Cheney Forest Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 136 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Mor-
ganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, Huffman Full Fashioned
Hosiery Mills, Inc., at their Morganton, North Carolina, plants, includ-
ing the collector,11 but excluding office and clerical employees, fixers,
timekeepers, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
"The Union contends that Dorothy Roper , the collector , is a supervisor . She is con-
sidered to be a production employee by the Employer , and she is paid on an hourly basis.
She keeps the production employees ( preboarders ) supplied with work and returns the
work to bins as particular operations are completed. She does not check the work of the
prehoarders and all instructions which she gives are routine in nature. Nor can she
effectively recommend the hire, discharge , or discipline of employees . We find therefore
that she has no supervisory authority and, accordingly , include her in the unit. See
Standard Romper Co ., Inc., 77 NLRB 421.
CHENEY FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. and LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS,
LOCAL UN10N No. 3009, AFL.1 Case No. 36-CA-276. January
13,1953
Decision and Order
On August 5, 1952, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The
charging party filed a brief.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
1 Subsequent to the hearing , the charging party, Klamath Basin District Council , Lumber
and Sawmill Workers, AFL. herein called the Council , and Lumber and Sawmill Workers,
Local Union No 3009 , AFL, herein called Sawmill Workers, jointly'moved the Board to
substitute in place of the Council the name of the Sawmill Workers wherever the former
appears in the record . The affidavit of the attorney for both organizations reveals that
the Council was disbanded on June 20 , 1952 , and that all rights , title , and interest which
the Council had in this case have been transferred to and received by the Sawmill Workers.
No objections have been filed to this motion We find that Sawmill Workers is , in effect,
the successor to the Council Accordingly , the motion is granted
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Murdock,
and Styles].
102 NLRB No. 24.
CHENEY FOREST PROD'tCTS, INC. 137
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
I ulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the briefs of the parties, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
i:nd recommendations.,
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cheney Forest
Products, Inc., Central Point, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Lumber and Sawmill Workers,
Local Union No. 3009, AFL, or in any other labor organization of its
employees by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment because of their
membership in, or activity on behalf of, any such labor organization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Lumber and Sawmill Workers,
Local Union No. 3009, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Elvis C. Arnold immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights or privileges.
(b) Make whole Elvis C. Arnold in the manner set forth in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy" for any
loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's dis-
crimination against him.
S Although the complaint alleged that the Respondent committed violations of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act independent of its violation of Section 8 (a) (3), the Trial Examiner
made no separate findings as to the alleged 8 (a) (1) violations . In view of the absence
of any exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's failure to find that certain statements of the
Respondent , particularly Askwith's statement to Arnold , "-you'll be sorry you 're trying
to bring a union in here-," were independently violative of Section 8 (a) (1), we do
not pass upon the legality of such statements.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due.
(d) Post at its mill at Central Point, Oregon, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies
of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, Port-
land, Oregon, in writing within ten (10) days from date of this Order
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
This notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order " In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order ." It is further amended by striking
the name "Klamath Basin District Council. Lumber and Sawmill Workers, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor ," and substituting in lieu thereof the name, "Lumber and
Sawmill Workers, Local Union No. 3009, AFL."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on February 20, 1952. by Klamath Basin District
Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers, affiliated with American Federation
of Labor, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region ( Seattle, Washington),
issued his complaint on April 15, 1952, against Cheney Forest Products, Inc.'
Central Point , Oregon , herein called Respondent , alleging therein that Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charge and complaint , together with notice of hearing thereon,
were duly served upon Respondent and upon the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that since October 18, 1951, Respondent ( 1) by means of certain statements, acts,
and conduct of its managerial personnel interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and (2 ) on or about February 14, 1952, discharged Elvis C. Arnold, and there-
after refused to reinstate him, because he joined or assisted the Union or
engaged in protected concerted activities with his fellow workers.
I By stipulation of the parties made at the bearing the name of Respondent appearing
in the complaint and in all other formal papers was corrected to read as it appears above.
CHENEY FOREST PRODUCTS, INC . 139
Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices. The answer affirmatively averred that Arnold's discharge "was
dictated by reasons of safety, discipline and efficiency, and that [Arnold] was
discharged for cause."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Medford, Oregon, on June 26 and 27,
1952, before the undersigned, the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by an official
thereof. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues was afforded the parties. At
the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, Respondent's counsel moved
to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. The motion was denied. At the con-
clusion of the taking of the evidence, Respondent's counsel renewed his motion
to dismiss the complaint. Decision thereon was reserved. The motion is dis-
posed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations here-
inafter set forth. Although offered an opportunity to do so, no briefs were filed
with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Cheney Forest Products, Inc., an Oregon corporation, owns and operates a plant
at Central Point, Oregon, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of 2 x 4 studs and railroad ties. Respondent annually ships from its
Central Point plant to points located outside the State of Oregon finished products
valued in excess of $25,000.
Respondent admits, and the undersigned finds, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Klamath Basin District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interference , restraint, and coercion ; the discriminatory discharge of
Elvis C. Arnold
1. Sequence of events
On or about August 1951, Elvis C . Arnold, who had been in Respondent's employ
from April 1947 until his discharge on February 14, 1952, joined the Union.
In September 1951, 3 union representatives met with approximately 18 em-
ployees of Respondent , including Arnold, in a railroad freight car located about
100 feet from Respondent's mill. There, after discussion was had relative
to the unionization of the employees, Arnold was designated by the employees
present to "head up" the drive.
About 4 days after the aforesaid meeting, Arnold informed Bill Askwith, mill
superintendent, of the employees' union activities and suggested that Askwith
ask Francis Cheney , Respondent's treasurer and manager of its Central Point
plant, if Cheney desired to talk to the employees. Askwith replied that he did
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not think that Cheney would be interested in talking to the employees but, never-
theless, he would pass on the information to Cheney. About 2 days later, Ask-
with told Arnold that Cheney did not care to talk to the employees because
Cheney was of the opinion that if he did so, "they'd [would] put him (Cheney)
in jail."
Arnold continued his efforts to organize the employees by means of discussing
the Union with them and securing from them union-authorization cards. As a
result of Arnold's efforts and the efforts of other interested parties, the Union
filed a representation petition with the Board. A hearing upon said petition was
scheduled for October 11, 1951. Due to the fact, however, that no one appeared
at the hearing on behalf of the Company, the hearing was adjourned to October 23.
On or about October 20, the Board served upon Arnold a subpena to appear
as a witness at the adjourned hearing. The day Arnold received the subpena
he informed Frank McManama, his foreman, of its receipt and then requested
and received permission from McManama to absent himself from the mill to
attend the hearing.
Arnold credibly testified that because he did not see Askwith from the time
he received the subpena until the morning of the day he was to appear,` he was
unable to inform Askwith of its receipt ; that then he showed Askwith the sub-
pena; that the latter stated, "You don't have to go. It isn't worth the paper it's
written on . . . if you go, you're going on your own . . . you'll be sorry you're
trying to bring a union in here"; and that when lie stated, "I'11 only be gone a
couple of hours," Askwith replied, "if you're that rich, you can take off all day."
Arnold appeared at the hearing and testified as a Board' s witness . No one, how-
ever, appeared thereat on the Company's behalf.
Pursuant to a Board order an election was scheduled for January 15. Because
of inclement weather the election was postponed to February 12. Thereat, Arnold
acted as the Union's observer and employee Barnett acted as the Company's
observer.
After the conclusion of the voting, the ballots were tallied in the presence
of Askwith and the two observers. While this was being done, Barnett inquired
of Askwith whether Arnold could not "be fired for [engaging in] union activities,"
to which inquiry Aslcwith made no reply. However, after the tallying had been
completed and after the Board's agent in charge of the election had announced
the results of the election, which indicated that the Union had won, Askwith
stated, according to Arnold's credible and undenied testimony, "if the company
hadn't kept my hands tied behind me, I might [be] in jail but I know that the
union wouldn't have come into the plant."
The following day, February 13, McManama informed Arnold and the two
other green chain operators that in the future the operators would have to stack
the 2 x 4's neater and that they must cease smoking in the freight cars.' The
same day Arnold was relieved of his daily job of tallying the amount of lumber
placed in the freight ears. This job of tallying the lumber was then assumed by
Askwith. Despite the fact that by being relieved of said job Arnold lost some
extra compensation, the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the change was
made for business reasons.
The following morning, February 14, the 3 green chain operators reported
for work at their usual hour. Arnold, for the first hour, worked in the freight
car stacking lumber and the other 2 operators worked on the chain. As was the
operators' custom, they shifted jobs each hour. After Arnold had been working
2 The record indicates that the adjourned hearing was to be held in the afternoon
8 Contrary to the General Counsel 's contention , the undersigned finds that the no-smoking
order was given solely as a fire prevention precaution.
CHENEY FOREST PRODUCTS, INC . 141
on the chain for about 10 minutes of his second hour of work, Askwith came to
where Arnold was working and complained to Arnold about the way Arnold
was stacking the 2 x 4's. Arnold replied that he was doing the best he could.
Askwith then stated, "You've been causing a lot of trouble around here lately-
you're fired" and thereupon left Arnold. After walking about 10 feet, Askwith
returned and asked Arnold whether he had not been told that the 2 x 4's had
to be stacked neater. Arnold, being under the impression that Askwith had
asked if he had been so instructed that morning, replied in the negative. Ask-
with then sought out McManama and inquired whether McManama had not
carried out his instructions to inform all green chain operators to stack the
2 x 4's neater After assuring Askwith that he had the day before informed each
green chain operator that the lumber coining off the chain had to be stacked
neater, McManama and Askwith went to where Arnold was working. There,
McManama stated to Arnold that if Arnold had stated to Askwith he had not
been instructed to stack the lumber neater then Arnold was "a liar." Arnold
replied, "1 was told about it yesterday, but not this nmorning." Askwith and
McManama then walked away and Arnold continued to work.'
At about 9 o'clock, during the usual morning rest period, Arnold approached
Mclllanama and said, "I guess as far as Mr. Askwith is concerned, I'm through."
McManama then instructed Arnold to work until lunchtime. When the luncheon
period arrived, McManama told Arnold that Cheney had decided to discharge
him and that Arnold should go to the mill's office to pick up has check This
Arnold did and then left the mill after an argument had ensued at the mill
office between him, Cheney, and Askwith.
Askwith testified that lie did not discharge Arnold because, even though he
was mill superintendent, he had delegated the authority to hire and fire to
McManama 3 or 4 weeks before the Arnold incident had occurred. He admitted.
however, that he told Arnold, when he first talked to him on February 14, "as far
as I [am] concerned [you are] fired" ; that after he and McManama had left
Arnold he said to McManama, "What do you think, we should discharge Arnold"
and that McManama replied, "Well, let's think it over and I'll come up to the
office later "
McManama testified that Arnold was discharged "on account of not obeying
orders, in other words, trying to make me out a liar."
Cheney's testimony indicates that Arnold was discharged because (1) Arnold
"failed to comply with a reasonable request" to stack the 2 x 4's correctly, and
(2) Arnold "lied about being told" to perform the job neater.
Respondent's answer stated that Arnold' s discharge "was dictated by reasons
of safety, discipline , and efficiency, and that said employee was discharged for
cause."
2. Concluding Findings
The undersigned is convinced , and finds, that Askwith discharged Arnold and
that Askwith seized upon the inefficient manner in which Arnold was allegedly
stacking the 2 x 4's as a pretext to rid Respondent 's mill of the known leader
of the Union's movement therein.
In view of the inadequacy and inconsistencies of Respondent 's explanations
for Arnold's discharge coupled with Respondent's unconcealed antiunion hostility,
a finding is clearly warranted that Arnold was terminated because of his union
activities and sympathies. In N. L. R. B. v. May Department Stores Co., 154
+ The undersigned finds that if Arnold did not continue to work until a relief operator
was put on the job the green chain operations would immediately cease because at least
2 men had to work jointly on the chain and 1 operator had to be in the freight car.
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. 2d 533 (C. A. 8), the court said at page 538, regarding a situation similar
to the one here presented, that there is a "broad scope of inference open . . .
on questions of motive and discrimination, where the evidence indicates a desire
to thwart or nullify unionization effort, either generally or to a particular
employee-organization." And where, as here, the employer has shown strong
opposition of its employees' unionization "a very convincing case of discharge
for cause would have to be made to make unreasonable a conclusion that [the]
discharge was because of union affiliation." s This burden Respondent failed to
establish. Furthermore, the shifting and unsupported grounds assigned by
Respondent for terminating Arnold's employment are further persuasive Indi-
cations that antiunion reasons rather than the reasons advanced by Respondent
accounted for the action taken against Arnold
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned finds that Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Arnold in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent as described In section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair
labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of employment of Elvis C.
Arnold, the undersigned will recommend that Respondent offer him immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,? without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. The undersigned will
also recommend that the Respondent make Arnold whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have
earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period."
5 Dannen Grain and Milling Co. v. N. L. R. B., 130 F. 2d 321, 328 (C. A. 8).
P The courts have frequently recognized that shifting explanations by an employer for
the discharge of an employee may warrant an inference that the true reason was the
employer's hostility to the union. See N. L. R. B. v. Crystal Spring Finishing Co, 116
F. 2d 669 (C. A. 1) ; N. L. R. B. V. Yale Towne Mfg. Co., 114 F. 2d 376 (C. A. 2) ;
N. L. R. B. v. Condenser Corp., 128 F. 67 (C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Eclipse Moulded
Products Co., 126 F. 2d 576 (C. A. 7). And this is so even where the employer had
"plausible grounds" for the discharge. United Biscuit Co. v. N. L. R. B., 128 F. 2d 771
(C. A. 7)
4 See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB M.
See Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440.
CHENEY FOREST PRODUCTS, INC . 143
Loss of pay shall be computed and paid in accordance with the formula adopted
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
It is further recommended that the Respondent be ordered and directed to make
available to the Board and its agents all its records pertaining to an analysis of
the amounts due as back pay.
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent are
of such a character and scope that in order to insure the employees their full
rights guaranteed them by the Act it will be recommended that Respondent cease
and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in their rights to self-organization.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the record as a whole,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Klamath Basin District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers, affiliated
with American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Elvis C.
Arnold, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
(Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist KLAMATH BASIN DISTRICT COUNCIL, LUMBER
AND SAWMILL WORKERS , affiliated with AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from
any and all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to Elvis C. Arnold immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any sen-
iority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and make him whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against him.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership,
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
CHENEY FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated--------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GRAIN MII.I.ERs, A. F. OF L. Case No. 18-CA-389. January 13,.
1953
Decision and Order
On September 23, 1952, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner '2 with the following
modifications and additions :
1. We adopt all the Trial Examiner's 8 (a) (1) findings, including
his finding with respect to the statement of Assistant Manager Bolton
to employee Nash that unionization of the Company would probably
mean less take-home pay.3 Considering the unconcealed opposition of
Respondent to the Union, the interrogations, threats of discharge,
warnings about union "attitudes," and the actual discharge of the
chief union advocate, we find that the remarks as to lessened earnings
•' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston, Styles,
and Peterson].
' We reject as lacking in merit the contention made by the Respondent in its brief that
the Trial Examiner was biased or prejudiced against it.
6 The fact that the statement is couched in the form of an opinion is some evidence
that it is not a threat of economic reprisal , but the Board has found that such evidence
may be far from conclusive in this regard . J. S. Abercrombie Company, 83 NLRB 524.
102 NLRB No. 2.