DHJ Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 8, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 727 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

REX DISPOSABLES 727 Rex Disposables, Division of DHJ Industries, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO -CLC. Case 16-CA-4636 February 8, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On September 11, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Goerge Turitz issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order only to the extent consistent herewith.' The union began its organizing campaign during January 1972 and the first of several union meetings was held after quitting time on January 26, 1972. During work hours on January 26, an employee, Evelyn Houk, overheard part of a conversation Ballard, the plant manager, had with Wilson, the assistant manager, and Greening, the forewoman. Evelyn Houk testified without contradiction that she didn't hear the entire conversation, but it drew her attention when Ballard said in a voice unusually loud that "he was being undermined and that he would have no part of a union" and then said "he thought he was going to have to lay off some girls." Houk did not hear the beginning or end of the conversation, what Ballard said was undermining him or the reason for the layoffs. Substantial economic layoffs occurred starting January 28. The Administrative Law Judge found that Ballard purposely spoke in a voice louder than usual, intending that the employees overhear at least certain parts of his conversation. The Administrative Law Judge further found that it was not important that Houk didn't hear the entire conversation because she had at least heard what Ballard intended her to hear and that these comments together with the comment on future layoffs amounted to a threat that the employees were in danger of being laid off in retaliation for prounion activities. Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find that these isolated overheard fragments of a conver- sation, standing alone, are too insubstantial to warrant the finding of an 8(a)(1) violation. In reaching this conclusion , we note that during the conversation there was machine background noise, Ballard was at least 10 feet from Houk , and Houk did not hear what Ballard said was undermining him or why employees were going to be laid off. 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 below, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Rex Disposables, Division of DHJ Industries, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified below. 1. Delete paragraph 1(a) and reletter the remain- ing paragraphs accordingly. 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. I Member Kennedy does not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's observation : "Since the rule was overly broad, Respondent could not, under established Board principle , have stopped Wade 's soliciting even during actual work time without an affirmative showing that her activity had interfered with production " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT question you about your union sympathies or activities under such circumstances or in such a way as to constitute interference. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union activities of our employees or of union meetings. WE WILL NOT, by rule or in any other way, prohibit you, during nonworking time, from soliciting your fellow employees to join or support Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to self-organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. REX DISPOSABLES, DIVISION OF DHJ INDUSTRIES, INC. (Employer) 201 NLRB No. 108 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, Federal Office Building, Room 8-A-24, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2921. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE TuRITz, Administrative Law Judge: Upon charges filed by Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC (the Union), on January 31 and March 27, 1972, respectively , and served on said dates upon Rex Disposables , Division of DHJ Industries, Inc. (Respondent and at times the Company ), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), through the Regional Director for Region 16, on April 12, 1972, issued a complaint and notice of hearing which was duly served on Respondent . Respondent filed its answer in which it denied all allegations of unfair labor practices . A hearing on the complaint was held before me in Quanah, Texas, on May 24 and 25, 1972, at which the General Counsel and Respondent were represented by their respective counsel, and the Union by an International representative. During the hearing, accompanied by the representatives of the parties , I visited the area where Respondent allegedly engaged in surveillance . The General Counsel and Respon- dent have submitted briefs. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent , Rex Disposables , Division of DHJ Indus- tries , Inc., is a New York corporation having its principal office in New York City, and operating a plant in the city of Quanah , Texas , where it is engaged in the production and distribution of hospital garments and related products. In the course of its operations Respondent annually sells and ships products valued at in excess of $50 ,000 from its Quanah plant directly to customers located in States of the United States other than the State of Texas . I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act). H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Background The principal issues litigated at the hearing were whether Respondent threatened to lay employees off in retaliation for joining and assisting the Union , engaged in coercive interrogation of employees, and engaged in surveillance of union activities. In the middle of January 19721 International representa- tives of the Union met with J . P. Green at his house to arrange for initiating an organizational campaign among Respondent 's employees . J. P. Green was shop steward for another union at the plant where he worked , and was the husband of Ada Green , an employee of Respondent. Quinn , one of the International representatives, then held several preliminary meetings with employees at his room in the Manor Motel and finally scheduled the first general meeting for January 26, shortly after quitting time, at the same place . A number of other general meetings were held, including meetings just after quitting time on January 27 and 28. B. Threat of Layoff Evelyn Houk testified as follows : On January 26 she observed Ballard , the plant manager , in conversation with Wilson, the assistant manager , and Greening, the forewom- an, near the mechanics station . Houk was about 10 feet from the group, and several other employees were working about the same distance from them . Houk's work station was not close to the offices . She did not hear the entire conversation , but her attention was drawn to it when she heard Ballard speaking in a voice louder than his normal voice, and she turned around . Gesturing, Ballard said that he felt he was being undermined and that he would have no part of a union ; and immediately after saying those things he said "that he thought he was going to have to lay off some girls ." Houk's testimony was not contradicted. I have credited Houk and find that Ballard made the statements . Respondent did make substantial layoffs starting January 28. As Houk spoke in a voice louder than usual and he was out on the factory floor, I infer that the fact that his remarks were overheard by employees was not accidental but was intended . In view of this, it is not material that Houk did not hear the entire conversation ; she heard what Ballard wanted the employees to hear. Respondent made no attempt to fill in the claimed possible lacunae in Ballard 's remarks as heard by Houk , or to explain the juxtaposition of the references to his opposition to the Union and the possible layoffs. Nor is it material that substantial layoffs did follow. Assuming that they were economically necessary, Ballard 's coupling them with his warning that he would have no part of the Union, and his statement that he felt he was being undermined was at least a threat to employees that those guilty of "undermining" 1 Unless otherwise stated , all dates mentioned in this Decision were in 1972. REX DISPOSABLES 729 him, i.e., members and supporters of the Union, were in danger of being selected for layoff in retaliation for their activities.2 I find that by Ballard's remarks Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. Interrogation 1. Interrogation of Jack Garrard The morning after the first general meeting Jack Garrard, a bundle boy employed at the plant,3 passed the area of Shirley Wade's machine in the course of perform- ing his duties. She asked him to sign a union card and he replied that he was not interested. The encounter was very brief. Garrard testified that that same morning, when he had occasion to consult Virginia Greening, the forewom- an 4 she asked him whether anyone had approached him in the building about union activities, and that he replied that he had "overheard something about it" but that no one had asked him. He admitted that Greening might have asked him where the incident had occurred and whether it was on company time, but stated he could not recall; and he testified that Ballard , the plant manager , who was also present, asked him essentially the same questions as Greening. He testified that Ballard said that they had a good idea of "who it was in the building that would approach me, if they did," and Ballard mentioned Wade as the person he had in mind 5 He categorically denied naming any employee himself. Garrard also testified that on the afternoon of January 28, when he again had occasion to consult Greening, she asked him if he "had overheard any more names of ladies that were involved in union activities" and he replied, "I haven't heard any more"; that Greening then said that they had a pretty good idea who it was, naming three individuals, and that she said that the Company would be faithful to those who were faithful to the Company; and that Greening asked him if he "had overheard any place that the union meetings were being held" and he replied that he had no idea. Finally, he stated that on the following Monday, January 31, Greening asked him if he "would sign an affidavit to testify in Court that Shirley had approached me in the building about union activities" and that he refused to do so. Greening testified that at some time in January Garrard came to her and volunteered the information that he had been approached by Wade, who had asked him to sign a union card. She testified, further, that she then asked Garrard whether the incident occurred at Wade's machine, 2 It is unnecessary to pass on the question of whether Ballard 's remarks, which I have found were intended for the ears of the employees , conveyed the threat not only that employees would be selected for layoff on a discriminatory basis, but also that the entire layoff would result solely from his desire to discourage unionization , and not from economic necessity. Cf The Sinclair Company v. N L R B (N L R B v Gissel Packing Co), 395 U.S. 575, 618 3 Garrard, a youthful witness, was first employed in December 1971 He quit in February . was subsequently rehired , and quit again a few days before the hearing 4 Greening was the direct supervisor of all, or virtually all, employees At that time they numbered about 65 5 Garrard was uncertain whether the incident occurred before or after his encounter with Wade and whether it was on worktime ; and that she told Ballard what Garrard had reported . Ballard and Greening both testified that subsequently that morning Ballard asked Garrard to repeat what he had told Greening, which Garrard did .6 Ballard also testified that he asked Garrard where the solicitation had occurred , and whether on worktime . Greening denied asking Garrard what he knew about union activity at the plant , and denied telling him that the Company would be faithful to employees faithful to the Company. 2. The interrogation of Mildred Poole About 3 o'clock in the afternoon on January 27, Greening , while collecting production records from the employees , approached Mildred Poole , an employee who was a friend of hers, and who had attended the meeting the previous evening, and asked Poole what she had learned there . About 3:15 she came back and asked Poole what the union man had said about the Company moving employ- ees from one job to another .? Later that afternoon Greening told Poole that Ballard had said that he did not see why the girls wanted a union , but that if they did there was nothing he could do about it since it was the law. Concluding findings as to interrogation Garrard impressed me more favorably than Greening and Ballard with respect to credibility and I have credited his testimony over theirs where there is a conflict. I find that on January 27 Greening broached to Garrard the question about union activities and asked him whether he had been asked to sign a card. Garrard, in order to avoid the need to answer or refuse to answer the foreseeable next question of who, felt compelled to demean himself and lie to his employer that he had not been solicited, but had merely "overheard" something. Ballard 's comment that Wade was suspected made plain to Garrard that Respon- dent was interested in names . I also find that on January 28 Greening asked Garrard to disclose the names of other employees he had observed engaged in union activities,8 and that she promised that Respondent would be faithful to faithful employees. As has often been stated, it is obvious that an employer who wants to discriminate against employees engaged in union activities must first ascertain their identity. For this reason, in the absence of demonstrated legitimate need for the information, an employer's interrogation directed to learning the names of union adherents necessarily conveys a Garrard testified positively that there was only the one conversation on the morning of January 27 and that both Ballard and Greening were present On cross-examination he agreed that Ballard had asked him the same questions as Greening ; and he testified subsequently that Ballard assured him that anything he had to tell Ballard would not be held against him. 7 Greening testified that she did "in a teasing, joking sort of way" ask Poole what she had learned at the meeting and whether the Union had served coffee and cake. Poole categorically denied being questioned about coffee and cake . Poole impressed me as a credible witness, and I have credited her over Greening. 8 That is how I interpret Garrard 's testimony that Greening asked, "if I had overheard any more names of ladies that were involved in union activities." 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the employees a threat of possible retaliation against such employees by discrimination. Respondent contends, at least so far as the interrogation of Garrard on January 27 is concerned, that it was merely trying to find out whether its no-solicitation rule had been violated. That rule, which was placed in evidence by Respondent, reads in relevant part as follows: However, no employee is allowed to solicit membership or support for any of these groups during working hours. Greening's first question to Garrard was whether anyone had solicited him "in the building," a question which embraced solicitation outside working hours and thus called for information about activities not even covered by the rule as written. Moreover, the normal meaning of "working hours" is starting time to quitting time, excluding lunch, but including rest periods. The rule as written was thus unduly restrictive of the employees' rights under the Act. See Campbell Soup Company v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 372 (C.A. 5), enfg. in relevant part 150 NLRB 74; see also KDI Precision Products Inc., 185 NLRB No. 60. Since the rule was overly broad, Respondent could not, under established Board principle, have stopped Wade's soliciting even during actual worktime without an affirmative showing that her activity had interfered with production. See Greentree Electronics Corporation, 176 NLRB 919, 920, enfd. 432 F.2d 1011 (C.A. 9). Yet neither Greening nor Ballard made any effort to find out from Garrard whether the activity he said he had "overheard" had been such as actually to interfere with production; at most they wanted to know only where it had occurred and if it was during worktime. Significantly, when it came to nonunion activity-Winters' sale of Tupperware-9 Greening was not concerned with the fact that brief conversations, which apparently did not interfere with production, took place on employees' worktime, even at their machines. Respondent has not explained Greening' s interrogating Garrard as to the Union's meeting place. That question implied a strong possibility that union meetings might be placed under surveillance by Respondent so that it could identify employees attending the meeting and keep informed about the Union's progress. For reasons already stated, efforts by an employer to ascertain the identity of employees in union activities necessarily restrains employ- ees in the exercise of their rights to carry on such activities. Greening's promise that Respondent would be faithful to "faithful" employees was a promise of reward to those helping Respondent resist the Union. It reinforced the coercive character of her interrogation of Garrard. As to Greening's questioning of Poole, Respondent offers virtually no defense except that the conversation was general and casual and that the two women were friends. I see nothing casual or general in interrogation by an important supervisor directed to ascertaining the Union's position as to the shifting of jobs among employees, as disclosed in the Union's very first general meeting. Nor 6 Elizabeth Winters promoted the sale of Tupperware at the plant. She did this principally during her break , but to some extent also during her worktime , when she solicited other individuals passing by her machine as she worked Among those she had approached during her worktime were Greening and Greening's assistant , Glenda Naron , a nonsupervisory employee. During her worktime she solicited orders from both of these was the questioning rendered noncoercive by reason of the two women's friendship. This was not an attempt by Greening to have a general discussion with a friend about unionization ; it was an attempt , rather, to exploit her friendship by "pumping" the friend so that Respondent could find out through her the exact direction in which the Union was headed and thus more effectively oppose the employees ' efforts at self-organization . Respondent has disclosed no need for the information sought by Greening from Poole . Notwithstanding Ballard's reported statement that because of the law he could do nothing about a union if the employees wanted one, I find that Greening's questioning of Poole about the union meeting was coercive. I find that the interrogation of Garrard by Ballard and Greening on January 27, the interrogation of Garrard by Greening on January 28, and the interrogation of Poole by Greening on January 27, was coercive and violated Section 8(axl) of the Act. D. Surveillance The Manor Motel, where the Union held its meetings, was situated on the south side of Route 287, a few hundred feet west of its intersection with a road called Loop 287, where traffic was controlled by a light. Route 287 ran east and west; Loop 287 at that point ran north and south. Abutting the north side of Route 287 and the west side of Loop 287 was property occupied by Dutch's, the larger of the only two restaurants in Quanah. West of Dutch's, on Route 287, was a Fina gas and service station, and back of both these properties, to the north, was a large area where Bilbo, a trucking firm, parked its tractor-trailers. The Bilbo property had an exit onto Loop 287 on the east, and the Bilbo office was at the west end of its property. Adjoining the Bilbo and Fina properties on the west was Gibson's, a store whose food department was one of the only two large food shopping facilities in Quanah. The store building was set back from the highway, approximately even with the Bilbo property, and most of its parking lot lay between the store and Route 287. Directly in front of the store building, roughly half way towards the highway, was a narrow rectangular planter containing shrubs and the store sign.io It ran north and south and had five marked diagonal parking spaces on the east and west sides. The Manor Motel was in the form of three sides of a hollow square or rectangle, with the open side facing directly across Route 287 towards Gibson's. Room 11, where the meetings were held, was in the inner southwest corner of the building, about 100 to 125 yards from the planter and about 250 yards from Dutch's restaurant.' i On January 27, immediately after quitting time, a number of employees drove from the plant to the meeting at the Manor Motel. At about the same time Virginia Greening, the forewoman, who knew about the meeting, and her husband, Wayne, drove to Gibson's, where they individuals and also invited them to so-called Tupperware parties at her house, where , apparently. more important promotional activity took place 10 The planter was referred to in testimony as a divider 11 The record contains a drawing of the area , with some stipulated distances The drawing itself is crude , inaccurate, and incomplete, and I have used it primarily to assist me in following the oral testimony REX DISPOSABLES parked in one of the spaces east of the planter, their car pointing northwest. Employees saw the Greenings and reported their presence to Quinn at the motel. He drove over, stopped for a short time back of the Greenings' car, and then returned to the motel and held the meeting. The next day, January 28, shortly after quitting time, Ballard, the plant manager, was in the Gibson parking lot, his pickup truck headed towards the exit to the highway. Ballard proceeded out onto the highway, turned left, and then left again into Dutch's parking area. Without stopping, he drove onto the Bilbo lot, where he made a U- turn. He then parked, facing south. His presence was promptly reported by Edmonds to Quinn, who drove over and introduced himself to Ballard. Quinn asked him how he knew about the union meeting, and Ballard replied that everyone in the plant and a good part of the townspeople knew about it. Quinn then argued with Ballard about the layoff of employees which had taken place that day. After threatening to file charges with the Board Quinn returned to his meeting. The foregoing facts are substantially undisputed. The Greenings testified that they first went to the other food store but, seeing the lot crowded because it was "double-stamp day," they went on to Gibson's. There, they testified, they parked at the planter and sat in the car about 5 minutes while Virginia Greening, who would not smoke "in public," smoked a cigarette. They then walked into the store and shopped for 15 or 20 minutes, after which they left and drove directly home. They testified that they made no attempt to watch the meeting, and Wayne Greening stated that his wife did not care about it. Virginia Greening also testified that the evening before she testified, at counsel's request, she parked in the space she had used on January 27 and found that the planter completely blocked the view of the motel. Quinn testified that when he stopped in back of the Greening car, he had a clear view of the meeting room. He also testified that after the first day's hearing he parked in all five spaces east of the planter and that the meeting room was in plain sight from all except the fourth space from the highway. Ada Green and Linda Edmonds testified that all the employees at the meeting looked over to where the Greenings were parked and that they were able to see the car and that people were in it. They also testified that they saw the Greenings sitting in the car at the planter at least 20 minutes after their arrival at the lot. Ballard testified with respect to January 28 as follows: His wife telephoned and asked him to bring home some milk and two hamburgers. He left the plant between a minute before and a minute after 4 p.m., drove his pickup truck to Dutch's, where he parked near the front door, went in and ordered two hamburgers with fried potatoes. He then drove to Gibson's, where he parked near the front of the store building, bought his milk, and drove out onto Route 287. At the Gibson exit he had to wait a minute or more before he could break through the traffic, which was heavy at that time. He proceeded to Dutch's where he found the parking areas on the south and the west sides of 12 Respondent objected to Quinn 's testimony as to the time of the sunset but its objection was untimely The Nautical Almanac Office of the United States Naval Observatory has informed me that on January 27, 1972, the 731 the building "pretty well crowded ." He then went onto the Bilbo lot, made a U-turn , and parked facing south in a 40- to 50-foot roadway running from the Dutch 's property to the Bilbo property and near several huge tractor-trailers. He and others had often parked at that place , which was farther back from Route 287 than the restaurant building. Quinn drove up, very excited , and they had the conversa- tion already referred to. It was about 4:15 when he drove back to Dutch 's; "and at that time of the day in January, why I guess the sun is just getting ready to set . It has taken on a hue that is not all that bright ." He did not time it, but would say that the sun had set that day between 4:30 and 5 o'clock . At counsel's request he returned to the same parking spot the day before he testified and found that he was unable to see any activities at the Manor Motel because he could not see that far . He had astigmatism and wore glasses for driving . When he placed the hamburger order, he was told that it would take 20 to 25 minutes; he walked in and picked it up 30 to 35 minutes after that. Edmonds testified that on January 28, while getting gasoline at the Gibson lot, she saw Ballard on a driveway in the lot, his truck halted and facing the Manor Motel, and then saw him drive out on Route 287 and then to the Bilbo lot, where he parked about in the center , nearer to the Fina station than to Dutch 's. She estimated that he was 50 or 75 yards from Dutch 's. She drove to the Manor Motel and reported this to Quinn and the employees at the meeting. The employees all went to look for themselves, and Quinn drove over to Ballard . Quinn testified that Ballard was parked in the Bilbo lot, that while talking with Ballard he was able to recognize some of the employees watching from in front of the meeting room , and that as he started back towards the motel he saw J . P. Green parking his truck in the Bilbo lot. He also stated that when he got back to the motel he saw Ballard's truck still parked, but that 5 minutes later it was gone . Finally, he testified that the sun set that day at 6:01 p.m.12 J. P . Green testified as follows : His wife told him of her supervisor 's presence at Gibson 's during the January 27 meeting and as a result he himself drove over there on January 28 to see if any supervisors would be keeping that meeting under surveil- lance . He recognized Ballard driving his pickup truck in the lot towards Route 287 "but it was awful slow"; and he saw him drive out and eastwards . Seeing Quinn leave the Manor Motel and drive up to Ballard's truck , he drove over and parked his own pickup near Ballard 's truck to see what would happen. Ballard "was parked about the center of the parking lot between the Dutch's cafe and the Fina station ." At that time there were "definitely" empty parking spaces in Dutch 's lot, where the business rush did not start until 6 p.m. Later he moved his own truck and placed it directly in Ballard 's line of vision to the Manor Motel . After about 10 or 15 minutes Ballard , who had not left his truck , drove out of the Bilbo lot onto Loop 287, where he turned towards Respondent 's plant. Concluding findings as to surveillance 1. January 27.• The Greenings impressed me as not sun set in Quanah , Texas , at 6:04 p.m. Central Standard Time. I take official notice of that fact and of the fact that the sun set on January 28 after 6:04 p.m. 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reliable witnesses and I have credited the testimony of the witnesses who testified that from the motel their car and people in it were visible. On the basis of Edmond's and Ada Green's testimony I find that the Greenings remained in the parked car at least 20 minutes. I have credited Quinn's testimony that the area of room I1 of the motel was visible to a person sitting in a car like the Greenings' parked in four of the five spaces east of the plant. I find that from the place where the Greenings were parked the area round room 11 was in full view and I further find that at that distance it was possible to identify previously known individuals. Wayne Greening's testimony that his wife, although knowing about the meetings, had not the slightest interest in it is somewhat beclouded by the keen interest in the January 26 meeting she had displayed only an hour earlier, when she had interrogated Poole. I do not credit the Greenings' testimony that the reason they remained in their car was to enable Virginia Greening to smoke, or finish smoking, a cigarette, and I find that Virginia Greening was engaged in surveillance of the meeting place and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. January 28: I found the testimony of J. P. Green and Edmonds as to the place where Ballard parked convincing and have credited them over Ballard.13 I find that Ballard did not park in the passage between the two properties but parked at a point in the Bilbo lot nearer Loop 287 than was the Fina station, but substantially to the west of the passage. I further find that his sitting in his truck at that place was not the result of innocent lack of discretion but was for the deliberate purpose of gleaning what informa- tion he could about the meeting. While it would have been difficult to identify employees going to or leaving the meeting, identification of some was a possibility. More- over, the mere fact that employees are aware that their employer is watching their union activities, especially where they have barely begun, reasonably conveys to them a threat of possible retaliation. I find that by Ballard's surveillance of the January 28 meeting Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.14 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE I find that the activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, above , have a close, intimate , and substantial relationship 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. i3 In reaching this conclusion I have considered the contradiction between Edmond's and Green 's marks on the drawing . and their oral testimony that Ballard had parked between Dutch's and the Fina station As already noted , the drawing was crude and inaccurate, and the various areas themselves were not clearly distinguishable i4 I would reach this same result if Ballard had parked where he said he did I do not credit his testimony that the parking areas on the south and west side of Dutch's were "pretty well crowded" but have credited Green's testimony that there "definitely" were empty spaces in Dutch 's parking lot and that the rush did not start there until about 6 o'clock . Since Ballard admitted parking at a place farther north than the rear of Dutch 's, it is plain V. THE REMEDY As I have found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I recommend that the Board issue the recommended Order set forth below requiring Respon- dent to cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record in this case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent , Rex Disposables , Division of DHJ Industries , Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. 5. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: is ORDER Respondent, Rex Disposables, Division of DHJ Indus- tries, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to lay off, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against employees with respect to their hire or tenure of employment or terms or conditions of employ- ment in retaliation for joining or assisting Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization. (b) Interrogating employees with respect to any employ- ee's activity, membership, or interest in any labor organiza- tion in a manner, or under any circumstances, constituting interference , restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. (c) Engaging in surveillance of places where meetings of employees engaged in union or other concerted activities are held , or engaging in surveillance of any other union or concerted activities of employees. (d) Promulgating, maintaining, enforcing, or applying that Dutch 's lot would have been more convenient if his only purpose had been to pick up hamburgers. While Ballard's mark on the drawing would indicate that the Fina station would have blocked any view of the motel area , he did not testify to that effect Asked whether he could observe any activities going on at the motel, he replied , "No. sir, I couldn't see that far " is 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 by Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , automatically become the findings, conclusions , and Order of the Board , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes REX DISPOSABLES any rule or regulation prohibiting its employees , or in any other manner prohibiting its employees , during nonwork- ing time, from soliciting their fellow employees to join or support Textile Workers Union of America ,AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found , will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in its office and plant at Quanah , Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of the 16 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 733 notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by a representa- tive of Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and 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 to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.17 17 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director for Region 16, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."