Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Blytheville

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 706 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Blytheville and
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union
No. 878, Affiliated with the International Brother.
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America. Cases 26-CA-4810 and
26-RC-4518
May 20, 1974
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On February 19, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Eugene F . Frey issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter, both the General Counsel
and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
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, findings,
and conclusions 1 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order with minor
modification.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
While the Administrative Law Judge found, and
the record supports a finding, that Bell created the
impression that Respondent kept its employees'
union activities under surveillance in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, this finding inadvertently
was not incorporated into the Conclusions of Law
and the recommended Order. Accordingly, Conclu-
sion of Law 2 is amended lo read:
"2. By interrogating employees as to their voting
intentions in a Board-conducted election, threatening
them with discharge if they did not cease talking
about a union at any time or anywhere in Respon-
dent's plant after such an election, impressing them
with the idea that their union activities were kept
under surveillance, and threatening them with loss of
benefits if the above-named Union won such
election, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7)
and 8(a)(1) of the Act."
210 NLRB No. 119
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, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Blytheville,
Blytheville , Arkansas , its officers , agents , successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as modified below:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1 of the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order:
"1. Cease and desist from interrogating employ-
ees about their voting intentions in a Board -conduct-
ed election , threatening them with discharge if they
do not cease talking about any union at any time or
anywhere in Respondent 's plant after such an
election , impressing them with the idea that their
union activities are kept under surveillance, and
threatening them with loss of benefits of the above-
named Union wins such election, or in any like or
related manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act , including
the right to form , join , or assist labor organizations
and freely to choose a labor organization as their
representative for collective bargaining in an election
conducted by the Board."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union's objections
to the election numbered 2, 3, ands 4 in Case
26-RC-4518 be dismissed but that the results of the
election be set aside on the basis of the coercive
interrogation by Bell and threats by Burris which
were alleged in the complaint and fully litigated in
the consolidated proceeding , and that the said case
be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 26
for the purpose of conducting a new election at such
time as he deems appropriate.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
I We note that the "catchall" objection to which the Administrative Law
Judge refers in sec . Ill was not before him for determination. The Board's
Order directed a hearing specifically as to the Union 's Objections 2, 3, and
4 Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this consolidated complaint and
election objections proceeding, we agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's consideration of these incidents which were alleged in the complaint
and were fully litigated in the consolidated hearing . We agree with his
conclusion that the preelection interrogation of employee Manning and the
coercive threats of loss of benefits to employee Brown and other employees
not only violated Sec. 8(axl) of the Act, but also interfered with the
employees' free choice in the election . See Dal- Tex Optical Company, Inc.,
137 NLRB 1782.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about
their voting intentions in a Board-conducted
election.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge if they do not cease talking about any
union at any time or anywhere in our plant at
Blytheville, Arkansas, after such an election.
WE WILL NOT create among our employees the
impression that we are engaging in surveillance of
their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss
of benefits if Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers
Local Union No. 878, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any
other labor organization, wins such an election at
said plant.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, including the right to form,
join, or assist the above-named Union or any
other labor organization, and freely to choose the
above-named Union or any other labor organiza-
tion as their representative for collective bargain-
ing in an election by the Board.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING
COMPANY OF
BLYTHEVILLE
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Clifford Davis Federal Building,
Room 746, 167 North Main Street , Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
707
EUGENE F. FREY, Administrative Law Judge : This case
was tried before me on due notice to all parties on October
24 and 25, 1973, at Jonesboro , Arkansas , with all parties
appearing by counsel , after pretrial proceedings in compli-
ance with the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (herein called the Act). In Case
26-CA-4810, the issues are whether or not Respondent
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Blytheville , in course of
an organizing campaign by the above-named Union,
coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them by the Act, by interrogation as to their
union sympathies and activities , threats of discharge and
other reprisals for their union activity, promises of benefits
to discourage such activity, and conduct giving them the
impression their activities were under surveillance, in
violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act.'
In Case 26-RG4518, the Respondent and the Union
had agreed on May 31, 1973, to a consent election under
Board supervision which was held June 22, 1973. The
Union lost the election , 12 workers voting for it, 13 against
it, with 2 ballots challenged . On objections by the Union to
conduct affecting the results of the election , the said
Regional Director on September 4, 1973, resolved the issue
of the challenged ballots but recommended that issues
raised by Objections 2, 3, and 4 should be resolved on
testimony to be adduced before an Administrative Law
Judge in a hearing consolidated with Case 26-CA-810.
On September 20, 1973, the Board issued an Order to that
effect, directing that an Administrative Law Judge take
testimony and issue a report resolving issues of credibility,
finding the facts , and making recommendations as to
disposition of said objections. The parties have agreed that
the issues raised by the pleadings in the unfair labor
practice case and objections in the representation case are
the same and that the testimony adduced by all parties in
the prior case shall be considered in toto in deciding the
issues in the latter.2
At close of the testimony counsel for General Counsel
presented oral argument , but all other parties waived such
argument . The parties were afforded opportunity to file
written arguments , but a written brief has been received
only from Respondent.3
Upon the entire record in the consolidated cases,
observation of witnesses on the stand , and consideration of
the oral statements during the trial and written arguments,
I make the following:
i These issues arise on a complaint issued September 14, 1973, by the
Board 's Acting Regional Director of Region 26 and amended at the trial,
after Board investigation of charges filed by the Union on July 25 and
September 14, 1973, and answer of Respondent admitting jurisdiction but
denying the commission of unfair labor practices
2 However , in pressing its objections , the Union does not rely on any
events which occurred after June 22 , the date of the election.
3 On November 15, 1973, General Counsel moved on notice to correct
the official transcript in certain respects . There being no objection, the
motion is hereby granted , and the official record is considered corrected in
the respects stated in the motion, which is hereby marked in evidence as
G C Exh. l-k.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS AND THE STATUS OF THE
UNION
Respondent is an Arkansas corporation with its office
and place of business located in Blytheville, Arkansas,
where it bottles and distributes soft drinks. In course of
that business in the past 12 months, it has had a direct
inflow of products valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent
admits , and I find, that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
The above Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES4
A. The Union Campaign
In April or early May, the Union began an organizing
campaign at Respondent's plant, which normally has a
work force of about 25 people. On May 7, the Union filed
its petition for certification as bargaining agent in Case
26-RC-4518, with a consent election held June 22. The
issues here deal with the alleged coercive reactions of
various supervisors in that campaign, both before and after
the election.
B. Respondent's Reaction to the Campaign
John Bell, a fairly young man, had been general manager
at the Blytheville plant from 1968 to January 1, 1971, when
he was transferred to manage a plant in Maryland. He was
brought back to Blytheville on May 7, in part to work out
some management changes and correct deficient opera-
tions and also to handle Respondent's campaign against
the Union. After reporting on May 7, he was "in and out"
of the plant until election day, when he left to become
regional manager for operations in West Virginia. During
his prior tenure at the plant, he became well acquainted
with most of the employees and was on good terms with all
of them. When he was transferred to Maryland, one James
Greer became general manager at Blytheville, leaving
Respondent's employ on June 4, 1973, when William
Daley took his place.
1. Bell-Ronald Lamb talks
In course of his corrective duties at Blytheville, Bell
toured the plant several times after May 7, renewing
acquaintance with older workers who had worked under
him and asking their views about their work and the
operation in general. On May 18, his first full day in the
plant, Bell reintroduced himself to Route Salesman Ronald
Lamb and asked "how things were going" for him. Lamb
replied "pretty bad right now" Bell asked what his
problem was and what brought it on. Lamb said he had
worked over 2 years with Respondent, but had been passed
over several times when vacancies arose in commission
routes where he could make more money than at his
present hourly paid job of filling vending machines at a
local Air Force Base , that he had asked Manager Greer
twice for such routes, but did not get them, as they were
filled with new workers, which he considered unfair. Bell
replied that the local management had been a "little poor,"
but that "we are fixing to get things straightened out, and
things will be better." Bell also reminded him that Lamb
would not have the Air Force Base route much longer, as
Respondent had lost that job, and that Respondent was in
the process of moving out some of the machines at the
base.
About a week or so later, Lamb was talking to another
salesman , Larry Stout, in the plant about the coming
phaseout of his Air Force route. Stout asked what work he
would have after it ended, and Lamb said he did not know,
but that Manager Greer had some job in mind for him. He
also said that he had talked to a friend of Bell that day at
the base, and the man had tried to convince him to vote for
Respondent in the election, saying that after July 18 Lamb
might not even have a job with Respondent. Bell overheard
this last statement as he walked up to them, and
commented "one thing for sure, you will not be running
the Base route after July 18."
Lamb had learned from Greer sometime in April or early
May that Respondent had lost the Air Force route contract
to another soft drink company and would not have it after
July 18. After that, Lamb repeatedly asked Greer if he
would have work after that date, as he wanted to fix his
vacation time sometime in July, when he usually took it.
Greer always assured him that he should not worry, but go
ahead and fix his vacation time , as Respondent would take
care of him, he would not lose his employment at the plant,
that Respondent's loss of the contract did not mean it was
losing an employee. Greer first gave him this reassurance
sometime before the Union filed its representation petition
around May 6. Sometime after Respondent received notice
of its filing, Lamb again asked Greer what work he had in
mind for Lamb, and Greer replied that " I had a job picked
out for you, but since you all [meaning all the workers] had
started this union stuff, I do not know what I am going to
do with you." About a week later , Lamb accosted Greer
when he came into the recreation room for salesmen where
Lamb was playing ping-pong with another salesman, and
made the same inquiry about Greer's plans for him. Greer
made substantially the same reply as above. Lamb then
asked when he should take his vacation, and Greer replied
that he should set the date and Greer would work it out for
him. Greer did not know before he left the plant on June 4
what job Lamb would have after July 18. However, Lamb
continued to work after Greer quit, and after July 18
Respondent created a new commission route for him,
which Lamb continued to operate until he complained that
he was earning less money than on an hourly paid route, so
Respondent thereafter put him on another composite route
where he has been paid since by the hour. In this period,
Respondent offered him two other open routes, but he
turned them down.
I find the above facts from credible testimony of Bell
and Greer, which is corroborated in part by admissions of
Lamb. I do not credit Lamb's vague and obviously
incomplete recollection of parts of his talks with the two
4 All dates stated herein are in 1973 unless otherwise noted.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. 700
officials , particularly since portions of his testimony were
adduced by multiple and at times leading questions of
General Counsel. In addition, it is clear that the Union was
not mentioned directly or indirectly by Bell in either of
their talks, but only brought up by Lamb in the second.
Hence , Bell's opening inquiries in the first talk about "how
things were going" with Lamb and "what brought on" his
dissatisfaction , in context of their discussions about jobs
for Lamb, do not directly or indirectly point to the union
campaign , but are more consistent with Bell's desire and
duty to reacquaint himself with plant operations and
feelings of the workers about the operations, than with a
desire or intent to learn the reason why the Union had
been brought into the plant . In view of Respondent's
actual retention of Lamb and procurement of various other
jobs for him after July 18, long after he had known the Air
Force job was phasing out, it is pure speculation to say that
Bell's limited inquiries and his other remarks about the Air
Force job cutoff were in any way calculated to be coercive.
I find no coercive interrogation of Lamb by Bell in these
discussions, nor was there any coercive threat of loss of
employment in Bell 's affirmation of Lamb 's loss of the Air
Force job after July 18, since he was only repeating what
Lamb knew from talks with Greer in the past, where he
also learned he would be given other work after that event.
I grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraph 7, B, of
the amended complaint insofar as Bell's remarks to Lamb
bear on its allegations.
Greer's statements to Lamb , sometime after the Union's
petition was filed, that he had a job picked out for Lamb,
but did not know what he would do with him since the
union campaign began, at first blush appears to have
elements of coercion, since they appeared to be a
withdrawal of prior assurances of continued employment
only because of the advent of the Union. However, their
import becomes equivocal in light of Greer's assurances
that he would still work out a vacation schedule with
Lamb, covering the period after the phaseout of his present
route on July 18. If he had intended to convey the idea that
Lamb would have no job at all after that date, the
agreement to work out a vacation schedule would be
useless , since Lamb could fix his own vacation time
without company help or approval after he was no longer
employed. This agreement and the ensuing retention of
Lamb in other jobs right up to trial, and Greer' s actual
separation from the Company on June 4, convince me that
Greer was only expressing his own doubt as to the possible
effect of the Union's appearance on Lamb's job, which is
far from a statement reasonably indicating that Respon-
dent could or would get rid of him because of the Union's
campaign . I therefore find no coercive connotations in
Greer's remarks and will grant Respondent's motion to
dismiss paragraph 10 of the amended complaint on which
Lamb's testimony was adduced.
2. Bell-Manning talks
On May 18, Bell called Fred L. Manning, a Black
production employee , into the office for a private talk,
after arranging for a temporary substitute in his work. Bell
told Manning he recalled how the plant had been operated
while he was manager several years before , and that he
now found the operation "a turmoil, in a mess," noting
that the loading crew had been shifted around , so that the
former night crew of four men was gone , and the
production crew was split , half bottling during the day, and
half loading at night , with a long 2-hour lunch hour for the
workers . Bell asked Manning's opinion on whether
Respondent should continue the present operation or
return to the old method of operation , saying he wanted
the employees' views on this . Manning replied that he
preferred to return to the former 7 to 4 day-shift operation.
Bell asked how the other workers felt about it, and
Manning said they felt the same way . Bell noted the
absence of a separate loading crew , and asked if Manning
could help him get in touch with the four workers who had
been on that night crew . Manning gave him their
addresses , and Bell said he would try to hire them back
that weekend.
Bell then asked Manning why Route Salesman Jack
Clifton, a Black worker , had quit his job. Manning replied
that Clifton got a "raw deal," citing some actions of
Manager Greer involving Clifton which Manning felt were
the reason why Clifton quit . Bell said that was "no way to
run a business" and that, since he had come back , "things
would be different." He asked Manning for Clifton's
phone number, which Manning gave him, and said he
would try to rehire him shortly . Manning expressed the
view that Greer was prejudiced against Blacks, and Bell
replied that he and Respondent knew the plant had
"problems ," but neither he nor the Company operated with
prejudice against Blacks. Bell mentioned his experience in
operating the Maryland plant for over 2 years, saying he
had a Black route salesman there , "who was very
instrumental in seeing the way he operated ," and that
when a labor union tried to organize that plant, the
workers had voted it out . He told Manning that if he
needed to find out whether the Company would be honest
and fair with him, he could call that salesman at Bell's
expense and on worktime to find out how Bell had run that
plant.
Manning told Bell that the workers had to pay $19 to
have the Union represent them. Bell commented that this
was the first time he had ever heard of a union collecting
money from workers before they became full-fledged
members, that this was very unusual and "ridiculous."
Manning also said he had heard at a union meeting that,
if the Union came in, no one would work on July 4. Bell
replied that if the workers should strike on that date, that
would be very foolish, because they both knew production
was done with automatic equipment which could be run
with only three people or a whole new crew if necessary s
5 The above facts are found from a composite of credible testimony of
Bell and Manning Testimony of the latter at variance therewith is not
credited because some of the marks he attributed to Bell are inherently
incredible , considering Bell's purpose in working at the plant for limited
management purposes including his legitimate attempts to find out workers'
problems and try to correct them in the interest of more efficient operation.
For the same reasons I do not credit Manning's testimony that Bell
suggested he persuade other Black workers to vote against the Union
(Continued)
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About a week before the election , Bell called Manning
for a private talk in the office , again securing a substitute
for him . Bell asked Manning "how do we stand?" and
Manning replied he did not know, "it is going to be a
pretty tough decision ." Bell said , "I think we will .,*in."
Manning then asked Bell how many votes he thought each
side would get. Bell pulled a paper out of his pocket , saying
Manning was "probably closer to the situation" than Bell
but he would show Manning how "I have it figured out."
He then showed Manning the paper , with two columns of
names listed, 16 under "Company" and 9 under "Union,"
with Manning , Waterford , Harris, and Brown listed in a
"?" column . He asked Manning how it looked to him, and
Manning gave his opinion on the voting sentiments of each
worker in the first two columns . As Bell read off the names
in the "?" column , Manning said he did not know much
about Harris , a new route salesman , but felt he would
probably quit when the election was over . As to Waterford,
Manning said he would probably vote the way Manning
did. Manning said Brown had a "mind of his own" but
would probably vote for the Union . Bell then transferred
his name to the "Union" column , saying Brown had a
problem , as he was always late reporting for work, and
Manning agreed to this. Bell then said they only had to
figure out where Manning stood. Manning did not make
any commente8
I find no violation of the Act in Bell 's interrogation of
Manning about employees ' views of the present method of
plant operations , and their desire to continue or change
that method , nor in his enlistment of Manning 's aid to get
former employees back at work . These queries and efforts
clearly arose only from Bell's duty to review plant
operation and make changes to increase its efficiency. The
same is true of his remarks about his own and the company
attitude toward Blacks as workers ; the incidental reference
to the outcome of a union organization in the Maryland
plant while he was there and offer to let Manning learn
that, as well as his attitude toward Blacks , from a Black
employee there has no apparent direct or indirect coercive
connotation ; at most it shows that Bell was interested in
demonstrating company fairness toward Blacks in Mary-
land which might have had some effect in their voting out a
union in that plant , but I consider this no more than
permissible free speech, in the form of indirect but
noncoercive company propaganda. I also consider as
permissible free speech Bell's comments on the $19 union
charge to workers cited by Manning, as well as his
prediction about how the Company could run the plant in
the event of a strike , which was no more than a legitimate
prediction of company economic action which might be
forced on it by a strike. I grant Respondent's motion to
because Manning knew Bell was not prejudiced against Blacks. Bell
categorically denied this statement , and I credit the denial because I have
found that his basic effort to sell himself and the Company as unprejudiced
against Blacks occurred in connection with the discussion about Clifton and
attempt to get him back to work ; I consider it unlikely that Bell was trying
to get votes against the Union by trying to sell himself personally as fair to
Blacks, since he was not there to run the plant permanently, but only to
affect a management change, which he did by June 22
6 The facts of this conversation are found from a composite of credible
testimony of Bell and Manning , with due weight given for inherent
probabilities where their testimony conflicts . I do not credit Manning's
testimony charging Bell with comments about John Lamb involving
dismiss paragraphs 7, C and D of the amended complaint,
insofar as they allege promise of benefits to employees,
threat of layoffs if the Union won, and solicitation of
employees to induce others to vote against the Union.
However , I find that Bell unlawfully interrogated
Manning about his own and other workers ' sentiments
about the Union in the talk just before the election, when
he caused Manning to give his views on the attitudes of
various workers by questions leading him to review the fist
of employees already prepared by Bell , separated into
"yes," "no," and "T' categories, and give his views on some
of them . In addition , the display of such a detailed list with
the comment that this was "How I have it figured out" was
also well calculated to impress Manning with the idea that
Respondent had continually kept employees under some
form of surveillance sufficiently close to enable Bell to set
down the voting desires of at least 25 of them . I find that in
these respects Bell's actions and remarks were coercive and
violated Section 8(axl) of the Act.
3. Bell-John Lamb talk
On May 22, John L. Lamb, a production employee who
had previously worked as route salesman , approached Bell
in the plant to ask about a transfer back to sales work or
into the advertising department . Bell asked what experi-
ence he had ' in advertising . Lamb said he had done some
sign and poster work for a local skating rink. Bell indicated
he would like to have Lamb transferred into advertising, as
the present sign maker was old and might leave soon, but
said he had no authority to make the transfer and did not
know when it could be made , as there was no work for two
men in that department in a small plant, that even the
present ad man did not work at it full-time, so the only
possibility was occasional part-time work for Lamb when
the workload was heavy. He said he would try to arrange
part-time work for him. The above facts are based on
mutually corroborative testimony of both men. Lamb also
gave testimony to this effect: After Bell had agreed to try
to get him part-time work in advertising, Bell asked if other
plant employees also worked part-time at the skating rink;
Lamb named James McClanahan and one other. Bell
commented that, while McClanahan and Earl Williams
were good workers, they were "hanging around with the
wrong crowd" and "if they don't watch their step we will
not be needing them much longer"; Lamb asked what he
meant, and Bell said the two he named were "nothing but
troublemakers, union instigators, and rabble-rousers"; Bell
then asked him how he felt about the Union, and Lamb
evaded answering by asking if he had "any chance at all"
of getting into the sign department ; Bell repeated his query
someone "licking his butt if he becomes union steward ," comments about
Earl Williams that he was "in too deep in all this trouble," and the remark
that "if McClanahan thinks he can get something for nothing , he is wrong,"
and the overall comment about these and other workers on the "Union" list
that "if they don't watch out, they will be working for another company."
Most of this testimony was not given freely by Manning but in effect drawn
from him by suggestive and multiple questions from General Counsel which
raises grave questions whether it represents fact or a concocted story, and all
of it was categorically denied by Bell who appeared far more truthful in his
testimony as to the details and progress of this as well as the earlier talks
with Manning.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.
about the Union, and Lamb again evaded answering by
talking about chances of transfer to the sign department;
when Bell again pressed his query, Lamb ended it by
saying he did not care to discuss it. Bell categorically
denied this entire portion of the conversation. I credit
Bell's denial , because he told his story in an impressive way
which convinced me of his candor , and the inherent
plausibility of his story which was consistent with the main
economic reason for his presence in the plant. In addition,
it strikes me as very unlikely that, after Bell assured him he
would try to arrange the transfer , Bell would "out of the
blue," so to speak, crudely shift the talk to two claimed
union adherents and threaten their discharge , and then
repeatedly query Lamb about his own union sentiments,
forcing Lamb to fall back on repeated inquiries about a
transfer he had already been promised. Finally, it also
seems unlikely that, if he had been rebuffed in repeated
efforts to learn Lamb 's union sentiments , Bell would
reward or reassure Lamb by repeating that he would try to
arrange his transfer , as Lamb puts it, rather than more
naturally showing displeasure or resentment toward Lamb
in some way, if I am to accept the apparent thrust of the
amended complaint that Bell was a prominent company
union buster . Having observed both witnesses, I am
convinced that Bell was telling a true story in this instance,
and that Lamb was offering an improbable madeup story
as a vehicle for placing unlawful threats and interrogation
in Bell 's mouth. I find nothing violative of the Act in their
discussion as found above . In reaching this conclusion I
have also considered other violations of the Act by Bell
and other supervisors found herein, but such conduct does
not serve, in this one-on-one situation , to shift the
credibility to Lamb's rather poorly constructed and
implausible story and to discredit Bell on it. I grant
Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraphs 7, A and B of
the amended complaint insofar as the discussion found
above bears on those allegations.
4. Bell-Waterford talk
On an occasion in the third week in May, when Bell was
going through the plant to check operations and trying to
speak to various workers about the work, Bell stopped at
the workplace of Howard Waterford, introduced himself
since Waterford was a new employee, asked how long he
had been there and how he liked his job, to which
Waterford replied, he liked it, and Bell commented that he
kept his workplace very neat. This talk is found from
credited testimony of both men. Waterford also testified
that Bell asked him whether he was "with them" to which
Waterford replied that he was. As neither the Union nor
the campaign nor the election were mentioned, this inquiry
was equivocal and in light of Bell's version of the talk
which amounts to a circumstantial denial and which
included other questions more consistent with his practice
of checking the plant operation by discussions with
workers, I consider his version more credible than
Waterford's story. I therefore find no unlawful interroga-
tion of Waterford by Bell. In this connection I note, as
found hereafter, that as late as the week before the election,
Bell had Waterford listed in the unknown or "?" column of
a list when discussing his views about the sentiments of
711
workers about voting with Manning . If the alleged query to
Waterford , and his reply, had occurred as he testified, thus
advising Bell that he was antiunion , it is inferable that Bell
would have had him listed in the "Company" column, not
as one whose voting sentiments were unknown . I therefore
grant Respondent 's motion to dismiss paragraph 7, F of
the amended complaint, in support of which Waterford's
testimony was adduced.
5. Bell-Brown talks
On June 15, while employee J. W. Brown was working,
he stopped Bell as he passed by, told him he needed a $30
loan at once to make a payment on his furniture, otherwise
he would lose it. He also volunteered that he was not for
the Union. Bell replied that they would not discuss that
part of it, that Bell already had his own idea about how
Brown would vote . He did not state what it was . He then
said he did not understand why Brown needed $30 because
that day was payday. Brown explained he needed $30 in
addition to his paycheck . Bell reminded him Respondent
was not in the banking business , but running a soft drink
plant. He told Brown to come to the office at quitting time
and Bell would decide then what could be done about a
loan. After he left Brown to go to another part of the plant,
Bell passed Manager Wallace and told him of the loan
request, and that he was going to arrange for Brown to get
the loan for a payment on his furniture debt. He then
found out from Office Manager Elizabeth Harrison that
Brown had accrued 21 days of earnings that week for pay
purposes.
When Brown came to the office at end of his shift, Bell
called in Mrs . Harrison, said Brown needed a loan, and
asked if her petty cash box had $30. She said she did not
have that much, but went to check the box. Bell then told
Brown he would personally loan him the money, the
Company would not be responsible for it, he would make
the loan himself, and if Brown failed to repay it, Bell would
pay it back himself. He gave Brown $30 in cash from his
pocket. Mrs. Harrison then came in with $30 and gave it to
Bell. Brown at Bell's request then signed a note for the
loan. Bell asked how he would pay it back, and Brown said
at the rate of $10 per week from his paycheck. As Brown
left, Bell suggested he tell no one about it, that it was
"between us," so as not to embarrass Brown . Brown paid it
back at $10 per week.
The above facts are found from credited testimony of
Bell, as corroborated in part by that of Brown. I do not
credit testimony of Brown which portrays Bell as first
refusing to consider a loan because "they" (interpreted by
Brown as meaning either the Union or the Board) might
"fine" Bell if they found out about the loan, then
repeatedly questioning Brown as to how he felt about the
Union, and when he said he would vote against it, calling
Wallace over to hear Bell repeat this remark of Brown in
his presence, then agreeing to apparently "consider," but
not grant, the loan, and then granting it as a personal loan
to Brown which he must repay to Respondent. Brown was
very vague about certain aspects of his story, admitting he
did not recall all that was said . Bell categorically denied
interrogation of Brown about the Union , as well as any
statement of reluctance to make the loan because of fear of
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some "fine" by the Union or the Board. The interrogation
alone seems unlikely because I consider it more probable
that Brown (who asked for loans from the office almost
monthly) volunteered the view that he was antiunion in an
obvious effort to put himself in a favorable light with
management and thus insure getting another monthly loan
of money besides his paycheck . In addition, Wallace
corroborated Bell by denying that he was called to hear, or
heard, any part of the discussion between Brown and Bell,
or Bell's purported summary of it . Again, Bell's version of
the nature of the loan , and manner of repayment, is far
more credible than Brown 's account, because testimony of
Bell and admissions of Brown satisfy me that the sequence
of events and mechanics of the grant and repayment were
the same as Bell and Greer had followed in the past in
similar loans to Brown and other workers , which leads me
to believe that this was merely another typical request for a
loan by Brown (who was a chronic borrower with
numerous turndowns by Greer) which he tried to insure by
volunteering that he was antiunion, in obvious hopes of
ingratiating himself with management. In sum , on the facts
found above , I find no unlawful interrogation of Brown by
Bell or Wallace nor any promise by Bell of a benefit in
form of a loan to him to induce him to vote against the
Union . I therefore grant Respondent 's motion to dismiss
paragraphs 7E and 9 of the amended complaint charging
Respondent with such conduct.
6. Bell-Ronald Lamb talk in week of June 18
Two or three dayl before the election , Bell walked up to
Ronald Lamb in the plant and said, "I think we got you
boys beat" and that the Union would not win. Lamb
replied , "I don't think so, I think we stand a good chance.
How many votes do you think we will get?" Bell wrote the
figures "5 to 9" on a piece of paper and gave it to Lamb
who said he was wrong, the Union would get more than
that . Bell then said, "I will lay you 20 to 5 that you don't
get 10 votes ." After demurring at first Lamb said he would
take that bet. Bell replied , "O.K., we're on . If you lose we
are going to eat up that $5." After it appeared that the
Union got more than 10 votes, Bell paid Lamb $20.7 The
implied contention of General Counsel , indicated only by
his reference to paragraph 7,G, of the complaint, is that
Bell's confident remarks and offer of the bet on the
outcome of the vote indicated that Respondent had been
keeping the course and extent of the employees ' sentiments
about the Union under close surveillance which enabled it
to forecast the vote accurately, which had a tendency to
coerce and restrain them in their union activity . Neither
General Counsel nor the Union offer any cases to support
this claim . The record shows that Bell and Lamb were
friendly due to their long association with each other when
Bell managed the plant before 1971 . Lamb indicated he
liked Bell and felt free to talk with him, and it is evident
7 1 find this discussion from credited testimony of Bell and Lamb. I do
not credit testimony of Lamb in conflict therewith, because of Lamb's
generally unimpressive testimony on other points noted above, also the fact
that Lamb did not appear to recall any of this incident until it was brought
to his attention by leading questions of General Counsel.
a This discussion is based on a composite of credited testimony of Bell
and Presnell . Stout did not testify. I do not credit testimony of Presnell
from the nature of their friendly disagreement about the
vote that the whole discussion and making of the bet was
amicable, and more of a sporting thing than not. Having
discredited Lamb 's version of the incident , I find no initial
interrogation by Bell which could be called coercive. Nor
was there any voluntary listing of names by Bell with
remarks and in a way leading the employee to express his
views of other workers' union sentiments , as occurred in
the earlier talk between Bell and Manning found above. It
was Lamb , not Bell, who solicited an opinion about the
details of the vote, when he questioned Bell's confident
claim that the Union would lose , and it was this inquiry
which led Bell to put his "guesstimate" about the exact
vote on paper. Bell never explained to Lamb how he
arrived at those figures . In addition, since Lamb was well-
known to other workers and had apparently been active for
the Union , it is fairly inferable that his emphatic disagree-
ment with Bell's "guesstimate" and willingness to take the
bet arose from his own superior knowledge of the number
of workers supporting the Union , and may well have
caused him to make a special effort , or increase any past
prounion activity , to make sure that more than 10 workers
voted for the Union, insuring his winning of the bet. In all
the circumstances , I fail to find that General Counsel has
proven any coercive conduct by Bell in this discussion. I
therefore grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraph
7, G, of the amended complaint, on which testimony of this
incident was adduced.
7. Bell-Presnell talk
On the night of June 20, Bell and employee Larry Stout
visited Route Salesman A. J. Presnell at his home. The
three talked in Bell 's automobile outside the house at Bell's
request, after he learned Presnell had company. Bell
mentioned that Presnell had married since Bell last saw
him, so was not married very long, and was raising a
family. He asked Presnell how he was getting along, and
Presnell replied "real well with my family." Bell said that,
when he had hired Presnell, he had observed him improve
in his work and that he had done a fine job in it, contrary
to what some other workers had said about his ability. He
then said the election was coming up, that he was not there
to tell Presnell how to vote, but only to tell him to "be your
own man, make your own decision, vote A. J. 's convictions
for yourself, and not let other people make up your mind
for you," because he now had a family to care for, like
other workers. Stout remarked that he did not want
Presnell to make the same mistake he did, that he had
signed up most of the workers in the Union and had then
changed his minds I find no violation of the Act in Bell's
suggestion that Presnell make up his own mind on how to
vote without influence from other workers, because he was
only advising Presnell to do what the statutory provisions
for a secret-ballot election under Board supervision was
which has Bell advising Presnell not to let workers like Earl Williams, John
Lamb, and McClanahan make up his mind on how to vote, with the
comment "their day is coming " This testimony was categorically denied by
Bell, and it was adduced from Presnell by suggestive and repetitive
questioning which raises some question whether this portion of Presnell's
story was not a fabrication.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. 713
designed to permit workers to do. There is no suggestion
by Bell, direct or indirect, on how Presnell should vote.
Nor do I find anything coercive in Stout's statement of his
own reversal of attitude about the Union, including the
admission he considered his initial prounion activity a
"mistake," nor in his hope that Presnell would not make
the same mistake ; there were no remarks , direct or implied,
by Bell or Stout which would lead Presnell to believe he
might suffer some reprisal if he made the same "mistake." I
grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraph 8 of the
amended complaint dealing with this incident.
8. Brown-Burris talks
On June 21, Foreman Alonzo Bums came upon several
workers , including Brown, talking about the election in the
production area . Bums heard one comment that Brown
would be the union observer , and would have to be at the
polling place at 5 : 30 a.m . Bums commented to the group
that Brown could not even make it to work at 7:30 a.m., so
he did not know how he could get there at 5:30 a .m. They
all laughed about it, and Brown himself commented that
he could not get to the plant by 5:30 a.m. Burris then
walked away from the group . I find this conversation on
credited testimony of Bums, with some corroboration from
Brown . I do not credit conflicting testimony of Brown to
the effect that Burris on June 20 initiated a private
conversation with him , asking him if he would be the union
observer and, when he admitted he was, reproaching him
for "turning around and voting yes" after Burris had been
nice to him and once loaned him money, then threatening
him with loss of his job if he voted for the Union, and,
when Brown protested he intended to vote against the
Union, warning that he would find out by seeing how
Brown voted Friday. Much of this testimony by Brown
came on repeated suggestive and leading questions from
General Counsel , he was unsure of the exact date of the
alleged discussion, he admitted he could not recall all that
was said in the discussion , but did not deny there might
have been talk about his trouble in getting to work on time.
Burris categorically denied all of Brown 's testimony noted
above. In addition, it seems unlikely that Burris would
have warned that he would check on Brown 's vote at the
election , since it was a secret-ballot election , hence very
unlikely that Bums could have invaded the privacy of the
ballot box in any way. Finally, it is patent that Brown was
more than a mere prounion witness , but personally
partisan because he admits he was discharged the next
week after a disagreement about his adherence to company
procedures for justifying absences for illness . I therefore
find a failure of credible proof that Bums a day or so
before the election interrogated Brown about his union
adherence or duties , or threatened his discharge if he
appeared to vote for the Union, and will grant Respon-
9 1 find the above facts from credited and mutually corroborative
testimony of employees McClanahan, John Lamb , Ronald Lamb , Presnell,
Don Boone , with some corroboration from Daley . I do not credit testimony
of Daley at variance with the findings , partly because he based his warning
to stop all "bickering or fighting among the workers until we get the final
result of the vote" on alleged reports from two sales supervisors , Leon Hill
and Francis Madison, that there had been arguments between the workers
before the election, and the fact that at the outset of this meeting he heard
dent's motion to dismiss paragraph 12, A, of the complaint
as amended.
In the course of cross-examination on the second day of
the trial, Burris admitted he had once told Brown and three
or four other employees , including Manning and Water-
ford, a week or so before the election that he had done a lot
of favors for those employees, and that "if things do not ggo
right, the Company will not go along with it," meaning the
grant of such favors . According to Burris , these favors had
included allowing workers to leave the plant for personal
business during work hours , without punching out the
timeclock or losing any pay while so absent . On the basis
of these admissions , I granted the motion of General
Counsel at close of the whole testimony to amend the
complaint , adding paragraph 12, B, to allege this conduct
as coercive threats of loss of benefits if the Union won the
election . As Respondent offered no proof to counter these
admissions, either through Bums or otherwise, though it
was put on notice immediately after Burris testified that
the complaint might be so amended , I find that, by these
remarks of Burris , Respondent coerced employees by
threats of loss of benefits if the Union won the election, in
violation of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
9. Daley speech to salesmen
On June 26, Plant Manager William Daley assembled all
route salesmen in the plant for a regular weekly sales
meeting. At the outset , Daley told them that the election
had been held, that as a company man he could not
disclose his feelings about the Union , but that "the union
business is now over and past, as far as I am concerned,"
and "I do not want to hear any more bickering or union
talk among the workers, either for or against it, unless it is
right here in this room now, if anyone has anything to say,
then say it now," and "until we get the final results of the
election, we will get back to our regular business of selling
Coca-Colas ." He also added, "If I do hear any more union
talk, or get reports that there has been any, there is not a
man in this room that I cannot find reason to fire, so if you
persist in such talk, I will find that reason to fire you."
Daley then turned to discussion of a sales promotion
campaign, the main business of the meeting.9 Daley's only
justification in testimony for these remarks was the reports
of prior arguments , but for reasons stated above I consider
these thin and insubstantial pretexts which do not support
either his overall order to cut out all union talk , without
reference to whether it was on or off company premises or
worktime, nor give the threat of discharge a substantial
economic justification . For the same reasons , I do not
consider the "sly" remark by McClanahan about Stout just
before the meeting a substantial reason for the broad order
and the threat, because there is no proof showing this
isolated remark to have been vindictive , alarming or
reasonably indicative of instant or future stoppage of
McClanahan call Larry Stout "a white side-wall," an alleged disparaging
remark referring to the fact that Stout had come to the meeting with a short
haircut which showed white skin above a suntan he got on vacation. The
two supervisors did not testify to the alleged arguments of workers, so there
is no proof from them or otherwise that they were angry or serious
arguments which had a tendency to disrupt , or in fact disrupted , sales of
soft drinks in any way, or otherwise affected plant operation or discipline.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production or destructive of plant discipline. I therefore
find that through Daley's clear threat of discharge of
employees for engaging in union talk, which was a right
protected by the Act when conducted at least on the
workers' own time in the plant, Respondent violated
Section 8(axl) of the Act.'°
10. Daley-McClanahan talk
On Friday, June 29, Route Salesman McClanahan was
called by Daley to the office for a private talk. Daley said
he had reports from Salesman Stout and Route Supervisor
Madison that while several employees including McClana-
han and Stout had been bowling at a local bowling alley
the night before, someone put something like mustard oil
on a seat that Stout used, which had burned his skin badly.
McClanahan said he knew nothing about it. Daley replied,
"Put it this way, I am not accusing you of doing it, but I
think you know something about it, because you were
there." He also said he felt that McClanahan had a lot of
influence with employees, including those who were at the
bowling alley, that they looked upon him as a leader, and
he was going to rely on McClanahan to use his influence
with them to prevent this kind of thing from going too far,
with someone possibly getting seriously hurt. McClanahan
commented that he had a dislike for Stout. Daley said he
would have to get along with Stout and see that things like
this did not occur. McClanahan replied that there was no
way Daley could make him like Stout, if that was what
Daley was saying he had to do.
Daley then told about his plans for building up the sales
force, saying he would like to see "things back to normal"
after the election, wanted to see the men improve their
sales, and said he had some promotions in mind, such as
Larry Stout. He said when he examined a man for
promotion, he checked his background, sales record,
ability to think for himself, and his "backbone." McClana-
han commented that Daley "had better check on Stout's
backbone." Daley then said that McClanahan had a good
work record having built his route from a low point to
where it was a top route. Then he reminded McClanahan,
"You know I can never promote you while you are union."
He added that a man like McClanahan, with a good
personality and influence with the other workers and his
past good record, could "really go places" with the
Company, but he had to drop his grudge against Stout and
use his influence with the salesmen.
At this point, McClanahan broke into Daley's remarks
rather indignantly saying, "You wait just a damn minute,
you know what you just got done telling me?" Daley
appeared surprised and said, "No, what?" McClanahan
then said Daley had just finished "telling me that you
10 There is no charge in the complaint, nor contention by General
Counsel, that Daley's remarks may have promulgated an unlawfully broad
no-solicitation rule in violation of the Act, hence I make no finding on that
point
11 I find the above conversation from credited testimony of McClana-
han, which is corroborated in large part by that of Daley I do not credit
testimony of Daley in conflict therewith, in part because his denials of those
portions of the discussion mentioning the Union were not impressive, and
his apparent antiunion bias appeared in his earlier coercive remarks to the
salesmen on June 26 as found above I also note Daley's admission that he
knew McClanahan had been an active union supporter throughout the
could never promote me because I am union, and now you
are telling me that if I use my influence with the workers
for your betterment, you might think about promoting
me." Daley replied he did not mean it "exactly that way,"
but that he knew of cases where people had been strong
union men and had changed their minds and had "gone to
the top with their employers."
Daley then brought up the Stout incident again , saying it
was the duty of all employees to work together, and he
would like to see them get along with each other, and that
he would hold McClanahan responsible if anything like the
Stout incident happened again. McClanahan repeated he
had nothing to do with that incident. Daley then asked
him, "What would happen if something like this occurred
again , whether you knew who did it or not?"" I am
satisfied that it was not a violation of the Act for Daley, as
a new manager since June 4, to try to get the salesmen to
work harmoniously after the election in order to improve
their sales output and for this purpose to try to persuade
McClanahan to forget his admitted animosity toward Stout
in the interest of harmony in the sales force, because he
knew McClanahan had influence with the other salesmen.
However, I think he overstepped the bounds of legitimate
persuasion for business purposes when he in effect
threatened McClanahan with loss of possible promotion if
he did not "make up" with Stout, an antiunion worker, and
forego his own support of the Union, and warned him he
could only improve his status with Respondent if he in
effect became a "company supporter," as against a union
adherent, and worked to influence other workers to change
their sympathies in like manner. I consider such remarks a
patent coercive attempt to get a prominent union adherent
to forego his protected right to engage in concerted activity
with other employees on behalf of a labor organization of
their own choice, and that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Except as I have found
violations above, I grant Respondent's motion to dismiss
paragraphs 11, A and B of the amended complaint.
Ill. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
Having reviewed the entire record without benefit of any
argument , oral or written, from the Union, I find no
credible proof to support Objection 2, alleging a threat of
discharge if an employee appeared at the election; 12
Objection 3 alleging bribes to workers to vote "No" in the
election ;13 and Objection 4, alleging threats of discharge to
numerous workers if the Union won.14 I recommend that
these objections be dismissed.
However, I have found that Bell unlawfully interrogated
Manning about a week before the election and that Burris
in the same period coercively threatened Brown and other
campaign , Stout had started as its supporter but changed his views to
oppose it and had told Daley as much ; and McClanahan and Stout did not
get along.
12 1 rejected testimony of Brown attempting to put remarks to this effect
in Bums' mouth as not credible
13 I find nothing specific in testimony of witnesses of General Counsel
on this point, but have rejected testimony of some of them which might be
construed as indirect offers of benefits if they voted against the Union, or
persuaded others to do so, such as Manning's testimony about statements of
Bell.
14 The comments of the preceding footnotes also apply here
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.
workers with loss of benefits if the Union won the election,
and I must conclude that such coercive conduct interfered
with the right of employees to exercise a free and
untrammeled choice regarding their bargaining agent in
the election . Although the Union filed no objection
specifically charging such interrogation or threats, it stated
a "catch-all" objection that "by these and other acts, the
employer engaged in conduct which has materially
affected the result of the election, etc." The Board has long
held that, once a union files objections to an election and
the Regional Director starts an investigation under Board
Rule 102.69, his jurisdiction is not limited to the issues
raised by the parties, but he must consider all evidence
relevant to the conduct of the election, and is empowered
to recommend that an election be set aside on the basis of
evidence and facts not specifically encompassed in the
objections; and the employer cannot object to a ruling
based on facts dehors the objections, where the objections
contained a "catch-all" provision similar to that noted
above. Northlake Convalescent Hospital, 173 NLRB 992;
Thomas Products Company, 169 NLRB 706, and cases cited
in footnote 2. I consider that the jurisdiction of an
Administrative Law Judge in reviewing proof adduced on
objections to an election is just as broad, particularly where
the parties have agreed that all proof adduced in
consolidated unfair labor practice and representation cases
shall be considered on all issues raised in either case. I
therefore recommend, on the basis of the coercive
interrogation by Bell and threats by Burris noted above,
that the election of June 22, 1973, be set aside.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the
entire record in the consolidated cases, I make the
following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce,
16 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.
715
and the above Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
2. By interrogating employees as to their voting
intentions in a Board -conducted election , threatening them
with discharge if they did not cease talk about a union at
any time or anywhere in Respondent's plant after such an
election , and threatening them with loss of benefits if the
above Union won such election , Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(axl) of
the Act.
3. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged
in conduct violative of the Act as alleged in the amended
complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER i5
Respondent, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Blythe-
ville, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from interrogating employees about
their voting intentions in a Board -conducted election,
threatening them with discharge if they did not cease talk
about any union at any time or anywhere in Respondent's
plant after such election , and threatening them with loss of
benefits if the above-named Union won such election, or in
any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, including the right to form,
join, or assist labor organizations and freely to choose a
labor organization as their representative for collective
bargaining in an election conducted by the Board.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
,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.
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
(a) Post at its plant and place of business in Blytheville,
Arkansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 16 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representatives , shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof , and shall be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
16 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint herein
be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found herein.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that , in Case 26-RC-4518,
Objections 2, 3, and 4 be dismissed as without merit, that
the general objection based on "other acts" be sustained,
and that the election of June 22, 1973, be set aside.
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.-