted protected activities played no part, but Stout's inflamma- tory comments played a large part. In light of these con- siderations, I conclude that concerted protected activities on the part of Stout did not bring about his termination. Accordingly, I would dismiss so much of the amended complaint that alleges that it did. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Kent Products, Inc., White Cloud Divi- sion, is now and at all times material has been an em- 829 ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their union and concerted protected activities and the union and concerted protected activities of other em- ployees; by threatening employees with plant closure and discharge if they engaged in strikes or voted to support a union; and by placing the union and concerted protected activities of employees under company surveillance, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- timate, and adverse effect on the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be required to cease and desist and to take other affirmative actions that are designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The General Counsel has requested that the Board's Order include a visitatorial clause permitting the Board to obtain discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event that the order in this case has to be enforced through contempt proceed- ings. I will recommend such an order. I will also recom- mend that the Respondent be required to post the usual notice, advising its employees of their rights and of the results in this case. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]