Baker Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1295 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1295
Baker Manufacturing Co., Inc. and International
Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-5294, 15-CA-5308,15-
CA-5413, and 15-RC-5465
June 30, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On February 27, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbott Stevenson issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions and
supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed an
answering brief to the General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt her recommended Order.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by discharging employee Gene Ellis because
of his protected concerted and union activities. In so
finding we note that the Administrative Law Judge,
on the basis of demeanor observation, specifically
credited the testimony of Ellis and employee Charles
Lofton, rather than the Respondent's witnesses
Gregory Kerr and Joe Davis. We therefore disavow
the Administrative Law Judge's observation that
Kerr and Davis "appeared" to be "the kind of men
who would say and do what Ellis and Lofton
ascribed to them," and find this characterization of
these witnesses inappropriate.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Baker Manufac-
turing Co., Inc., Pineville, Louisiana, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
1 The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to certain
credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's
established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolu-
tions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the
relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard
Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3,
218 NLRB No. 198
1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing her credibility findings
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the
Administrative Law Judge's recommendations that certain allegations of
8(axl) violations , discussed in her Decision , be dismissed
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge:
A hearing was held in this consolidated proceeding
November 12-15 and December 3-5, 1974, at Alexandria,
Louisiana. International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Petitioner and Charging
Party, herein referred to as the Union) filed a petition in
Case 15-RC-5465 on June 13, 1974. Thereafter, on July 23,
1974, the Regional Director of Region 15 of the National
Labor Relations Board directed an election in an appropri-
ate unit of production and maintenance employees. An
election was held August 21, 1974, and the Union lost. The
Union filed objections. On June 4, 1974, the Union filed
and served on the Respondent the charge in Case 15-CA-
5294; on June 14, 1974, Jones filed and served on the
Respondent the charge in Case 15-CA-5308; and on
August 1, 1974, an order consolidating cases, consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing was issued in these two
cases . On August 29, 1974, the Union filed and served on
the Respondent the charge in 15-CA-5413. On October 31,
1974, the Regional Director issued a complaint in Case 15-
CA-5413, and an order directing hearing on objections in
Case 15-RC-5465. In his order, the Regional Director
approved the Union's request to withdraw Objections 2, 3,
5 (insofar as it concerned employee James Montgomery),
and 6. The Regional Director found that the conduct
referred to in Objections 1, 5 (insofar as it concerned
employee Leslie Stafford), 7, and 8 and additional conduct
during the objectionable period which came to the
attention of the investigating agent and designated as
Objection 9, was also alleged in the complaints issued in
Cases 15-CA-5294, 5308, and 5413. An order consolidat-
ing cases and notice of hearing consolidating these four
cases for hearing was issued October 31, 1974.1
The issues in this proceeding are whether the Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained , or coerced its employees in
violation of Section 8(axl) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , and discriminated against employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(3); and whether it interfered
with the election conducted August 21, 1974.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses , and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party,
and the Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Louisiana
corporation engaged at Pineville , Louisiana, in the manu-
facture of institutional furniture; and that during the 12
1 The consolidated complaints as amended at the hearing are referred to
herein as the complaint.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
months preceding the issuance of the complaint it
purchased and' received directly from points outside
Louisiana goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
and sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points outside Louisiana. I conclude that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent also admits, and I conclude, that
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
All the events described herein took place at or near the
Respondent's furniture-manufacturing plant at Pineville,
Louisiana, during the spring and summer of 1974. The
complaint alleges, Respondent does not dispute, and I find
that the following employees are supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: James Baker,
president; Paul Matthews, executive vice president and
plant manager; Rex Ponthie, vice president in charge of
engineering and design; Richard Swam, vice president of
production engineering; James R. Ong, personnel manag-
er; Charles W. Smith, vice president in charge of
production; Ralph J. (Johnny) Folse, vice president in
charge of production and plant superintendent; John
Jordan, metal shop supervisor; Charles Curry, paint shop
supervisor; Thomas G. Meyers, metal finishing supervisor;
A. D. Muse, shipping department supervisor; E. J.
Bordelon, night shift supervisor.
The parties disagree as to the supervisory status of Frank
Brister , alleged leaderman in the assembly department.
Brister died September 21, 1974, a month after the election
and approximately a month before the issue of the order
directing hearing on objections and the complaint in Case
15-CA-5413 naming him as a supervisor and attributing
certain alleged unfair labor practices to him. The Respon-
dent contends that (1) Brister's status was fully litigated in
Case 15-RC-5465 in which the Regional Director found,
in his Decision and Direction of Election, that leadmen
(leadermen) are not supervisors and included them in the
unit; (2) it was unfair to receive evidence herein on
allegedly objectionable and unlawful conduct by Brister
because it was impossible for the Respondent to defend
against it, Brister being unavailable; and (3) in any event,
the evidence herein establishes that Brister was not a
supervisor and that the employees did not regard him as a
supervisor. I find no merit in these contentions.
As to (I), aside from other considerations2 careful study
of the transcript of the preelection hearing and of the
decision and direction of election in Case 15-RC-5465
reveals that the Respondent's contention that Buster's
supervisory status has been fully litigated is not substanti-
ated. In neither is Brister referred to by name. The
Decision deals with leadmen only as a group. Personnel
Manager Ong, the sole witness at that hearing, testified
therein about the duties and authority of leadmen,
including the leadman in the assembly department, but did
not say, either in that hearing or in this one, that it was
Brister he was referring to. Indeed, there is no management
testimony in either case that Brister was classified as a
leadman or leaderman.
As to (2), there is no requirement that the Employer be
apprised of the names of alleged supervisors upon whose
conduct objections to an election are based prior to the
hearing thereon. Thus, Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations requires only that the objections contain a
short statement of the reasons therefor and that the
Employer be served with a copy thereof. There is no
contention that the objections failed to conform with these
requirements of the Rules and I find that they did not.
Similarly, with regard to the unfair labor practice case, the
Respondent was not entitled to the names of alleged
supervisors involved prior to the issue of the complaint in
Case 15-CA-5413 in which the name of Brister, and other
alleged supervisors, was specifically set forth. The fact that
Brister had meanwhile met his death does not rule out the
receipt of testimony regarding his relevant conduct and
statements . It is Board policy to receive testimony of
statements made by deceased persons such as Brister
provided that such testimony is scrutinized with great
care.3 To assure fairness, I have given careful scrutiny to
the testimony discussed below with regard to Brister's
supervisory status and statements to employees.
As to (3) there are 20 to 30 employees in the assembly
department, and the General Counsel presented the
testimony of 8 employees who worked in that department
while Brister was there, all of whom, contrary to the
Respondent's contention, clearly regarded Brister as their
supervisor. The most knowledgeable of these witnesses was
Joe Johnson, Jr., who has worked in the plant 9 years, and
worked under Brister 4 years. Johnson said that although
Carl Chelette was supposed to be the supervisor of
assembly, he spent most of his time in the wood cabinet
department, sometimes not appearing in assembly all day.
Aside from Superintendent Folse, Brister was the only
other supervisor present in the department. Johnson said
Brister went around giving people their work assignments,
told Johnson when to work overtime, granted time off, and
evaluated assembly-department employees for wage in-
creases. Johnson reported to Brister when he was out sick.
Edward Washington, Ted Douzart, James Gill, and Kim
Hanes testified that they were hired originally by Personnel
Manager Ong, who introduced them to Superintendent
Folse, who in turn took them to Frank Brister, saying
Buster would tell them what to do. Folse also told Douzart
to go to Brister about time off; which Douzart did.
Douzart, James Gill, Glen Monette, and Dominic Johnson
affirmed that it was Brister who authorized overtime work.
Brister authorized Gill to leave work early, and Gill and
Dominic Johnson called Brister if they were absent.
Based on the above mutually corroborative testimony,
and the absence of any testimony by management
2 Cf. Lindsay Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Herald Tribune & Journal, Company, 178 NLRB 465, 466, 475 (1%9); American Guild of Variety Artists,
112 NLRB 1206 (1955) AFL-CIO, et al., 163 NLRB 457, 464 (1%7); Calandra Photo, Inc., 151
3 Sunbeam Corporation, 184 NLRB 950 (1970), Kline Iron & Steel NLRB 660, 669 (1965); Chun King Sales, Inc, 126 NLRB 851, 864 (1960).
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
witnesses relevant to Buster's authority or duties, I find
that Frank Brister possessed and exercised authority
responsibly to direct the work of assembly-department
employees, grant time off, assign overtime work, and
effectively to recommend wage increases. I conclude that
Buster was a supervisor within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act.
The union organizing campaign was initiated by employ-
ee Kim Hanes who contacted the Union early in February
1974. That same month Hanes and other employees
circulated a petition in the plant which was signed by some
89 employees expressing interest in the Union. Three
employee meetings were held with representatives of the
Union at the Holiday Inn in Alexandria near Pineville,
Louisiana, on May 10 and successive weeks. Employee
signatures were obtained on union authorization cards.
Between May 13 and 17, Vice President Smith called
several of the senior employees into his office, and on May
17 called the employees together, and informed them of the
Company's opposition to unionization. As stated above, a
petition was filed June 13.
A. The 8(a)(1) Violations
1. President James Baker
The complaint alleges that dung late May President
Baker attempted to induce an employee to disavow the
Union by promising to institute unspecified benefits at a
later date, and solicited the employee's aid in persuading
others to disavow their union adherence.
Herbert Williams, a 9-year employee and leaderman in
the aluminum finishing department, testified in support of
this allegation. Williams, who is not contended to be, and I
find is not, a supervisor, testified that Baker summoned
him to Baker's office and told him among other things that
the Union wasn't any good, that the Company could do
more for the employees than a union could, that the
employees had "some good things are coming" or "some
things come out better" later on when things got straight-
ened out or after the Union was out. Baker asked Williams
to "go back out there and talk to the boys" and tell them
that he could help them more than a union could, and that
they did not need a union.
I credit Williams because this testimony was undemed,
and because his demeanor was that of a mature, responsi-
ble, reliable man stubbornly determined to tell the truth
despite any possible consequences to himself. Accordingly,
I conclude that President Baker violated Section 8(a)(1) as
alleged.
2. Vice President in Charge of Production Charles
W. Smith
The complaint alleges that in May 1974 Smith interro-
gated an employee, promised him a raise in pay, and told
him the Respondent's president would sell the plant to
anyone to avoid the Union, in an effort to persuade him to
help defeat the Union.
Theado (Gene) Ellis, whose subsequent discharge is
discussed below, testified in support of the allegations
against Vice President Smith. Ellis said that Smith called
1297
him into his office two or three days after the first union
meeting at the Holiday Inn. Ellis testified that Smith told
him, among other things, he was calling some of the older
employees in. He told Ellis a union was trying to come into
the plant, and "We don't want a uniorl intruding in this
plant because a union won't be good for this plant." Smith
said that he could do more for the employees than a union
could. He said he was not going to ask whether Ellis had
signed a card, but he did want to know "what are some of
the reasons that the employees want a union." (Kim Hanes
testified that Smith asked him a similar question a week or
two later.) Ellis' answer was that the increase in the
minimum wage had given new employees the same pay as
some of the older employees who had received no increase,
and that a matter of 30 or 40 cents was involved. Smith
replied that the Company had been thinking about that.
He said, "I could give you 40 cents, but you can see the
company is broke. We have started building a building
on the back we can't even finish because we are broke.
We want to build a paint shop. We couldn't do this."
Smith added that Baker had other projects, and "this plant
don't mean anything to him. And, to get from under the
union, he may sell it. He may sell it to someone far away
that you can't talk to." (Sylvester Bowie testified that Smith
made a remark like this in a conversation with him at
about this time.) Ellis continued that then Smith said again,
"You have been with us a long time . You are a good
employee... You go out and tell the people they don't
need a union." When Ellis refused, Smith said, "You go
out and tell them to make up their minds, to make sure
they know what they are doing because this is a very, very
serious matter." Ellis agreed, and Smith cautioned him,
"Anything you say now stays right in this office, don't go
any further... You give me your word on it, don't go any
further." They shook hands and Ellis left the office.
Ellis testified that Smith sent for him again the day after
Smith's May 17 speech to the employees. At this meeting,
Ellis said, among other things, Smith asked him whether he
had talked to some of the employees. Ellis replied that he
had told employees "that this was a very serious matter
and that for them to make up their minds and be sure what
they were doing," but he "didn't want to tell those people
any more." Ellis also told Smith if he came back to his
office again, he would like to bring a witness. But Smith
"told me no, he wasn't going to talk to but one person at a
time."
Vice President Smith conceded that he had two or three
conversations with Ellis, the first of which was held before
Smith's speech to the employees. On that occasion, Smith
said, he called Ellis into his office and told him basically
the same thing he had told Johnson, that he had been with
the Company a long time, was one of the older employees,
and was doing a good job. Smith said he understood that
there were union cards being passed in the plant and this is
a decision for the employees, but the Company was
definitely opposed to the union. However, Ellis did
mention that some people had received wage increases that
other people did not receive, and Smith replied that the
Company was doing what it could as far as salaries were
concerned. Smith testified that he sent for Ellis again on
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the day he made the speech to the employees, having been
told that several employees had asked to see him. Ellis
asked Smith for a copy of his speech. Smith told him,
however, that he had only one copy but would answer any
questions concerning the speech. Smith denied all of the
additional remarks and comments attributed to him by
Ellis, and stated that he only said "that the company felt
they could do as much as the union could."
In assessing Smith's credibility vis-a-vis that of Ellis, I
find that Smith was evasive in his testimony regarding his
conversations with Ellis, attempting to cast his remarks in a
light more favorable to himself and the Respondent than
they actually were. Ellis, on the other hand, impressed me
as generally the most credible of the witnesses who testified
at the hearing. He was alert, intelligent, responsible, and
not inclined to embellish on the facts as he accurately
recalled them. Ellis' testimony does not support the
allegation that Smith promised him, or other employees, a
wage increase in these conversations. It does, however,
establish that Smith employed coercive interrogation to
ferret out Ellis' position with regard to the union drive, and
threatened him with Baker's selling the plant to avoid
unionization. Smith's object was clearly to induce Ellis to
oppose the Union and persuade other employees to do so.
Accordingly, I conclude that by this conduct in May, Vice
President Smith violated Section 8(a)(1).
The complaint also alleges that Vice President Smith, in
May 1974, created the impression of surveillance of union
activity by removing prounion literature from employee
vehicles in the plant parking lot, threatened an employee
with reprisals by admitting that the Respondent had
removed the literature from the vehicles and telling an
employee that strong action would be taken against similar
activities which disrupt the plant, and attempted to induce
the employee to vote against the Union by offering to
recognize an employee committee for collective-bargaining
purposes.
On May 24, during the lunchbreak, Gene Ellis, Kim
Hanes, and Sylvester Bowie, a metal finisher with over 5
years' experience at the plant, distributed copies of a union
pamphlet entitled "That Message from the Boss," on the
windshields of employees' cars on the plant parking lot.
Bowie and Ellis returned to the plant together and they
both testified that as they parted to take up their work
stations, Bowie told Ellis he was going to show a copy of
the pamphlet to his supervisor, John Jordan. Bowie
testified that he presented Jordan with a copy and read
parts of it to him; Jordan asked where he got it, how many
he put on the cars, and whether the union man distributed
the pamphlets on the cars. A few minutes after their
conversation, Bowie said, Jordan returned and told him
that "Charlie Smith had all the pamphlets in the office."
Bowie said he did not believe it, but Jordan vowed, "I am
not playing. He has got all those pamphlets up there." Ellis
testified that when he visited the parking lot that afternoon
to get some pills from his car, all the pamphlets were gone.
Bowie's testimony continues to the effect that a week or so
later Jordan took him to Smith's office, where Smith told
him he was a good employee and offered him a plating job
which another employee, Carl Firmin, was quitting. After a
discussion of this matter and some conversation about
Ellis' discharge which had taken place May 24, the day of
the union pamphlet distribution, Smith pulled a copy of the
pamphlet out of his desk. Bowie could see that Smith had
"a whole stack" of the pamphlets in his desk drawer, and
he asked Smith where he got them and whether he took
them off the cars. Smith replied, "Anything that disrupts
the plant, slows down the work . . . he would take strong
action against." Gene Ellis testified that he also saw the
pamphlets on Smith's desk at the time of Ellis' discharge
interview. Bowie also testified that during this meeting with
Smith about changingjobs,
I was told by Charlie Smith that we all could get along
like brothers and we didn't need a union to come in
and take over and run the plant. And I was told that we
could get a number of people, form a committee, and
come up and, you know, talk about different things.
The conversation ended with Bowie's telling Smith he
would think over the job-transfer offer. The next day,
Bowie refused the job-transfer because no raise in pay was
involved.
Supervisor Jordan denied discussing the pamphlet "That
Message from the Boss" with Bowie or any other
employee, that any employee gave him a copy, or that he
knew who distributed it. Vice President Smith and Jordan
testified that on the occasion when Smith offered Bowie a
transfer, in early June, the job offer was the only subject
discussed. Smith and John Jordan testified that the
pamphlet "That Message from the Boss" was not dis-
cussed, and that the Union was not mentioned. They
denied all the other remarks attributed to Smith by Bowie.
Smith also testified that he first saw the Union pamphlet
about May 20, when Superintendent Folse brought a copy
to him without saying where he obtained it. Smith added
that he did not instruct anyone to take the pamphlets off
the employees' automobiles, but that at one time he had 10
to 12 copies of the pamphlets in his office. Bowie's
testimony with regard to the pamphlets was supported to
some extent by Ellis and by Smith's admission that copies
were brought to him and that he had copies in his office.
Jordan's avowal of complete ignorance and indifference to
the distribution of this union propaganda is so improbable
in all the circumstances as to render his testimony with
regard to it unbelievable. Accordingly, although I do not
credit all the testimony given by Bowie in this hearing as
discussed below, I credit him here for the reasons given
above, and because in view of management's reaction to
the distribution of the pamphlet and its knowledge of
Bowie's part in it and management's admittedly high
regard for Bowie's ability and seniority, it is most likely
that it would be he who was singled out for the suggestion
that an employee committee be formed as a substitute for
union organization. However, in view of Bowie's initiative
in revealing his involvement with the pamphlet distribu-
tion, I find no surveillance or impression of surveillance.4 I
do find, in all the circumstances, that the removal of the
This finding also applies to an additional allegation that Jordan as well initiated by Bowie. I conclude that both of these allegations should be
as Smith created the impression of surveillance in the May 24 conversation dismissed.
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1299
pamphlets, the threat to take "strong action" against the
distribution of proumon literature, and the suggestion of
an in-plant committee constituted restraint and coercion of
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 right to a union
representative of their choice; and conclude that this
conduct, in May and early June 1974, was violative of
Section 8(a)(1).
The complaint alleges that, also in May 1974, Smith
interrogated an employee and attempted to persuade him
to vote against the Union by promising and granting him a
wage increase.
Joe Johnson, Jr., referred to above, whose only union
activity was attending union meetings , testified that he had
several conversations with Vice President Smith during
which the Union was discussed, the first taking place after
the first union meeting, when Smith summoned Johnson to
his office . In these meetings, the following, among other
things, was said:
He said, "The reason I called you up here is a serious
problem is about to happen. Some of the folks are
trying to get a union and we don't need a union" .. .
Well, he asked me had I signed a union card. And I
told him no, but I thought it was a good idea because I
wasn't making as much money as I should have been
for the long time that I had been at Baker Manufactur-
ing. And he said that he and Johnny Folse were going
to go over my wage salary and come up with
something. He didn't promise me nothing but he would
see what he could do.
Johnson testified that about 2 weeks later he received a 10-
cent wage increase.
Smith testified that Johnson was one of several senior
employees he called into his office between May 13 and 17
to acquaint them with the Company's opposition to the
Union. After denying that there was any discussion of
Johnson's pay or that he asked Johnson if he had signed a
union card, Smith conceded he told Johnson that he and
Superintendent Folse would review Johnson's wage rate
and come up with something or see what they could do,
and that Johnson in fact got a 10-cent increase about May
20, 1974, which had been recommended by Folse and
approved by Smith, "Because of the stepped-up activities
and the fact of the amount of work he was putting out and
the fact of the minimum wage increase that had come in
and the amount of work he was doing.... The amount of
work load that we had in the plant and the amount of work
that he was performing."
Smith's credibility was undermined by the inconsistency
of his testimony both internally and with the Respondent's
justification of its failure to give its customary general wage
increases discussed below. By contrast, Joe Johnson
appeared to tell the simple truth, and his testimony was not
effectively impeached. Based on my observation of
Johnson on the witness stand and subsequent review of his
testimony, I do not agree with the Respondent that
Johnson retracted his statement that Smith asked him
whether he had signed a union card. Crediting Johnson,
therefore, I find that in May 1974 Smith coercively
interrogated Johnson and impliedly promised him in the
context of antiunion remarks and gave him a wage increase
with the purpose and intent of inducing him to oppose the
union organization campaign, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
The complaint alleges that in May Smith attempted to
induce an employee to talk against the Union by inferring
that the employee would receive a better job for doing so.
Kim Hanes, who initiated the union drive as explained
above, testified he had three conversations with Smith at
weekly intervals beginning shortly after Smith's May 17
speech. In practically every meeting, Hanes testified, Smith
"wanted me to go back and talk to the employees about the
union." Hanes said he had asked one of the bosses for a
transfer apparently to the tank area, and in one of his
conversations with Smith, subsequent to this request, Smith
told Hanes, among other things, that Hanes was a good
employee and Smith liked his work, but Smith already had
someone around the tanks who knew the work; however,
Smith said, if a position in another department came open,
he would see what he could do for Hanes. Smith then said
that a 40-cent across-the-board raise "was in the plans
before the union came in, but their hands were tied."
Hanes was promoted to chrome plating operator in the
early part of June.
Smith testified that he had only one conversation with
Hanes about the Union and that it occurred the day after
Smith's speech to the employees, at Hanes' request. Smith's
account was, in summary, that Hanes indicated he thought
the Union would be good for the Company and the
employees, and mentioned the speech. Smith said he would
discuss any questions he had concerning the speech, that
the Company as a whole didn't feel that the Union would
be good for the Company. Smith said that Hanes was
doing them a good job and he appreciated it, that the
Union was a serious matter, for him to give it serious
consideration. Hanes made one or two suggestions about
work improvements, and that was all that was said. Smith
denied saying anything about a 40-cent across-the-board
increase. He denied asking Hanes to talk to other
employees against the Union.
Hanes' testimony that Smith asked him several times to
talk with other employees about the Union is consistent
with the credited testimony of other leading union
adherents that Smith made similar requests of them.
Moreover, in view of my findings below with regard to the
Respondent's unlawful conduct in connection with the
wage increase issue, it seems probable that Smith was not
above tying employee efforts to defeat the Union to wage
increase and advancement prospects. Accordingly, credit-
ing Hanes, I conclude that Smith violated Section 8(a)(1) in
May 1974, as alleged.5
3. Vice President in Charge of Production and
Plant Superintendent Ralph J. (Johnny) Folse
The complaint alleges that, during February and March
1974, Folse engaged in surveillance of union adherents
5 No evidence was presented in support of allegations that Smith told
employees he knew , or could see, that they were for the Union, and these
allegations must be dismissed. .
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during break and lunch time; and that in May, he curtailed
union activities during breaktime, attempted to induce
union adherents to work against the Union by promising
them employment as long as they so desired, and
reprimanded an employee for discussing the Union during
a shift change.
In support of these allegations, Sylvester Bowie and Kim
Hanes testified that shortly after the organizational drive
got under way they observed Superintendent Folse for the
first time in the plant areas where the employees took their
breaks, watching them. Folse denied changing his supervi-
sion habits or singling out employees to observe them
during their breaktime.
Kim Hanes told about an occasion which he remem-
bered as early May when he obtained an employee's
signature to the petition during breaktime. Hanes put the
petition in his pocket and then began scribbling on a piece
of brown paper. Hanes and Folse both said that as the
whistle blew, Folse came by and asked Hanes what was on
the brown paper and that Hanes handed it to him. Folse
said he was in the area on a storage problem and that his
question was only casual conversation.
Hanes and Folse also testified in substantial agreement
to the effect that, during a break in late April or early May,
Folse overheard Hanes talking with another employee
about signing a union card. Folse indicated that Hanes
should not be doing that on breaktime. When Hanes
protested it was his own time, Folse explained that Hanes
was paid for his breaktime. Vice President Swain and
employee Ellis joined the two of them as the whistle blew
and Folse suggested that the group continue the discussion
in the office. There, Folse told the employees they could
get union cards signed anytime except company time. The
witnesses agree that further discussion of unionism ensued,
employees taking the pro and supervisors taking the con,
and that Folse and Swain told Ellis they had commented to
each other that they did not understand how the Company
had kept Ellis as long as it had at the wages it paid him as
good a worker as he was. The witnesses disagreed,
however, as to whether additional statements were made.
Hanes and Ellis testified, and Folse and Swain denied, that
the latter also told them they were two of the plant's best
employees and they would have their jobs with the
Company as long as they wanted them, and to go on out
there and talk to the other employees about the Union.
Ellis and Folse testified to another incident shortly
before Ellis' discharge, when Folse came upon Ellis after
his shift ended talking with two other employees in or near
the plant parking lot. According to Ellis, Folse said, among
other things, "What are you talking about? No, I am not
going to ask you what you are talking about. I know you
are talking about the union ." Ellis replied that he was only
talking to the people about the Union as management had
told him to do, but that he would not lie for either the
Company or the Union but would tell the truth. Folse
responded, "Let me hear some of this truth." Folse testified
that he overheard the employees talking about benefits
they would get, and that he said to Ellis, "Gene, let's tell it
straight."
I credit Folse to the effect that he did not engage in
surveillance of Bowie, Hanes, or other employees during
their breaktime, because the testimony of Bowie and
Hanes on this point lacked specificity and because I
believe they may only have begun to notice actions of the
superintendent after the advent of the union drive which
they failed to notice before that. I also credit Folse's
explanation of the "brown paper" incident, because it was
not directly connected with union activity and there is
nothing to indicate that Folse might have had the
impression that it was. On the other hand, it is abundantly
clear that on one occasion Superintendent Folse did
attempt to curtail Hanes' right to recruit union supporters
during his breaktime. Moreover, I believe Ellis' and Hanes'
mutually corroborative versions of the immediately subse-
quent remarks made by Folse and Swain in the office. Ellis
was a generally credible witness whose work and seniority
admittedly was highly regarded by Folse, Swain, and other
management officials. Also, such an effort to induce
selected employees to oppose the Union by implied
promises of reward fits one of the patterns followed by
management throughout the campaign period, as found
herein. Finally, I credit Ellis' account of Folse's remarks on
the parking lot, and, although I do not read them as a
reprimand, I am persuaded they constituted an effort by
Folse to follow up on the inducement approach and try to
find out whether Ellis was talking against unionization as
Folse had hoped he would. Accordingly, I conclude that in
early April and May Superintendent Folse attempted to
curtail union activities of employees on their breaktime,
attempted to induce union adherents to work against the
Union by promising jobs as long as they wanted them, and
coercively interrogated an employee, in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that in August 1974 Superin-
tendent Folse summoned an employee to his office, and
informed him that the Respondent did not want a union in
the plant and asserted that the employee would lose his
right to present grievances directly to the Respondent if the
employees selected the Union to represent them.
Employee Arthur Hines and Folse both testified that
Folse called him into the office a few days before the
election and told him about the Company's opposition to
the Union. According to Hines , Folse said that the Union
would only cause trouble, and, "You won't be able to have
any kind of opinion for yourself and you won't be able to
go to those people with your problems like you can come
to me." According to Folse, his remark was that "if the
union would come in that they couldn't give them raises
like we had been, individual; we would have to go through
the union. We had been giving raises individually. We
wouldn't be able to do that."
I find that Superintendent Folse did not violate the Act
in his conversation with Hines, whichever version actually
represents the facts. Folse's remarks did not threaten that
the Company would deprive its employees of anything they
were now enjoying if they chose union representation.
They were merely an opinion cast in hyperbolic language
and/or a prediction that the advent of the Union would
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1301
lead to a more formal , less intimate relationship between
employer and employee .6 This allegation should therefore
be dismissed.
4. Metal Shop Supervisor John Jordan
The complaint alleges that on or about May 24 Jordan
interrogated an employee and created the impression of
surveillance by questioning him about a proumon petition
which had been circulated among the employees. This
allegation has reference to the petition circulated early in
the organization drive.
About a week after the above date employee Riley Briggs
told Supervisor Jordan Hanes had said that 75 percent of
the metal shop had signed the petition but, Briggs told
Jordan , Briggs himself had never signed it. Jordan
admitted that a couple of hours later , he went up to Hanes
and offered to bet he did not have 75 percent of the shop
on the petition as he had said , and told Hanes, "I would
bet him $100 that Riley Briggs hadn't signed the petition."
Hanes said that Briggs had signed it and that Hanes would
bring the petition in the next day. Jordan responded, "No.
Just show it to me now. I can't make a bet like that." I find
no merit in the Respondent 's contention that since Jordan
was well aware of Hanes' union advocacy and as Hanes
had invited Jordan to attend two of the employee meetings
with the Union , Jordan 's remarks were merely a trick
which could not have coerced or intimidated Hanes. In
view of the Respondent 's demonstrated union animus and
the unfair labor practices committed, I find that this was
an effort by Jordan to find out the identity of the union
advocates and that it constituted coercive interrogation
and created the impression of surveillance of union
activities.
I conclude that it violated Section 8(a)(1).
The remaining allegations against Supervisor Jordan are
based chiefly on the testimony of Leslie Stafford, a grinder
in the aluminum department whose subsequent discharge
is dealt with below . It is alleged that at various times from
May until August Jordan interrogated Stafford , impliedly
threatened him with unspecified reprisals, engaged in
constant surveillance of his union activities , and removed a
union button from Stafford's clothing.
Stafford testified as follows.
On or about May 10, Jordan "asked me did I know
anything about the union," and Stafford replied, "No. I
must have missed out on that day ." About a week later
Jordan called Stafford away from his grinder and told him
they did not need the Union and it was no good . Stafford
responded he was not giving an answer of how he was
going to vote . Again, in late May or early June, Jordan
called Stafford away from his work station and either
asked whether Stafford had got anybody to sign a union
card, and Stafford told him no, or asked whether anybody
had signed a union card , and Stafford answered that he
had not . Stafford also testified with regard to a conversa-
tion among himself, Jordan , and a leaderman named Carl
Vercher in June or July . It was not, however , until after
being confronted with his pretrial affidavit that Stafford
said that Vercher asked him what he thought about the
Union and that Stafford told them he thought it was
needed . Stafford said he never initiated any conversations
with Jordan about the Union , and that he never spoke
against the Union or the prounion employees , and never
wore company insignia or a vote-no button . He said he
wore a union button or buttons every day from the last 2
weeks in June until August 15 . Stafford testified that about
a month before the election , Jordan walked up to him and
said, "What are you doing with those buttons on there?"
and added that they were the wrong buttons.
About 2 weeks later , Stafford testified , Jordan pulled one
of the union buttons off his shirt . With regard to this
alleged incident the General Counsel also presented the
testimony of Edward Morgan , an aluminum welding
department employee , who never himself wore a union
button . He said he and another employee noticed that
several times Leslie Stafford was given union buttons or
stickers which he attached to his shirt under his jacket, and
each time the 2 employees noticeda few minutes later that
the union buttons were gone . When they asked Stafford
what happened , Stafford told them either that he had lost
the button or had put it in his car. On one occasion about a
week before the election Morgan saw John Jordan open
Stafford's coat and look at his shirt , but did not hear what
Jordan said to Stafford.
Jordan testified as follows with regard to Stafford.
Jordan was Stafford 's supervisor , and although Jordan
never began any conversations with Stafford about the
Union, Stafford raised the question about six or seven
times a day every day Stafford was in the plant after the
first of May. Stafford wore a union button on his T-shirt
for about 3 days in June or July, but he always talked
against the Union in his conversations with Jordan even
when he was wearing a union button . On one occasion a
day or two before the election Jordan noticed that Stafford
was wearing a homemade insignia with "vote no-vote for
the Company" written on it. Jordan said to Stafford, "As
bad as you have been running the union down . . . I see
you have got your button on." About 10 minutes later
Jordan noticed that Stafford was no longer wearing the
company button and asked him what happened to it.
Stafford replied , "They made me take it off. They were on
my back too much," but refused to tell Jordan who was on
his back . Jordan testified that he never asked Stafford
whether he knew anything about the Union or what he
thought about the Union , how he was going to vote, or
whether he had signed a card . In addition, Jordan denied
pulling a union button off Stafford.
Based on my observation of Stafford on the witness
stand and careful review of his testimony, I fmd that his
testimony is not reliable.
It is not that I believe Stafford would deliberately tell a
lie. I believe that, like Gregory Kerr , Stafford never really
understood what the forces swirling around him during the
union campaign were all about . The words for Stafford are
confusion and bewilderment . Thus, although he insisted he
signed a union card , he could not remember exactly whom
he gave it to, and the parties stipulated in effect that it was
not among the cards submitted to the Regional Office. I do
not believe he ever returned the card even if he signed one.
6 Home Comfort Products Co., 180 NLRB 597, 601 (1970).
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, Edward Morgan 's testimony does not support
Stafford 's statement that Jordan tore a union button from
his shirt ; it does, however, indicate confusion on Stafford's
part. It seems highly unlikely that Supervisor Jordan would
have been as concerned about this particular employee's
position on the union issue as Stafford's testimony
indicates . It is more likely that, as Jordan and Morgan
indicated , Stafford voluntarily opted to tell Jordan what he
thought Jordan wanted to hear and at the same time try to
avoid offending the union adherents . Accordingly, I
discredit Stafford and credit Jordan and find that these
allegations are not supported by a preponderance of the
credible evidence, and conclude that they should be
dismissed.
5. Night-Shift Supervisor Ewell J . Bordelon
The complaint alleges that in May Bordelon interrogated
an employee and solicited him to sign a petition requesting
the return of union cards.
The witness presented by the General Counsel in support
of this allegation was Rudolph Gaines , an 8-year employee
on the second shift in the aluminum department . Bordelon
was his supervisor . Gaines signed the prounion petition,
attended two union meetings , and passed out prounion
pamphlets . Gaines testified that one day in May, after
Gaines had signed a union card , Bordelon said as he
passed Gaines' work station , "You are by yourself. You
better go sign up ." Gaines asked , "Sign what?" And
Bordelon told him to go to the toolroom and he would find
out. Bordelon accompanied Gaines to the toolroom, and
on the way there asked him whether he had signed a union
card. At the toolroom, a man named Melvin Vidrine, who
works in the toolroom , folded a paper so that only the top
would show, and handed it to Gaines . The paper said,
"The undersigner would like to withdraw my card from the
Union." Bordelon asked Gaines "was I going to sign it."
Gaines refused . As Gaines left the scene, Bordelon "said
that this was my last chance-he hated to see a guy
hanging on a limb by himself-because they was going to
send the paper off tonight."
Bordelon testified that he discovered that Vidrine had
such a petition but he never saw it , and Vidrine never
discussed it with Bordelon except to say one night that "he
was going to send it off the same night ... that was the
last night they would mess with it." One evening during the
latter part of May, Bordelon testified , when he passed by
Gaines' welding stall , Gaines called to him and "asked me
what was this paper or petition going around."
I told him that I had heard from other workers that it
was a petition for-if somebody had signed a union
card and if somebody wanted it back , he might be able
to get it back through this petition ... .
Bordelon said he started walking toward the toolroom and
Gaines followed . Bordelon left Gaines in conversation with
toolroom custodian Melvin Vidrine and he did not hear
what they talked about.
Vidrine testified that during the latter part of May an
employee from the automation department named Joseph
Juneau gave him the petition , and Vidrine put out the word
among employees that they could sign it during the break.
The next night Rudolph Gaines came to the toolroom and
asked Vidrine if he had such a petition . When Vidrine said
he did, Gaines asked if he could see it . Vidrine permitted
him to look at the petition but not at the names signed to it.
Vidrine asked Gaines if he wanted to sign the petition but
Gaines said he did not. Bordelon was not present during
this incident , Vidrine said. Vidrine said he returned the
petition to Juneau later the same evening.
In resolving the credibility question posed in connection
with this issue , I was not unimpressed with the demeanor
of Gaines . On the whole , however, Bordelon's demeanor
was even more impressive . Moreover, Bordelon is not
accused of any other unfair labor practices , and his version
of this incident is corroborated by Vidrine whom there is
no reason to discredit . I am inclined to believe that Gaines
made more of this incident than actually occurred, and I
therefore credit Bordelon and Vidrine as against him.
Accordingly, I find that the allegation against Bordelon is
not supported by credible evidence and conclude that it
should be dismissed.
6. Paint Shop Supervisor Charles Curry
The complaint alleges that around mid-March 1974
Supervisor Curry created the impression of surveillance. In
support of this allegation Willie Jones testified that 3 or 4
weeks before his discharge, discussed below, Supervisor
Curry "came up to me where I was working in the booth,
where I paint, and he told me , he said, I heard that the
employees were trying to get a union. So I told him, Yeah,
I heard the same thing . . . I hope we do get one because
we have been needing one for a long time .' " Curry
testified that he could recall no conversation with Jones
about the Union. He said he first became aware of union
activity in the plant about the first week in May, and that
he had no conversations with any employees about the
Union before that time.
Based on Jones' unusual impressiveness on the stand,
and review of his testimony, I find that he stuck to the facts
as he recalled them . In my opinion, he was more likely to
recall this occurrence accurately than Curry who I believe
felt called upon to support the Respondent 's case.
However, even though Jones' credited testimony regarding
his response to Curry establishes Employer knowledge of
Jones' union advocacy, as referred to below , I do not find
that Curry's mere statement that he had heard that the
employees were trying to get a union could have reason-
ably conveyed the impression that Curry was engaged in
surveillance , and I recommend that this allegation be
dismissed.
7. Personnel Manager James R. Ong
The complaint alleges that in July Personnel Manager
Ong attempted to persuade two employees to vote against
the Union by telling them they were going to receive
substantial wage increases.
This allegation is supported by the testimony of Ted
Douzart who was hired May 7, worked in assembly and
then in the shipping department, and was terminated
September 13, 1974, for failure to produce. One morning
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1303
just before the Fourth of July, Douzart said he was
working in the assembly department when Ong walked up
and began talking to Douzart and the man who was
working beside him, Albert Setliff.
And he told us the company was making a few changes
this year. And he thought that the biggest change
would be in our raises . And then he proceeded to
explain that he had a grading system. And he told us
about how they gave raises twice a year, in January and
July. He said in this that we were graded according to
the way we do our work and our production and so
forth, and our grades would depend on how much raise
that we would get. He stated some raises would be as
high as 504 but normally they would be from 25¢ to 40¢
He said that production had increased this year and
they were doing better than before and that's why they
were going to give such big increases.
Douzart testified that neither the Union nor the election
was mentioned during this conversation. Setliff did not
testify.
Personnel Manager Ong testified that when he hired
Douzart he explained company policies and rules to him
including the policy of reviewing each employee twice a
year, usually in January and July, for the purpose of
granting a wage increase , and that the increases were for a
maximum of 10 cents or it could be nothing or 5 cents.
Subsequently, in late June, Ong said he had another
conversation with Douzart, when he again explained the
employee review program-when it was conducted nor-
mally, and how it worked. He told Douzart,
... we were getting ready to review at this time. It
was the normal time and that he would be reviewed. He
was a new employee and I wanted to remind him of
this fact. He would be reviewed; that he was eligible for
a maximum 10¢ raise.
Ong insisted that he did not tell Douzart that he or any
other employee might receive more of a wage increase than
that.
I credit Douzart not only because of his favorable
demeanor and the fact that none of his testimony was
effectively impeached, but also because Ong, by his own
account of what he told Douzart, was telling him a
falsehood. Thus, according to Ong, he told Douzart in late
June that the Company was getting ready to review the
employees and that Douzart would be eligible for the
maximum 10-cent increase. The evidence establishes,
however, as set forth below, that the employee review and
grading procedure was completed before this, on June 16,
and according to Ong management was seriously consider-
ing suspending the 10-cent maximum system. I therefore
find that Ong made the statements to Douzart and Setliff
as Douzart testified. Moreover, although Ong did not
specifically condition his suggestion of the possibility of the
substantial increases mentioned on the outcome of the
election , I find in view of the timing of his remarks, during
the critical election period, and in the context of the unfair
labor practices committed by the Respondent, that Ong's
intent was to induce these employees to vote against the
Union in the forthcoming election. I conclude that Ong
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).
8. Metal Finishing Supervisor Thomas G. Meyers
The complaint alleges that during July and August 1974
Supervisor Meyers engaged in constant surveillance of a
union adherent, isolated him by instructing him not to talk
to fellow employees, and restricted his use of employee
restrooms; and that Meyers refused a union election
observer permission to attend the preelection conference
and threatened him with bodily harm.
These allegations are based chiefly on testimony by
Sylvester Bowie. It is clear that Bowie was known to be one
of the most active union advocates. He testified that about
a month before the Board election he was moved from the
aluminum shop where he had been punching, sewing, and
clipping metal chairs, a job which required him to work
"all over the aluminum shop." His new job was in the
metal finishing shop under the supervision of Tom Meyers
and he worked "off in a corner" by himself, sanding metal
chairs. After he was moved Meyers told Bowie he must ask
for permission to use the restroom, which had never been
required of Bowie before, and Meyers also told Bowie
"that he was going to follow me step for step" to the
restroom. Hanes, who was transferred to metal finishing in
early 1974, also testified that a little over a month before
the election, Meyers told him to ask permission before
using the bathroom; and that from that time until about a
week before the election, Meyers followed Hanes to the
bathroom and everywhere he went away from his work
station.
Meyers testified it was his responsibility to check Bowie's
preparation of the metal chairs for chrome plating but
Bowie had been separately located in the aluminum
department. At that location, Bowie worked as close as 2
feet to other employees and as far away as 10 feet from
other employees, depending on how crowded the working
conditions were. Bowie's work location was changed at
Meyers' request to the metal finishing department because
he was working directly under Meyers. After the change,
Bowie worked from 2 to 7 feet from other employees,
depending on the job he was doing.
Meyers said he never told any employees they had to get
permission to use the restrooms. Meyers had noticed,
however, Hanes and Victor Swinnen going to the restroom
more often and remaining there longer in July. Meyers
believed that Hanes overheard a conversation he had with
Swinnen in early August when Meyers told Swinnen if he
had to use the restroom as often and stay in there as long
as he was doing, either he was sick and should be at home.
Swinnen asked him, "You mean, I have to have permission
to go to the restroom?" Meyers told hum, "No, but you
may have to." A day or two after this incident, these two
employees "started asking if they could go to the
restroom." This went on for about 2 days and Meyers
merely told them they could go.
I credit Meyers. He and E. J. Bordelon, discussed above,
were the most impressive of the Respondent's witnesses.
Although, as made clear below, I do not believe Meyers got
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
everything exactly right, I find that he was more dispas-
sionate , more accurate, and more plausible regarding these
events than Bowie and Hanes . As in certain instances
regarding Superintendent Folse discussed above, Bowie
and Hanes read more into Meyers' conduct than was
actually there.
The remaining allegations relate to events on the day of
the Board election. Based on the considerations mentioned
above and hereafter, I find that what actually happened
was as follows.
On August 21, election day, Meyers saw Bowie, whom
Meyers knew to be a union observer, put away his tools
about 12:30, pick up a bag, and go into the bathroom.
Meyers followed him. In the bathroom, in employee
Clarence Lewis' presence, Meyers said to Bowie, as
testified to by Meyers and Lewis, "Come on, let's go back
to work." Bowie responded, "If you think you are man
enough to carry me back to work, do it." Meyers told him,
"I just want you to go back to work," and left the restroom.
Meyers went to the toolroom office where he told
Superintendent Folse it looked like Bowie was going to
cause trouble because he had already put his tools up.
However, Folse said that Bowie was probablyjust cleaning
up, getting ready for the 1 o'clock preelection conference,
and that Bowie would be notified when to go to the
conference. When Bowie came out of the restroom he told
Meyers he was going to the front office and find out when
they wanted him. Meyers told him he would be informed
when to attend the conference, but Bowie said he was
going to find out for himself, and went on to the front
office. Meyers followed him.
On the way to the front office, Bowie noticed that Kim
Hanes was not at his work station, and Bowie stopped to
ask Victor Swinnen where Hanes was. Swinnen did not
know. Bowie reached over to pick up a bag of Hanes'
which contained the Excelsior list of eligible voters. As he
did so, Meyers, who had called out to Bowie twice since he
stopped at Swinnen's work station without receiving any
response, reached out and gave Bowie a push causing
Bowie to stumble forward. Bowie swung around as he got
his balance back , struck against Meyers, and told Meyers,
"Don't never put your hand on me again ." When the two
of them arrived at the office, Bowie was unable to get any
further information. Meyers again told him he would be
notified when to go to the conference, and to go back to
work and that Meyers was going to follow him step-for-
step to make sure he did not stop to talk to anyone else.
Bowie returned to work. About 10 minutes later, Meyers
was advised to release Bowie for the conference and did so.
Bowie met with union representatives about 5 minutes
before the election.
These facts fail to establish that Meyers refused Bowie
permission to attend the preelection conference or threat-
ened Bowie with bodily harm. Bowie's less-than-admirable
behavior was doubtless caused by excitement and tension
and Meyers' reaction by exasperation. Such conduct is
probably not unusual in the charged atmosphere of
election day. These allegations should be dismissed.
9. Assembly Foreman Frank Brister
The complaint alleges that on or about May 10, 1974,
Brister engaged in surveillance of a union meeting at the
Holiday Inn in Alexandria, Louisiana; and in August,
interrogated an employee and promised him a substantial
wage increase to persuade him to vote against the Union,
interrogated two employees, and promised five employees
substantial wage increases if the Union lost the election.
As indicated above, the Union held weekly meetings
with employees from the plant at the Holiday Inn,
Alexandria, on May 10, 17, and 24, 1974. Kim Hanes
testified that Frank Brister came to either the second or
third of these meetings . However, this cryptic testimony
was not corroborated, and was, at least indirectly, refuted
by Superintendent Jordan who testified that Brister told
him he had been invited to the first meeting but when he
went they would not let him in; and that Hanes invited
Jordan to two meetings also but Jordan refused to go. In
all the circumstances, I find that the allegation of
surveillance of a union meeting is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence and should be dismissed.
Arthur Hines testified that about three weeks before the
election, Brlster came over to him and asked him how he
was going to vote. Hines replied he was undecided.
So he told me that the company had a package already
made up but they couldn't give it to the employees until
after the union had been voted out. So he told me, you
know, if I would vote no on the union, then we would
get at least a 30 or 40-cent raise in this pay package.
Hines said, "I asked him a couple of times about that after
this and he reassured me that I would get a raise if I voted
no." Hines also testified that about a week before the
election, around August 15,
Mr. Brister asked me why I was wearing a button and
I told him I was given the button and I said everybody
else was wearing them. And he said that he thought
that I told him that I was going to vote no. And I said I
am still undecided but I am wearing the button. And he
said take the button and do like everybody else is doing
and scratch the paint off and put no on the button. And
I told him I wouldn't do that but I would take it off.
And I took it off.
Glen Monette testified that 2 or 3 days before the
election Brister passed by his and employee Robert Lee's
work station , and Robert Lee asked him "When will we get
our raise?" Brister replied , "Within two weeks ' time after
the union thing is over with if we vote against the union."
Employee James Gill testified that the Monday before
the election (August 19) Brister walked up to him and Glen
Monette and asked him what he was talking about. Gill
replied he did not know how he was going to vote . Brister
said "if I voted against the union, I would get a raise within
two weeks."
Employee Frank Raila testified that on the day before
the election Raila walked up as employee Robert Gordon
was'saying something to Frank Brister "about he wasn't
being paid enough ." Brister then turned and spoke to
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1305
several employee's including Raila, Gordon, and two
others, telling them, "If we voted the union out, we would
all get a raise within two weeks and it wouldn't be 104 or
15¢ either."
Robert Gordon testified that on the day before the
election, August 20, Frank Brister came over to his work
area and told him, "I promise if you vote the union out,
you will get a raise and it won't be no 10 or 15-cent."
About 5 minutes later Frank Raila and Ted Douzart came
up, and Gordon said to Buster, "These fellows don't
believe that if we vote the union out, that we will get a
raise." Brister replied, "That's right. And you won't get no
10 or 15-cent raise either. It will be within five days."
Ted Douzart testified that on the day before the election
Brister said there would be a good raise if the Union was
voted out.
Although I place no reliance on additional testimony
somewhat similar to the above by Dominic Johnson
because of her uncertainty, I credit the testimony of
employees Hines, Monette, Gill, Raila, Gordon, and
Douzart which was positive, unequivocal, and substantially
mutually corroborative. I find that during the critical
period Brister coercively interrogated an employee and
promised substantial wage increases if the Union lost the
election. I conclude that the Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) as alleged in the complaint.
B. The 8(a)(3) Violations
1. The discharge of Willie L. Jones, April 24,
1974
The complaint alleges that Jones was discharged because
of his union activities. The Respondent contends he was
discharged fot insubordination.
Jones was hired November 2, 1965, and worked the day
shift as a spray painter under the supervision of Paint Shop
Supervisor Charles Curry. Jones was a good worker, and
Curry and Superintendent Folse complimented him on his
work. Jones received 5- or 10-cent wage increases every 6
months. In January 1974 he complained to Supervisor
Curry and Plant Superintendent Folse that they should
have the exhaust fan fixed or give him a raise; Folse fired
him for that, but rehired him 10 minutes later at a 30-cent
increase.
Jones' union activities consisted of signing the prounion
petition in late February; and talking to seven or eight
employees about signing it, two of whom did so at his
urging. However, his coworker Wayne McCain refused
three requests to sign, the last time within a week of Jones'
discharge, because, McCain said, he made enough money
and a union "only gets you in trouble." As found above, 3
or 4 weeks before Jones' discharge, Curry told him he had
heard the employees were trying to get a union and Jones
responded that he hoped so because a union had been
needed for a long time.
On the afternoon of April 24, at or about 3:15, Jones and
employee McCain started cleaning up the paint shop prior
to the end of the shift, when McCain suggested that the
two of them "go take a smoke before we finish cleaning
up." Jones agreed and the two of them went into the
restroom to smoke . Employee Rodney Roberts, who had
signed the prounion petition , was in the restroom when
they arrived. McCain stood by a wash basin directly in
front of the restroom entrance , Jones stepped behind a
partition , and both lit cigarettes . There are three accounts
of what happened next-Jones' , Folse's, and Roberts'. I
find that Roberts' was probably the most accurate. I have
credited Folse against other witnesses as to certain other
critical matters . Regarding the facts to do with Jones'
discharge , however, I find Folse , and Curry as well,
unbelievable , chiefly because their testimony that Jones
told Folse , and repeated to Curry, that Jones was going to
smoke when and where he wanted to is totally out of
character for a man like Jones as I observed and listened to
him on the stand. As to Jones, I find him generally
credible , but for this particular event I have relied on
Roberts on the chance that Jones' personal involvement in
such a sudden and unexpected occurrence may have
affected the preciseness of his memory of it . Roberts was
not directly involved , and his version more closely
resembles Jones' than Folse's.
Roberts said that Folse rushed into the bathroom,
looked at him and McCain , who was smoking , but started
talking to Jones, and the following colloquy ensued:
Folse: You know the rules around here . No smoking
in the bathroom.
Jones : I know but I had a craving for a cigaret
because the paint and the dust in the paint shop makes
me want to smoke.
Folse : Yeah, you know the rules around here. No
smoking in the bathroom . Even if I smoke , I can't
smoke on company time . I will have to go get your
checks then.
Jones : I have been smoking for a long time and it's
hard for me to quit.
Folse : If you can't quit , I will have to get your
checks.
I dd not consider these remarks of Jones' to be
insubordinate in the usually accepted meaning of the term,
particularly when compared with conduct of other employ-
ees tolerated by supervision detailed in this record.
Moreover, I have no doubt that Folse, with Supervisor
John Jordan's assistance, set a trap for Jones based on the
plant no-smoking rule. It is true that the employees were
aware that smoking was permitted only during breaktime,
liut the evidence shows that the rule was more honored in
the breach than strictly enforced. No one was ever
discharged before for smoking and all violations were met
with admonitions or ignored by supervision, including
Superintendent Folse. Folse and Jordan testified that Folse
instructed Jordan at the supervisor's meeting that morning
to let him know the next time Jones smoked in the
restroom and Folse would talk to him, because Jordan had
said he was setting a bad example for other employees. No
advance warning was conveyed to Jones, and Jordan's
claim not to see that McCain was with Jones on the late
afternoon trip to the bathroom which Jordan reported to
Fblse was unpersuasive. Folse also ignored McCain's
smoking when he rushed in in pursuit of Jones. Curry
testified that whenever he had told Jones to put a cigarette
out, Jones had done so. Although Curry said he had
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
warned Jones that if Folse caught him smoking too many
times he would lose his job, Folse said it had been 3 years
since he had caught him doing so.
I find that the reason advanced by the Respondent for
the discharge of Jones was a pretext and that the real
reason was his union adherence, based on the Respon-
dent's demonstrated union animus; Jones' active role in
this early stage of the union drive and the Respondent's
knowledge of his prounion stance; Jones' more than 8
years' experience in the plant and his superior work record
admitted by management and evidenced by his regular
wage increases including a substantial increase less than 4
months before his discharge; the disparate treatment
accorded Jones both as to enforcement of the no-smoking
rule and as to the protest Jones voiced to Folse about it
upon the occasion of his termination. I conclude that
Willie Jones' discharge on April 24, 1974, was discrimina-
tory to discourage union activity, and that it violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The discharge of Theado (Gene) Ellis, May 24,
1974
The complaint alleges that Ellis was discharged because
of his union activities. The Respondent contends he was
discharged because he threatened to bum employee
Gregory "Jap" Kerr's car if Kerr did not sign a union card.
Ellis was hired July 20, 1969, and at the time of his
discharge was a welder on the day shift, supervised by John
Jordan . He had received a wage increase every 6 months
that general wage increases were given . In a conversation
with Vice President Smith in mid-May 1974, Smith told
Ellis he was a good employee and commented on Ellis'
long seniority. As found above, in a conversation with
Superintendent Folse and Vice President Swain at about
the same time, they told Ellis they did not know how the
Company had kept him as long as it had at the salary it
was paying him, and he could have a job with the
Company as long as he desired.
Ellis' union activities consisted of helping to circulate the
union petition , signing a union authorization card when
cards first became available in early May, attending all
three union meetings at the Holiday Inn, passing out union
literature , and obtaining the signatures of 40 or 50
employees to authorization cards. He clearly was a leader
in the union movement.
When Gregory Kerr arrived at work for the second shift
on the afternoon of May 21, he reported to his leaderman,
Abe Slaughter, that in the parking lot Gene Ellis had just
threatened to bum his car up if he did not sign a union
card . Slaughter reported this information to Supervisor
Bordelon . Bordelon came to their work station and asked
Kerr to tell him what happened, and asked employee Joe
Davis, who drove to work with Kerr, whether he had seen
and heard it. Davis replied in the affirmative. Bordelon
reported the alleged threat to Vice President Smith. Smith
said it would be Kerr's word against Ellis ', and it would be
"no good" unless Kerr had a witness . Bordelon told Smith
that Davis wa§ a witness.
On the morning of May 22 Smith reported the incident
to Executive Vice President and Plant Manager Paul
Matthews. At Matthews' request, Bordelon brought Davis
to Matthews' office that afternoon and, with Vice President
Smith and Vice President in Charge of Design and
Engineering Rex Ponthie also present, Davis said that Ellis
had told Kerr something would happen to his car if he did
not sign a union card . Matthews took Davis ' statement
down in longhand, and Davis signed it.
The next day, May 23, Matthews told President Baker
about the affair, and the two of them decided to terminate
Ellis because of this threat. No other factors were
considered in the decision to terminate, Matthews testified.
Although Davis had been employed only 3 weeks and was
unknown to Matthews, neither Kerr nor Ellis was
interviewed by him or any other management official.
The following morning, May 24, Matthews himself
announced the decision at the supervisors' meeting,
explaining that Gene was being terminated because of a
threat, not because of union activity. "We had people that
were stronger unionwise than Gene was but we were not
going to tolerate any violence, either company or union,
and wanted all of them to know why Gene was being
terminated."
Toward the end of the shift that day, May 24, Smith sent
for Ellis who came to his office accompanied by Jordan
and Folse. Smith told Ellis he was going to do something
he did not want to do because Ellis was a good employee
and'had been with the Company a long time, but he was
going to terminate him. Ellis asked why, and Smith told
him it was because he had threatened an employee. Ellis
asked who, but Smith refused to tell him. Assuming that
Smith had reference to an argument Ellis had that day with
employee Firmin, Ellis said he knew who it was, something
that happened in the plant. Smith said it was not for
something that happened in the plant, it was for something
that happened outside the plant, and handed Ellis his
checks. Ellis then charged that they were terminating him
because he was a black man, and started to leave. Smith
asked him to wait, but Ellis pointed out that Smith had
witnesses, and said he would not talk any more without
witnesses or a lawyer of his own.
A month or so later, Ellis learned from another employee
that it had been Kerr who claimed Ellis had threatened
him. Ellis testified that he had asked Kerr, for the second
time, on May 21, to sign a union card, and Kerr refused.
After he explained the advantages of representation to
Kerr, Ellis said, Kerr responded that he did not under-
stand. Exasperated , Ellis said that even an ignorant person
could understand it. Kerr started to retort, but Ellis,
thinking Kerr was going to call him a nigger, as both Ellis
and Chester Lofton, Sr., testified Kerr had done once
before, Ellis interrupted and reminded Kerr, "I told you
once before I would bum your butt up if you called me
that."
There is no question in my mind that Ellis' version of the
events of May 21 and before is the true one. Ellis impressed
me as an intelligent , honorable , and a generally peaceful,
though proud, person. Chester Lofton, Sr., who supported
Ellis when he was in a position to do so, was also a credible
witness not prone to deceive or exaggerate. By contrast,
Kerr and Davis appeared to be exactly the kind of men
who would say and do what Ellis and Lofton ascribed to
them.
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1307
The Respondent contends in effect that Ellis was
discharged for misconduct arising out of his solicitation of
employee Kerr's signature on a union authorization card
during the employees' own time, which the Respondent
does not dispute and I find was an activity protected by
Section 7 of the Act. In view of the facts as found above, I
further find that no misconduct occurred. I conclude that
the discharge of Ellis was therefore a violation of Section
8(a)(1).7 Moreover, a preponderance of the credible
evidence also establishes that the Respondent did not in
good faith believe that Ellis had threatened to bum Kerr's
car, but seized upon this accusation as a pretext to rid itself
of a leader of the union movement; i.e., the Respondent's
strong union animus and other unfair labor practices; its
knowledge of Ellis' vigorous advocacy of the union cause;
its expressed regard for his competence and seniority; its
unlawful attempts to induce him to abandon that advoca-
cy, which, to the Respondent's knowledge, had been
unsuccessful; the participation in the discharge of top
management who accepted the word of Davis, an obvious-
ly less valuable employee, without affording Ellis an
opportunity to explain or apologize or affording the
antagonistic employees an opportunity to confront each
other and be reconciled, which the evidence clearly shows
was contrary to past practice in the plant. Accordingly, I
conclude that Ellis' discharge was motivated by discrimi-
natory considerations to discourage union activity, and
therefore violative of Section 8(a)(3).
3. The discharge of Leslie Stafford, August 19,
1974
The complaint alleges that Stafford was discharged for
union activity. The Respondent contends he quit.
Stafford was hired December 3, 1973, and worked
primarily as -a grinder under the supervision of John
Jordan. He received two wage increases, and Jordan and
Folse complimented him on his work. Stafford signed the
union petition. He testified he signed a union card in May,
but I have found above that he never turned it in to the
Union. Stafford's employment was interrupted for about 4
weeks in May and June 1974, because he had no
transportation to the plant. After he returned to work, he
came in the car of his brother-in-law, James Montgomery,
although he missed 3 days in August because of having no
transportation.
On Friday, August 16, a payday, Stafford and Montgom-
ery did not report to work, but went to Personnel Manager
Ong's office about 10:30 a.m. They asked Ong if they could
have that day off to drive to Pineville, Louisiana, to see
Stafford's grandmother who was sick. Ong agreed, and
they asked for their paychecks. Ong then told them they
could not have their checks until that afternoon. The two
employees left the plant and drove to Montgomery 's home,
30 miles away. They returned that afternoon, picked up
their checks, and told Ong they planned to be back to work
Monday morning. They left Pineville about 5:30 Friday
afternoon and drove about 300 miles to Stafford's
grandmother's house. They did not get home again until
4:30 a.m. Monday, and then overslept and did not come to
work that day.
Stafford and Montgomery reported to Ong Tuesday
morning, August 19, as instructed. Ong testified that the
only reason he wanted to see them was to ask why they had
not come to work on Monday as they had said they would.
There is some dispute between Stafford and Ong as to
what was said in this interview on Tuesday. Montgomery
did not testify. As indicated above, neither Stafford nor
Ong were very credible. The following findings as to what
happened are based on the probabilities in light of my
assessment of the character and personalities of the two
men.
When the two employees came into his office, Ong asked
them where they had been on Monday, and Stafford
replied that they did not get home until 4:30 Monday
morning as they had had car trouble on the way back from
his grandmother's house. At that point Montgomery spoke
up and said, "It doesn't make any difference, anyway. We
are quitting at the end of the week." Ong told them that if
they would like, they could be terminated as of the last day
they had worked, which was the preceding Thursday, and
he could give them their checks at once. Montgomery said,
"That's fine with us. We will take our checks now."
Although Stafford did not intend to quit because he had a
family to support, he did not speak up, because, he said
and I believe this, he did not consider it polite to interrupt.
Based on these facts, I find that Stafford by his silence
conveyed the impression to Ong that he was in agreement
with Montgomery's announcement that they both were
quitting at the end of the week anyway and would take
their checks for pay coming to them and leave at that time.
To the extent that Ong jumped at the chance to accept
Stafford's resignation, I find that such a reaction was not
based on discriminatory considerations. Even though his
work was satisfactory when he was present and his
employment was terminated only 2 days before the
election, for the reasons discussed above in connection
with my dismissal of the 8(axl) allegations involving
Stafford, his poor attendance record, and the absence of
credible evidence that the Respondent was aware of his
union activity, I conclude that a preponderance of the
evidence fails to support the General Counsel's contention
that Stafford was discharged in violation of Section 8(aX3).
Accordingly, this allegation of the complaint should be
dismissed.
4. The refusal to grant the customary 6-month
pay increases
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) by posting a notice on May 24, 1974,
advising employees that they would not receive the usual
July wage increase due to the union issue; and violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to grant its usual 6-
month increase on or about July 1, 1974, because of the
union activities of its employees. The Respondent contends
that its May 24 notice was not related to the Union issue;
and that the biannual wage increases were suspended in
July 1974 because of the May 1, 1974, increase in the
7 N. LA B. v Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S 21 (1964).
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
minimum wage. The evidence on these issues is based
primarily on the testimony of Executive Vice President
Matthews and Personnel Manager Ong.
Since about April 1964, there has been in force in this
plant an employee wage-evaluation plan. Under the plan,
every rank-and-file employee was evaluated twice a year.
On the basis of past experience, seniority with the
Company, and the difficulty of his job, taken from the
employee's personnel record, and his performance as
evaluated by his supervisor, each employee was assigned a
certain number of points. Each was then given a wage
increase of 5 or 10 cents, with a maximum of 10 cents an
hour or no increase at all. Generally, 60 to 75 percent of
the employees have received the 10-cent maximum, 15 to
20 percent received 5 cents, and the remainder received no
increase. Since July 1972, the wage increases have been
given in January and July.
On May 1, 1974, the minimum wage was raised to $2 an
hour, and by a week prior to that date, all employees whose
wage rate was lower than that were increased to $2 an
hour. Around the beginning of May, Personnel Manager
Ong and Vice President in Charge of Production Smith
informed Matthews that the 10-cent limit on increases
under the evaluation plan ought to be eliminated because
the $2 minimum wage made it unfair to older employees.
Matthews informed Smith and Ong that he would be away
from May 5 to 18 on military duty, and instructed them to
review the problem while he was gone and to make a
recommendation upon his return for raising the 10-cent
maximum and adjusting the monetary amount per point
accordingly, without changing the formula for evaluating
employees. When Matthews returned, May 18, the matter
was again discussed, but no recommendation was made.
A day or two after Matthews' return to work, he
discussed the "wage increase problem" by telephone with
Andrew Lang, the Company's labor relations counsel in
New Orleans, who was familiar with the company
evaluation plan. Matthews explained that the Company
needed to raise the 10-cent limit and adjust the scale in
order to increase the spread between old and new
employees. Lang advised Matthews to go ahead and grade
the employees but not to implement any increases until the
two of them could discuss the matter in person. Matthews
instructed Ong to proceed with the evaluations, and Ong
put that process in motion.
The Respondent does not dispute that the following
notice was brought to the attention of its employees.
May 24, 1974
Employee Bulletin
Many people in the plant have been asking about wage
increases . We understand your concern and your need.
Unfortunately, because of circumstances beyond our
control and things going on right now that everyone is
aware of, our hands are tied. We suspect that this is not
really news to any of you. However, we do wish to
remind you that our fiscal or business year has just
ended and that we will shortly know our exact financial
condition. Also, even more importantly, our normal six
month grading period comes up in just a few weeks. At
that time, as in our normal practice, everyone will be
reviewed. Those of you who have not been with us for
many years are probably not aware that in the past,
major adjustments have been made in our overall wage
plan after changes were made in the minimum wage
and hour law. These major adjustments in our overall
wage plan have, in the past, been made at the time of
our normal six months review. We certainly hope that
everyone understands our position on this very impor-
tant matter, and we certainly hope no one takes any
unfortunate action which could possibly result in a
further delay. Paul A. Matthews Vice President
The 'Union responded to the Respondent's notice in a
bulletin to the employees over the name of Business
Representative Ivan Fisk dated June 10, 1974, which came
to the attention of Vice President Matthews and the
Respondent's labor relations counsel. It stated that if the
circumstances referred to in Matthews' May 24 bulletin
were the Union's activities on behalf of employees, the
Company need fear no objection by the Union for giving
any wage increases which accorded with past practices,
and warned the Company not to use the advent of the
Union as a pretext for denying employees normal planned
wage increases.
On or about June 13, Matthews received a copy of the
Union's petition in Case 15-RC-5465, and on June 20,
Matthews met with counsel in New Orleans. He again
informed Lang that the Company needed to raise the 10-
cent maximum but that no recommendation had been
received from Ong and Smith, and no determination had
yet been made, on how much to increase the maximum pay
raise. Lang told Matthews that although it was a
management decision , his advice was "not to put in our
normal July increases inasmuch as we had received a
petition and we were apparently going to recommend a
substantial increase above our normal practices ." More-
over, he advised Matthews that the Union's June 10, 1974,
bulletin would not "make it legal" to change the formula
by raising the maximum which still might be an unfair
labor practice.
The evaluation procedure was completed June 16, but
President Baker and Matthews decided not to give the July
increases . A notice was posted July 10 over the name of
Matthews informing the employees as follows:
Notice to All Employees
Much to my regret and I'm sure to your disappoint-
ment also, I'm announcing that the wage adjustment
previously discussed will not presently be put into
effect. Our attorneys have advised us that we should
not move in this particular area.
No new formula has ever been devised, recommended,
or decided upon. Matthews testified that but for the above
advice of counsel, Ong and Smith would have made a
package recommendation to Matthews who would have
analyzed it in light of such factors as the Company's
competitive situation, obtained the advice of Vice Presi-
dent in Charge of Engineering and Design Ponthie, and
possibly the Company's CPA, and then Matthews would
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1309
have made his own recommendation to President Baker.
Baker would have made a final decision, which would not
necessarily have conformed with the recommendation he
had received. No general wage increases have been given
since January 1974.
Matthews' expressed hope in his May 24 bulletin that it
would enable everyone to understand the company
position on the matter of wage increases was doubtless
realized to an extent that the Respondent now would
rather it had not. I am sure that the employees got the
following message, as the Union did: "Our hands are tied"
meant that no wage increases would be given. The reason
no wage increases would be given was attributed to
"circumstances beyond our control and things going on
right now that everyone is aware of." That could only have
reference to union organizational activity among the
employees, which the Respondent was fully determined to
defeat as the findings above clearly establish. No other
translation of this language is even suggested by the
Respondent. After somewhat obscure, and not altogether
true, references to the Employer's financial condition,
employee evaluations, and adjustments to the wage plan
after changes in the minimum wage law, the bulletin closed
with a final warning that no one should take any
unfortunate action , the meaning of which was plain
enough. It could only refer to the continuation of union
activities and a union victory. Again, no other explanation
has been offered. In these circumstances, and in view of the
unfair labor practices committed, including the discharge
of a leading union adherent the same day and concurrent
threats and promises by management contingent upon the
outcome of the union drive, I conclude that in its May 24
bulletin, the Respondent intended to, and did, inform its
employees that no wage increases would be given because
of their union activities, and that Thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.8
In view of my findings and conclusions above, I also find
that the decision made by President Baker and the notice
to the employees on July 10 to withhold wage increases,
which had been given employees in July during the
preceding 2 years and twice a year for 8 years before that,
was motivated by the Respondent's determination to
defeat the Union in the forthcoming election. This conduct
was merely the follow-up of the Respondent's unlawful
May 24 announcement which had tied the "very important
matter" of wage increases to the advent of the Union. I
place no credence in management's alleged intention to
give larger increases at some unspecified time in the future
because of the minimum wage rise. Evidence that the
employee wage evaluation plan had remained basically
unchanged except for minor modifications, and that the
10-cent maximum remained in effect since 1964, establish-
es that no major adjustments had resulted from minimum-
wage rises in the past. Moreover, no formula as to how
much the wage-evaluation raises should be increased was
8 Keller Columbus, Inc., 215 NLRB No 214 (1974); Hendel Manufactur-
ing Company, Incorporated, 197 NLRB 1093 (1972), enfd. 483 F 2d 350 (C A.
2, 1973)
9 Cf N L, R.B v Dan Howard Mfg Co, 390 F.2d 304 (C.A. 7, 1968);
Federation of Union Representatives v N.LR B., 339 F 2d 126 (C.A. 2, 1964);
Grede Foundries, Inc., 205 NLRB 39 (1973)
10 GAF Corporation, 196 NLRB 538 (1972), enfd 488 F .2d 306 (C.A. 2,
devised, no recommendation was made, and no decision
was reached on the matter. Although the Respondent
contends that the minimum-wage rise made the established
formula unfair to the older employees because it provided
too little for them, the Respondent in fact treated them
even more unfairly by withholding even that. The
Respondent's claim that its failure to expand its largesse
was done on advice of counsel that to do so might result in
being charged with an unfair labor practice has a hollow
ring in view of its failure to advise its employees of any fear
of unfair labor practices and its unlawful conduct detailed
in this decision.9 Accordingly, I conclude that the
Respondent refused to grant its usual July wage increases
for discriminatory reasons to discourage union activity, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, as alleged.io
IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
Based on findings and conclusions above, Objection 5
relating to the discharge of Leslie Stafford and Objection 7
relating to Supervisor Meyers' alleged objectionable
treatment of union observer Sylvester Bowie on election
day should be overruled. On the other hand, I find that
Supervisor Buster's coercive interrogation of an employee
and his promise of substantial wage increases if the Union
lost the election found above to be violative of Section
8(a)(1) requires that Objection I be sustained. In addition,
I find that Personnel Manager Ong's implied promise to
employees Douzart and Sethff that the employees would
receive 25- to 50-cent wage increases to induce them to
vote against the Union, found to be a violation of Section
8(a)(1), and the Respondent's withdrawal of customary
wage increases in July, found to be a violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1), fell within the purview of Objections 8 and
9 which also should be sustained. I further find that the
aforesaid unlawful conduct interfered with the employees'
free choice of representatives and was of sufficiently
substantial nature to affect the results of the election and to
require that the election be set aside and a new election
held.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and
in view of the nature and scope of the unfair labor
practices committed from infringing in any manner on its
employees' exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act.ii I shall also recommend that the Respondent take
the affirmative action provided for in the recommended
Order below, which I find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act, including the reinstatement with
1973). 1 find that the wage increases normally granted in July were not
individual increases solely within management discretion of the kind dealt
with in The Singer Company, Fnden Division, 199 NLRB 1195 (1972), and
other cases relied on by the Respondent. In view of my finding of
discriminatory motivation , however, the result would be the same even if
they were.
It N L. R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F 2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941).
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
backpay plus 6-percent interest of Willie L. Jones and
Theado (Gene) Ellis,12 and the reimbursement of employ-
ees for the customary July wage increases which the
Respondent withheld in 1974 because of the employees'
union activities plus 6-percent interest.13
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER14
The Respondent, Baker Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Pineville, Louisiana, its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, withholding pay increases, or otherwise
discriminating against any employee to discourage activity
on behalf of International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their or
other employees' union activities, sentiments , or desires.
(c) Inducing or attempting to induce employees to
disavow or to persuade other employees to disavow their
support of the Union by promising or giving them wage
increases or other benefits for doing so.
(d) Threatening to sell the plant to avoid unionization.
(e) Removing union literature from the parking lot or the
plant or threatening to take strong action against the
distribution of Union literature by employees.
(f) Suggesting the formation of an in-plant committee in
lieu of unionization.
(g) Curtailing or attempting to curtail employees' union
activities during breaktime.
(h) Creating the impression of surveillance of employees'
union activities.
(i) In any manner interfering with, coercing, or restrain-
ing its employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Willie L. Jones and Theado (Gene) Ellis
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for their lost earnings plus
6-percent interest in the manner set forth in section V of
this Decision.
(b) Reimburse its employees for the customary July 1974
wage increases which the Respondent unlawfully withheld,
plus 6-percent interest.
(c) Post at its Pineville, Louisiana, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said
notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 15 , after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices are customarily
posted. The Respondent shall also take reasonable steps to
insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted in
Case 15--RC-5465 August 21, 1974, in an appropriate unit
of the Respondent's production and maintenance employ-
ees be set aside and that a new election be conducted at
such time as the Regional Director deems appropriate.
12 F Fl' Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
13 Keller Columbus, Inc, supra.
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
15 In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National 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
VIE WILL NOT discharge , withhold pay increases, or
otherwise discriminate against any of our employees to
discourage activity on behalf of International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
about their or other employees ' union activities,
sentiments , or desires; induce or attempt to induce
employees to disavow , or to persuade other employees
to disavow , their support for the Union by promising or
giving them wage increases or other benefits for doing
so; threaten to sell the plant to avoid unionization;
remove union literature from the parking lot or the
plant or threaten to take strong action against the
distribution of union literature by employees ; suggest
the formation of an in-plant committee in lieu of
unionization ; curtail or attempt to curtail employees'
union activities on break time; or create the impression
of surveillance of employees ' union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , coerce,
or restrain employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Willie L. Jones and Theado (Gene)
Ellis immediate and full reinstatement to the jobs they
held before April 24 and May 24, 1974, respectively, or,
if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges.
WE WILL make whole Willie L. Jones and Theado
(Gene) Ellis for any loss of pay they suffered as a result
BAKER MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1311
of their discriminatory discharges plus interest at 6
percent.
WE WILL reimburse our employees for the customary
July wage increases which were canceled in 1974, plus
interest at 6 percent.
BAKER MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC.