Penny Supply, Inc.

324 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pennsy Supply, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local Union No. 776, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO.' Case 4-CA-16899 June 15, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS On June 23, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief to the General Counsel's excep- tions. 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, and conclusions2 only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order. The judge found that Respondent did not unlaw- fully interrogate employee James Westbrook and did not unlawfully make a promise of benefits to employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We disagree. In September 1987,2 the Union began an orga- nizing campaign among the Respondent 's drivers, mechanics, and operators. The first union meeting was held on September 14, and a second meeting was held on September 21. A representation peti- tion was filed on September 15, and an election was held on January 6, 1988. The Union lost the election with 58 votes cast for and 115 votes cast against the Union. The results of the election were certified on January 14, 1988. There were no pend- ing challenges or objections in the representation matter at the time of the hearing in this case. The Alleged Interrogation James Westbrook has been employed by the Re- spondent for 12 years. He attended his first union meeting on September 21 and signed a union mem- 1 On November 1, 1987, the Teamsters International Union was read- mitted to the AFL-CIO. Accordingly, the caption has been amended to reflect that change z 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 a All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise noted. bership card at that time. The following day, Sep- tember 22, the Respondent held a previously scheduled meeting with the mechanics in the paint and tire shops. The Respondent's operations man- ager, Don Eshleman, conducted the meeting and asked the employees what problems they had with the Company. There were approximately 22 em- ployees present, and several of them spoke up at the meeting. One employee, Ken Hammer, stated during the course of the meeting that "Kevin and Jr. didn't start this Union thing." Westbrook testi- fied that "Kevin" referred to employee Kevin Taylor, and that "Jr." is his, Westbrook's, nick- name. Westbrook could not recall how this subject arose. Eshleman did not respond to Hammer's comment in the meeting. As Westbrook left the meeting, he was called back by Eshleman, who asked him if he had any- thing to do with the Union. Westbrook responded: "Why are you asking me?" Eshleman explained: "Because your name and Kevin's name was men- tioned at the meeting." Westbrook then said: "Why didn't you ask Kevin?" Eshleman replied that he felt that he could trust Westbrook to give an honest answer because he knew him better than he knew Kevin. Westbrook responded: "I went to see what the man had to say . . . That's my right under the law." Eshleman then asked "how wide- spread the problem was, or how widespread it was." Westbrook replied that he did not know. This conversation took place in the hallway just outside the room where the meeting had been held. The judge, relying on Rossmore House4 and Sunnyvale Medical Clinic,5 found that under all the circumstances in the present case, Eshleman's iso- lated act of interrogation of Westbrook did not rea- sonably tend to restrain, coerce, or interfere with the employee's Section 7 rights. Specifically, he found that there was no history of employer hostil- ity towards or discrimination against union sup- porters; the nature of the brief interrogation was "general and nonthreatening"; it did not appear that the Respondent was seeking to take adverse action against employees; and the conversation was "casual and amicable" and took place in a hallway. Based on these findings, the judge concluded that the circumstances surrounding this one act of inter- rogation in a unit of some 185 employees early on in the union organizing campaign is devoid of the elements of coercion necessary for finding a viola- tion. Unlike the judge, we find that the conversation between Westbrook and Eshleman did tend to 4 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). 3 277 NLRB 1217 (1985). 295 NLRB No. 37 PENNSY SUPPLY 325 interfere with, restrain, or coerce Westbrook in the exercise of his Section 7 rights. Westbrook was not an open and vocal union supporter. The conversa- tion between Eshleman and Westbrook, although brief and held in a public area, was initiated by Eshleman, a high-ranking company official, who called Westbrook back for the questioning after Westbrook had left the meeting. Contrary to the judge's characterization of the conversation, we find that Westbrook's understandably defensive re- sponse to Eshleman's initial question indicates that the exchange was not "casual and amicable," but was instead an unwelcome intrusion by Eshleman into Westbrook's union sentiments and activity. Further, we find that Eshleman went beyond a casual inquiry of how Westbrook's name happened to come up at the meeting by asking Westbrook "how widespread it was."e In these circumstances, we find that the Respondent unlawfully interrogat- ed Westbrook and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.7 indefinite time look into it. Rather, his statements communicated to the assembled drivers that an im- proved health plan and a retirement plan were under active study or consideration by the owner. Radio Broadcasting Co., 277 NLRB 1112 (1985), relied on by the judge, is thus distinguishable.8 Although Eshleman told the drivers, "I can't say no more because I wasn't supposed to say that," and that "the company would not make any prom- ises," these statements are insufficient to rebut the implicit promise of improved benefits. See Raley's Inc., 236 NLRB 971 at 972 (1978). Moreover, Esh- leman's statement to the drivers that he was not supposed to say what he did suggests that the owner's consideration of the plans had reached such a sensitive stage that secrecy was important. Accordingly, we find that Eshleman's statements conveyed an implied promise to better working conditions in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Alleged Promise of Benefits On October 19, 4 days after the election petition was filed, Eshleman held a 2-hour meeting with 15 to 20 assembled drivers at which complaints and questions about the Respondent's benefits, includ- ing its recently instituted health insurance plan, were discussed. Eshleman was aware that the elec- tion petition had been filed and, in fact, told the drivers at this meeting that it had been filed. During the meeting, Eshleman told the drivers that Mumma, the owner, was looking into improving the health plan and was checking into a pension plan. At the time the Respondent did not have a pension plan. Eshleman's statements about the health and re- tirement plans were not general and vague. They were not mere responses to employee suggestions that it was a good idea or that he would at some ' The Respondent asserted in its answering brief that although the judge credited Westbrook's testimony that Eshleman had inquired as to "how widespread it was," nowhere in his decision did the judge clarify whether "it" referred to the problems that were discussed by the employ- ees at the meeting or to the Union. While it is true that Westbrook's testi- mony is somewhat unclear on this matter, the fact remains that in the context of this conversation an employee could reasonably fear that the manager viewed the intrusion of a union as a "problem" and was trying to learn the extent of union sentiment. In the meeting that had occurred shortly before, an employee had blurted out a reference to "this Union thing," and Eshleman's question about the extent of "the problem" came on the heels of his question about Westbrook 's own connection with the Union Under the reasonable tendency test applicable to alleged viola- tions of Sec. 8(a)(1), the question about "the problem" can clearly be viewed as contributing to the coerciveness of the interrogation . See, e.g., Waco, Inc, 273 NLRB 746, 748 (1984). 7 Member Cracraft agrees with her colleagues that under all the cir- cumstances Eshleman's interrogation of Westbrook would reasonably tend to restrain, coerce, or interfere with Westbrook in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by the Act. In so finding, however, she does not rely on Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, supra. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 3. "3. By coercively interrogating employee James Westbrook on September 22, 1987, and by unlaw- fully promising benefits to its employees, the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Pennsy Supply, Inc., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Coercively interrogating any employee about union support or union activities. (b) Unlawfully promising benefits to its employ- ees. (c) 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. 8In finding Radio Broadcasting distinguishable, Chairman Stephens relies in particular on the testimony of employee Richard Trammel, whom the judge credited , indicating that Eshleman's statements about Mumma's looking into an improved medical benefit plan and a pension plan were not spontaneous responses to an employee question raised at the meeting in question Rather, Eshleman raised those subjects himself, stating that he was bringing them up in response to concerns he had pre- viously heard the employees discussing and noting that the filing of the Union's petition had been an impetus to Mumma 's consideration of these improvements, since she had previously thought "that everything was going fine." 326 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Post at the Respondent's place of business, lo- cated in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 4, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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. 9 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. WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union support or activities. WE WILL NOT unlawfully make promises of ben- efits to you. 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. PENNSY SUPPLY, INC. David Faye, Esq., for the General Counsel. Arthur M Brewer, Esq. (Shawe and Rosenthal, Esqs.), for the Employer. Walter De Treux, Esq., for the Union. DECISION FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge. An unfair labor practice charge was filed in this case on Oc- tober 26 and a complaint issued on December 31, 1987. The General Counsel alleges that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by coercively interrogating one employee and by telling employees on another occasion that the Employer "was considering a pension plan and an improved health plan" in order to discourage them from supporting the Union. The Employer denies violating the Act as al- leged. A hearing held on the issues raised in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on April 28, 1988. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the wit- nesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT Respondent Employer is admittedly an employer en- gaged in commerce as alleged . The Union is admittedly a labor organization as alleged. As Union staff organizer Charles Shurghart credibly testified, the Union attempted to organize Respondent Employer's driver, mechanic, and operator employees about September 1987. The first union meeting of employees was held on September 14, 1987. A second union meeting was held on September 21, 1987. A representation petition was filed by the Union with the Board's Regional Director on October 15, 1987. A stipulated election agreement was executed by the parties and approved by the Regional Director on October 30, 1987. And a Board-conducted representation election was thereafter held on January 6, 1988. Of ap- proximately 185 eligible unit voters, 58 cast votes for the Union; 115 cast votes against the Union; and there were 8 challenged ballots. The results of the election were cer- tified on January 14, 1988. There are no pending chal- lenges or objections in the representation proceeding. We are consequently solely concerned here with an al- leged act of coercive interrogation of one employee on September 22, 1987, and an alleged promise of benefits to employees on October 19, 1987. The pertinent evidence is summarized and discussed below. A. The Alleged Coercive Interrogation James Westbrook has been employed by the Employer for 12 years. He was subpoenaed to testify for the Gen- eral Counsel and acknowledged that he is not "testifying voluntarily." He attended his first union meeting on Sep- tember 21 and then signed a union membership card. On the following day, September 22, the Employer held a "shop meeting" of the mechanics in the paint and tire shops. Company Operations Manager Don Eshleman conducted the meeting. As Westbrook testified, Eshle- man "wanted to know what the problems were in the shop or in the Company." There were some 22 employ- ees present and "almost everybody at the meeting" "spoken up." One employee, Ken Hammaker, comment- ed at the meeting: "Kevin and Jr. didn't start this Union thing."' Eshleman did not respond to Hammaker's com- ment. The meeting ended. Westbrook, as he further testified, left the meeting. He was later "called back" by Eshleman. Eshleman then had a brief "conversation" with Westbrook while standing "between the dispatch office and the parts room, right next to the water heater." Eshleman "asked" Westbrook if Westbrook "had anything to do with the Union?" 1 Westbrook explained that "Kevin" is a co-employee, Kevin Taylor, and "Jr." is his, Westbrook's, "nickname." Westbrook, however, could not explain or recall how this subject "was brought up" by Hammaker at the meeting. PENNSY SUPPLY 327 Westbrook responded: "Why are you asking me?" Eshle- man explained: "Because your name and Kevin's name was mentioned at the meeting." Westbrook then stated: "Why didn't you ask Kevin?" Eshleman replied: "He [Eshleman] felt he could trust me [Westbrook] to get an honest answer out of me because he knew me more than he knew Kevin." Westbrook then responded: "I went to see what the man [Shughart] had to say. . . . That's my right under the law." Eshleman then asked: "he wanted to know how widespread it was." Westbrook replied: "I said I did not know."2 Operations Manager Don Eshleman could not "re- member" whether an employee at the September 22 meeting had made a statement to the effect that West- brook had been "wrongly accused of starting a Union." After the shop meeting, Eshleman admittedly spoke with Westbrook. Eshleman, "shocked at the magnitude of the comments that [he] had received that morning and also the magnitude of how many different people in that group of 30 responded," admittedly spoke with West- brook after the meeting near "the hot water heater." Eshleman could not "remember [his] exact words." Eshleman admittedly asked Westbrook, "are these prob- lems the same everywhere else in Pennsy Supply?" Westbrook "thought the problems were elsewhere too." Eshleman admittedly asked Westbrook how "he felt." Westbrook "shared the feelings of the others in general that I [Eshleman] heard." Eshleman could not "remem- ber using the word Union." Eshleman testified: I remember asking him [Westbrook] if he was so upset and so concerned that even a person like him would consider getting outside help for those kinds of problems rather than dealing with them through our own Management. Westbrook assertedly did not respond. Eshleman denied, inter alia, asking Westbrook "if he was involved with a Union"; if he had signed a Union card; if he knew of other employees' Union activities; if he had attended any union meetings; and "his opinion of other employees and their activities on behalf of a Union." Eshleman denied that Westbrook had made a statement about "going to see the man" or "the Union." Eshleman could not "re- member" Westbrook asserting his "rights to go see a man or the Union." Eshleman regarded Westbrook's tes- timony concerning this conversation as "inaccurate." Westbrook is presently employed by Respondent Em- ployer. He was, as noted, a reluctant witness for the General Counsel. He candidly and fully answered coun- sel for the General Counsel's questions. His testimony withstood the test of cross-examination. Relying on de- meanor, I find Westbrook to be a credible and trustwor- thy witness with respect to the above incident. Eshle- man, on the other hand, was general and vague in his recollection of this same incident. I was not impressed with the accuracy or quality of Eshleman's recollection of this incident. Insofar as the testimony of Eshleman conflicts with the testimony of Westbrook, I am persuad- ed on this record that Westbrook's recollection of this in- cident is more candid, complete, and, trustworthy. Discussion In Rossmore House, 259 NLRB 1176 (1984), the Board explained that the "basic test for evaluating whether in- terrogations violate the Act" is "whether under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to re- strain, coerce or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act." In Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217 (1985), the Board, applying Rossmore, found that the "circumstances surrounding" the interrogation "are devoid of the elements of coercion necessary for finding a violation." The Board noted that "although [the em- ployee] was not an open and active union supporter, she was also not an employee especially intent on keeping her support for the union hidden from the respondent"; there "is no history of employer hostility towards or dis- crimination against union supporters"; "the nature of the questions was general and nonthreatening"; "it did not reasonably appear from the nature of these questions that [the employer] was seeking to obtain information . . . [in order] to take adverse action against employees"; and it was a "friendly relationship" with a "casual and amica- ble" conversation. Applying the Rossmore and Sunnyvale rationale to the credited evidence of record, I find and conclude that Eshleman's isolated act of interrogation of Westbrook did not under all the circumstances reasonably tend to restrain, coerce, or interfere with employee Section 7 rights. Here, too, the "circumstances surrounding" this one act of interrogation in a unit of some 185 employees early in the organizational campaign "are devoid of the elements of coercion necessary for finding a violation." There was no history of employer hostility towards or discrimination of Union supporters; the nature of the brief interrogation was "general and nonthreatening"; "it did not appear from the nature of these questions that" the Employer "was seeking to obtain information . . . to take adverse action against employees"; and it was a "casual and amicable" conversation in a "hallway." In short, Eshleman, admittedly "shocked at the magnitude" of employee complaints, asked Westbrook in the hallway if he "had anything to do with the Union" because the employee's name had been mentioned at the shop meet- ing. Westbrook responded that he had gone to a union meeting "to see what the man had to say" and "that's my right under the law." Eshleman inquired "how wide- spread it was" and Westbrook replied: "I did not know." I do not find this isolated and brief interrogation to run afoul of the proscriptions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2 On cross-examination , Westbrook recalled, inter alia, Eshleman saying at the shop meeting that "he would hate to see the Union come in." The shop meeting was held in the drivers ' lunchroom. The later oon- versation between Eshleman and Westbrook was in a "hallway." Em- ployees were "moving in and out" during this conversation; the two were "not closeted off in some secret place"; the conversation "was right out in the open " Westbrook did not "think" that Eshleman "knew at the time there was any [union ] cards signed." B. The Alleged Promise of Benefits Richard Trammel was hired by the employer as a mixer/driver in March 1987 and he "quit " in November 1987. Trammel acknowledged that he too was not testi- fying "voluntarily" for the General Counsel ; he "was 328 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD subpoenaed." Trammel testified that he attended a driv- ers' meeting on October 19, 1987. Operations Manager Eshleman spoke to the some 15 to 20 assembled employ- ees. The meeting lasted over 2 hours . Trammel recalled: He [Eshleman] was telling us about our current health and benefit package, that we had medical and health, dental . He was explaining that all to us and he told us that it was better than Drivers Incor- porated had . Then, he also said that Mrs. Mumma [the owner] was looking into a better plan for us, better health and medical, and also a retirement plan. Then, he said, "I can't say no more because I wasn't really supposed to say that." The employer, at the time, had a health plan, but no re- tirement plan. (See G.C. Exhs . 2 and 3.) On cross-exami- nation, Trammel explained that "Mr . Eshleman said that Mrs. Mumma [the owner] was looking into improving [the] health plan" and "was checking into a pension plan." Tommy Allen has been employed by the Company as a mixer/driver for 4 years . He too acknowledged that he is not "testifying voluntarily" for the General Counsel. He too attended the October 19, 1987 meeting. He re- called that Eshleman said that there was a lot of dissatisfaction among the em- ployees and that he was there to try and straighten it out . . . . Mrs. Mumma [the owner] had received poor advice from management and that 's why he was there . . . . Since Mr. Mumma passed [away], that she [Mrs. Mumma] more or less has cold feet coming into her position where she's at. [The] dissatisfaction that she [Mrs. Mumma] was now aware of [was] . . . they [the Employer] brought in another health plan . . . it was a better plan than the one we had and she was working on satisfying us. [Mrs. Mumma] was just looking into better benefits for us to resolve this dissatisfaction. Allen could not "remember" Eshleman saying "anything about what Mrs. Mumma was doing regarding a retire- ment plan." He did recall Eshleman stating that "Mr. Mumma was against a retirement plan and Mrs. Mumma felt the same way." However, Allen, in his prehearing affidavit, had stated: He [Eshleman] said . . . Mr. Mumma [now de- ceased] had always said no retirement plan and Mrs. Mumma had stood the same ground, but she had had bad advice from the vice president, she was now looking into it [retirement] and better health plans. Allen, at this hearing, did not "specifically remember re- tirement as one of the words" but, he acknowledged, "maybe it was." Allen also acknowledged that his "memory isn't as fresh now as it was" when he gave his prehearing affidavit. On cross-examination, Allen explained that the Em- ployer had adopted a new health plan in March 1987; that Eshleman told the employees at the October 19, 1987 meeting that "the new plan was better than the older plan" and better than the Teamsters Union health and welfare plan; and that he, Allen , came away from the October 19 meeting "feeling" that both the Mummas had opposed a retirement plan and "it was very unlikely anything would happen." Allen noted that the Employ- er's health plan instituted in March 1987 included dental benefits. And Allen recalled that Eshleman said that "the Company could not make any promises now"; Eshleman made no promises; Eshleman "just elaborated on what was in effect already." Palmer Brugger, employed by the Company as a truck driver, also attended the October 19, 1987 meeting. Brugger recalled Eshleman then reviewing employee "problems" with their new health insurance plan and of- fering to "help us get straightened out" with the new plan. Brugger denied that a "retirement plan" was dis- cussed or that Eshleman "promised" a new and im- proved health plan or retirement plan. Eshleman "didn't make no promises about retirement or anything"; "he said he couldn't make no promises . . . he wasn't author- ized to make any promises . . . he couldn't [make any promises] if he wanted to . . . Eshleman ascertained what the employees' "problems" were and indicated that "he would talk to some of the people over him"-Eshle- man said they would "look into the problems." Lyle Haskins, the Employer's supervisor of mainte- nance, attended the October 19, 1987 meeting. Eshleman assertedly spoke about the "problems " which employees had related at "previous meetings." Haskins was asked if he could "recall what Mr. Eshleman said at that meeting about the health insurance plan?" Haskins replied: "not specifically. I don't recall his specific words." Employees assertedly expressed "concern" about the recently insti- tuted health insurance plan. There was "confusion" over coverage. However, according to Haskins, Eshleman did not promise employees at this meeting that the Employer would improve the plan or get a better plan. Eshleman also recalled expressions of employee "concern" about a retirement plan, however, Eshleman assertedly did not promise to institute such a plan. Haskins could not "spe- cifically remember" what else was said. On cross-exami- nation, Haskins recalled that Eshleman stated to the as- sembled employees "that he had been asked to talk with the employees and then report back to top level manage- ment"-he did not "say what the Company was going to do about" employee concerns. Don Eshleman, the Employer's operations manager, testified about the October 19, 1987 meeting. He then "summarized" to the drivers "the problems that shop personnel had related" at "previous meetings ." These problems concerned "wages," "benefits," and "manage- ment." Drivers were given an opportunity to state their "problems." They related their questions and complaints on the recently instituted health plan . He attempted to answer their questions . He denied promising employees "that this plan would be improved"-this plan had just been instituted in March 1987 . Eshleman explained: PENNSY SUPPLY The statement I made was, since I already knew that the petition was filed, that I could not divulge any information about any improvement on any- thing at that meeting or any other time. He denied making any statement to the drivers "about the prospects for a retirement plan in the future." He told the employees "that I couldn't say anything, I couldn't make a promise about anything . . . . I had no authority, I had no knowledge."a I credit the testimony of former employee Trammel as recited above. He candidly related what was said by Eshleman at the October 19 meeting. In particular, I find Trammel's testimony, to the effect that "Eshleman had said that Mrs. Mumma was looking into improving [the] health plan" and was "checking into a pension plan," to be forthright, reliable, and trustworthy. Trammel's testi- mony is corroborated in significant part by Allen, a cur- rent employee who was not "testifying voluntarily" for the General Counsel. As Allen recalled, Eshleman had discussed on October 19 with the assembled employees their "dissatisfaction" over the new health plan; "it was a better plan than the one we had"; and the owner, Mrs. Mumma, "was just looking into better benefits for us to resolve this dissatisfaction." And, although Allen could not "remember" Eshleman saying anything "about what Mrs. Mumma was doing regarding a retirement plan," his prehearing affidavit made clear that Eshleman in fact had related to the employees that "she was now looking into it [retirement] and better health plans." Allen ac- knowledged that his "memory" was not as "fresh" at the hearing as it was when he gave his prehearing affidavit. I find on this entire record that the above recollections of Trammel and Allen, including the quoted portion of Allen's prehearing affidavit (see Tr. 63-80, 162-172), are more reliable and trustworthy than the testimony of Brugger, Haskins, and Eshleman. The testimony of Brug- ger, Haskins, and Eshleman was at times vague, incom- plete, contradictory, and unclear. I do not, on this record, regard them as reliable witnesses. s On cross-examination, Eshleman claimed that he had scheduled the October 19 meeting "prior to the petition being filed"-the meeting had "nothing to do with the petition being filed " The representation petition, as noted, had been filed on October 15 Elsewhere, Eshleman acknowl- edged telling employees at this meeting that a petition had been filed. Discussion 329 In Radio Broadcasting Co., 277 NLRB 1112 (1985), the Board found that, where the employer's president "re- sponded" to an employee that a "merit and wage in- crease . . . was a good idea but he would not promise anything at that time," this was not an unlawful promise of benefit proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Board explained that this "general remark that a wage increase was a good idea followed by the statement that he could not promise anything is not sufficient to support a finding that the respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." Further, the Board also found: we do not consider [the president's] statement that he would "look into" increased health coverage to be an unlawful promise especially where there is no other evidence that [the employer] promised or even discussed increased health care benefits. In the instant case, Company Operations Manager Eshleman, after listening to employee complaints and questions about the Employer's recently instituted health plan and other benefits, told employees that the owner "was looking into improving [the] health plan" and "was checking into a pension plans." Eshleman made clear: "I can't say no more because I wasn't really supposed to say that"-"the Company would not make any prom- ises." In short, management, after hearing the employee complaints and dissatisfaction over its newly instituted health plan, told them that it could make no promises, however, it was "looking into" an improved health plan and retirement plan. I do not find, on this record, that these general and vague statements by Eshleman, in con- text, constitute unlawful promises of benefit as alleged. I would therefore dismiss this complaint in its entirety. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce as alleged. 2. The Union is a labor organization as alleged. 3. Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act as alleged. [Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from pub- lication.]