Pickering & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 4, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

106(1 & 29- On ~ilberman filed brief. 'l'he bric ~dministrative ?'he 8(a)(l) threatening Free- elec- alia, ~ u ~ e r v i s o r ~ l i z a - bet11 em- plo!rees Unim ex- cep~:ions -- F Srandard Producrs, Inc., ' 3 1 (1950), 188 F.2d carefi Ily 111 forma, Ad- minislrative comp Sec. 8(a)(l I circul,tted infer Stanton Ruthowski, Stanton Freeport findinl: creditc,d testimony .o tentlor, urell Austin 183. !o !itanton soeech Har- Cos- kinno 8(a)(l) "2. 8(a)(l) 1qc) & ~ a w ' Pacijic Sourhwesr 647. 'VLRB DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pickering Co., Inc. and Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America. Case CA-72 13 March 4, 198 1 DECISION AND ORDER August 28, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Herbert issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re- spondent filed cross-exceptions and a supporting Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and fs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ing!;,' and conclusions2 of the Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. Administrative Law Judge found that Re- spondent violated Section of the Act by employees that it would close its port, New York, plant if the Union won the However, the Administrative Law Judge dis- missed, inter allegations that Hartung in two instances threatened unit with loss of benefits for supporting the We find merit in the General Counsel's to the dismissal of these allegations. I espondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy nor to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vince:; us that the resolutions are incorrect. Dry Wall NLRB 544 enfd. 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pm the Law Judge's recommendation to dismiss the allegation in the aint that Respondent interrogated its employees in violation of of the Act by refusing to permit union adherents to sign a card by a supervisor which read: "From some of your loyal em- ploye~:~.Thanks so much for the lovely dinner." Respondent argues, alia, that President Walter subse- quently repudiated and neutralized the coercive impact of this threat made by Louise a low-level supervisor. It relies on the testi- mony of employee Patricia White, a witness for the General Counsel. who stated on cross-examination that had informed the employ- ees during a campaign speech that Respondent intended to continue oper- ations at the plant regardless of the outcome of the election. In that Rutkowski's conduct was violative of the Act, the Adminis- trative Law Judge did not acknowledge that White, whom he had dis- in other respects, had given which was clearly ad- verse the General Counsel's position. Contrary to Respondent's con- however, we d o not find that Stanton's speech effectively re- lieved Respondent of responsibility for its supervisor's unlawful conduct. It is settled that "in order to be effective the repudiation must be timely unambiguous, adequately publicized, and there must be no pro- scr ibe~ conduct after rhe publication of such repudiation." Power Company, 141 NLRB 191-192 (1963). In this instance, Respondent failed prove its alleged repudiation of Rutkowski's illegal threat be- cause did not make any reference to this conduct in his to the employees. Accordingly, we adopt the Administrative Judge's finding of this violation. 254 No. 137 The Administrative Law Judge found that tung told a group of employees during the election campaign that "they could lose some of the goo- dies" Respondent had been giving them if the Union won the election. Then, in late June 1979, following the election, employee Marie Rose overheard Hartung in the cafeteria "telling no one in general . . . that they [the employees] were enjoying the coffee and it was free and if the Union came in there wasn't going to be any more coffee." The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Hartung's remarks were not unlawful since she is a low-level supervisor who was expressing her opin- ion as to what might happen if the employees chose the Union as their bargaining representative. In reaching this conclusion, the Administrative Law Judge also relied on the fact that these state- ments were not endorsed by any other member of management. It is well established, however, "that promises, threats, or other coercive remarks by low echelon supervisors tend to interfere with or restrain em- ployee rights in the same way as such conduct by other supervisors of managers."' Consequently, we find that Hartung's statments clearly constituted unlawful threats of reprisal for the employees' in- volvement in union activities. Thus, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we conclude that Re- spondent has further violated Section of the Act by threatening employees with a loss of bene- fits if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative. Insert the following Conclusion of Law as new paragraph 2, and reletter the present paragraph 2 as paragraph 3: By threatening employees with a loss of benefits if they selected the Union as their collec- tive-bargaining representative, Respondent has in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section of the Act." ORDER Pursuant to Section of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pickering Co., Inc., Plainview and Freeport, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order, as so modified: Airlines. 201 NLRB fn. 4 (1973) & Insert l(b) "(b) Sul,stitute Adminic ORDER PJATIONAL Agency \VE l a b x \YE los!; collective- W E WILL interfere Rela- tioils HERBERT SILBERMAN, In- ternatior~al ;I & the Iirbor 8(a)(l) of cor~plaint 8(a)(l). g~:nerally held filecl BUSlNESS 2(2) 2(6) 11. 2(5) Ill. UNFAIR PRACTlCES 1979,l Freeport Freeport 11 C Stanton, A d ~ h e a d . ~ ' supervisors PICKERING CO., INC. 1061 1. the following as paragraph and re- letter t h subsequent paragraph accordingly: Threatening employees with a loss of bene- fits if they select the Union as their collective-bar- gaining representative." 2. the attached notice for that of the trative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY OF THE ABOR RELATIONS BOARD An of the United States Government WILL NOT threaten employees that we will close our place of business before we will recognize Local 810, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, o r any other organization, as their collective-bargain- ing representative. WILL NOT threaten employees with a of benefits if they select Local 810, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, o r any labor organization, as their bargaining representative. NOT In any like o r related manner with, restrain, o r coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Act, as amended. DECISION Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed on May 22, 1979, by Local 810, Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, complaint, dated July 10, 1979, was issued al- leging that Respondent Pickering Co., Inc., herein called Company, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of Section the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The was amended during the hearing in this proceeding to allege additional violations of Section Respondent duly filed an answer to the com- plaint denying that it has engaged in the al- leged unfair labor practices. A hearing in this proceeding was in Brooklyn, New York, on February 19, 25, and 26, 1980. Following the close of the hearing, a brief was with the Administrative Law Judge by Respon- dent. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my ob- servation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: I. THE OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a New York corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of phonographic, audio, and electronic equipment, and related products at its plants located in Plainview and Freeport, New York. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, in the conduct of its business, the Company purchased and caused to be transported to its New York plants through channels of interstate commerce from locations outside the State of New York goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section and is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section and (7) of the Act. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section of the Act. THE ALLEGED LABOR On February 2, the Union filed a petition in Case 29-RC-4469 requesting certification as representa- tive of a unit of the production and maintenance employ- ees employed at the Company's plant. Pursuant thereto, and following a hearing, a Decision and Direc- tion of Election was issued on April 11 and an election was conducted among the employees at the Company's plant on May 10. As the Board granted the Employer's request for review of the April Decision and Direction of Election the ballots were impounded and had not been counted as of the date of the hearing in this case. The Company is opposed to the organization of its em- ployees and campaigned against the Union prior to the election. The complaint alleges that conduct on the part of the Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7. The persons who are alleged to have en- gaged in the objectionable conduct are: Walter president of the Company, and David Gray, vice presi- dent of the Company and director of operations. In addi- tion, the following, whom the complaint alleges are su- pervisors and agents of the Company, are alleged to have engaged in various unlawful acts: Grace Fichter, Edna Browe, Elizabeth Hartung, Louise Rutkowski, and Florence Respondent admits that these five employees are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, but contends that they function at low levels of au- thority, that the employees do not understand that they speak for management, and, therefore, that they may not Unless otherwise indicated all dates refer to the calendar year 1979. Some, if nor all, of these five employees are group leaders. At the hearing in the representation case the Company took no position regard- ing their status as and indicated that i t would accept the Board's determination of the issue. at- trit~uting super- visws, ant1 ~y 'The charged Izlizabeth Gen- erzl sht: i n t ~ Marie during Bruce l'he 8(a)(l) 1062 DECISIONS O F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be deemed agents of the Company for the purpose of to the Company responsibility for their alleged unlawful activities. However, Respondent adduced no evidence which would establish the character of the su- pervisory authority of these five individuals or evidence which would establish that employees do not look upon them as representatives of management. Accordingly, as Respondent admits that these five individuals are I find that their conduct and statements in relation to the employees of the Company can be attributed to the Company and that the Company is bound thereby is responsible for any unfair labor practices engaged in them. violations of the Act with which the Company is will be discussed below and will be numbered as in :he complaint. 8. In or about February and March 1979, Re- spondent by Elizabeth Hartung, its supervisor and agent, threatened its employees with loss of benefits, if they became or remained members of the Union, and if they gave any assistance and support to it. Hartung was called as a witness for the Counsel. She testified that in early 1979 when she learned about the union activities at her place of work discussed the situation with her husband, who in- formed her that he had lost benefits when a union came the company where he worked. Hartung further tes- tified, in response to questions by the General Counsel: Q. Now at work, you talked to some of the other employees about what happened at your husband's company, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And you told them they could lose all the benefits like those you just told us about, didn't you? A. I said they could lose some of the goodies. Goodies and benefits are different. Q. What did you mean by they could lose some of their goodies? A. The goodies are what the company gives without being a benefit. Q. And what are the kinds of things you mean by that? A. The turkey and the picnic and the free coffee. To me, those are goodies. Rose Coskinno, a witness for the General Coun- sel. testified that one morning towards the end of June breaktime Hartung "was in the cafeteria and 1 was coming into the cafeteria and this other guy, Bruce Hall, was standing in the arch way to the cafeteria and she was telling no one in general . . . that they were en- joying the coffee and it was free and if the union came in there wasn't going to be any more coffee. I remember laughing and he said, 'Yes, coffee is really impor- tant. I told her . . . that I would rather have more bene- fits and more money and they can keep the coffee."' General Counsel did not file a brief in this pro- ceeding. In her closing statement at the hearing she argued that, in deciding whether the Company has en- gaged in the violations of the Act complained of, in each instance its conduct should be evaluated in the context of its entire pattern of activities. More specifically, she as- serted: I am prepared, Your Honor, at this point, to ex- press a number of factors which I believe amount to and set us here in the environment where had been violated. And it is a serious violation. The first one of those factors is that we had an aggressive anti-Union campaign. The Employer didn't just lay down and let the Union walk in. Secondly, we've got two small factories, one with 70 or 80 employees and one of 160. We've got the fact that the election ballots were impounded because the Employer contends that only a two-factory unit is appropriate and the possi- bility that the first election will be invalid and the second election required in the larger unit over a year after the first campaign began. And we finally have the obvious erosion of bar- gaining [unit] bargaining strength merely because of the passage of time alone. However, the two most significant elements of the General Counsel's argument are not supported by the record. While the Company campaigned against the Union during the election, there is no evidence that it en- gaged in "an aggresive anti-Union campaign." Secondly, there is no evidence that there has been any erosion of the bargaining unit or the bargaining strength of the Union. It is merely a gratuitous assumption on the part of the General Counsel that "passage of time alone" caused such results. Thus, contrary to the General Coun- sel, I find no pattern of conduct on the part of the Com- pany which enhances the specific evidence adduced in support of the respective allegations of the complaint. The quoted remarks by Hartung were expressions of , her opinion alone. The General Counsel adduced no evi- dence indicating any basis in fact for Hartung's fears that some of the "goodies" might be lost through union rep- resentation, and no evidence was adduced that any simi- lar statement was made by any member of management or by any other supervisor. The comment by Hartung, made before the election, that the employees "could lose some of the goodies," as phrased, reflects her speculative opinion alone, and the record indicates no basis for find- ing that the employees with whom she spoke would have construed the comment otherwise. While the second remark attributed to Hartung, that "if the union came in there wasn't going to be any more coffee," which was made after the election, was phrased more positively, it was, as testified, directed to no one in par- ticular and was overheard by only two employees whose reactions indicate that they considered Hartung's re- marks as expressions of her personal opinion. In the circumstances, I find that the speculations voiced by Hartung, a low-level supervisor, which were not endorsed by any member of management or any other supervisor, that employees might lose minor fringe benefits throught union representation, were not unlaw- fully coercive. PlCKERlNG & INC. 9 . Respon- de:it, thleatened Fr'2eport before Puglin, Miry Stanton ~verheard (2. I)usiness? ,\. t h ~ H ~ncontrr~dicted Coffey Stanton C ~ f f e y , "Mr Stanton i~ffidavits Rutkows1;i Stanton repre- sentiltives Stanton 8(a)(l) 8(a)(l) Stanton, Stanton Freeport Stan- Stanton Stanton 1063 CO., In or about February or March 1979, by Grace Fichter, its supervisor and agent, its employees with the closing of the plant. At the hearing the complaint was amended to allege that a similar threat also was made by Louise Rutkowski. With regard to the threat allegedly made by Grace Fichter, employee Patricia White testified that one morn- ing the election while drinking coffee with em- ployees Barbara Porter, Edith Porter, Eleanor and Frances, Grace Fichter said, "Before Mr. would allow the Union to get in, he would close the plant down." Each of the employees whom Patricia White named as having Fichter's remark testified at the hear- ing and denied that any such statement was made. As of the date of the hearing Fichter was confined in a hospital and was unable to testify. White further testified on cross-examination: As a matter of fact, in Mr. Stanton's talks, didn't he say that the Company intended to remain in That's what he said. The testimony of each of the witnesses to this incident was brief and was not effectively impeached. Upon con- sidering relative reliability of White and the wit- nesses ho contradicted her testimony, I am of the opin- ion that the testimony of the latter is more reliable, and I do not credit White's testimony. Regarding the threat made by Louise Rutkowski, the testimony adduced on behalf of the General Counsel is as Rutkowski was not called as a witness. Gracie testified that several weeks before the election during a break, while she and employees Marion Wagner and Barbara Brown were discussing the Union, group leader Louise Rutkowski came to them and made the remark that "Mr. would close the place down before he would let the union come in." Accord- ing to we responded "that we really needed the union. And she said that they tried to get it once before, but the) couldn't get it in. And that he had other branches. If that one was closed down, it wouldn't be no big deal. Because he had other places like in Plainview. She said Florida and another one . . . . I just told her that this was a different generation of girls that they had working now. Cause the other girls were so afraid of losing their jobs. But this is something we wanted and we're go ng to work for it." Barbara Brown corroborated Coffey and testified that on the cccasion referred to by Coffey Butkowski said that wouldn't let the union in." I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Coffey and Brown despite the fact, as pointed out by Respondent, that the given by each of them to the Board's investigator prior to the hearing does not refer to the incident. Respondent further argues: Mr. and other upper management had advised the employees of the Compa- ny's intention, should the Union win the election, to remain in business, to recognize the Union, and to negotiate with it in good faith as required by law. Mrs. Coffey and Mrs. Brown understood this and, as a result, neither thought enough of the incident to mention it (if it occurred) in her affidavit. They knew, in short, that any expression of opinion by Mrs. Rutkowski-whose voting status, like Mrs. Hartung's, was then in question-had been repudiat- ed and neutralized by higher authority. Respondent does not direct my attention to the pages of the transcript of record, o r to the documentary evi- dence, which support the asssertion that and other management representatives in effect had repudiat- ed Louise Rutkowski's statement by advising the em- ployees of the Company's intention to remain in business and to recognize and negotiate with the Union should it win the election. Although there is no credited evidence in the record of any similar threat having been made by any representative of the Company, it is well settled that an employer violates Section by threatening to close its plant if its employees select a union to represent them. The issue, therefore, is whether the employees who heard Rutkowski's statement construed her threat to be an expression of company attitude or construed it merely as the speculation of Rutkowski alone. No evi- dence was offered by Respondent which would tend to negate the normal inference that the employees would assume that Rutkowski because of her supervisory status had a reasonable basis for making the remark she did. As a threat to close the plant is a matter of serious concern to employees, I am of the view that such remark, even if made only once prior to an election, would tend to have a substantial impact upon the employees and would un- lawfully interfere with, restrain, and coerce them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Accordingly, I find, that, by reason of the threat made by Louise Rutkowski, Respondent has violated Section of the Act. 10. In o r about the week of April 30 and May 7, Respondent, by Walter its president and agent, at meetings with its employees stated and im- plied to its employees that they would receive wage increases, hospitalization benefits, and other benefits and improvements in their working conditions and terms of employment to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union, and to refrain from giving any assistance or support to it, and to induce them to abandon their membership in and activity on its behalf. Walter delivered speeches to the Company's employees on May 3 and 9. The text of the speeches were received in evidence. In her closing argu- ment the General Counsel refers to questions asked ton on these occasions and answers given to him. How- ever, there is no competent evidence in the record that there was a question and answer period following either of the speeches. Employee Arlene Cleary testified that after the May 9 speech she spoke with and that "I did ask Mr. at the time why our complaints were not answered sooner and why he left trouble at 1064 Freeport lo so Thl: Stanton, 2ause Stanton 8(a)(l) 1, The customers. Freeport Hol- $ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for so long. Why couldn't he do something. He said he couldn't do anything because of the government. I said, 'Before the union started you had way enough time act on a decision, we wouldn't have to go this far."' General Counsel further argues: Well, Mr. in at least one of the speeches, apparently recited that no promises can be made be- it is against the law, or that formula if not those exact words. His speeches and answers to the questions there- after did not discharge his duty to avoid giving the employees the impression their complaints will be remedied. The written text of the speeches itself by Mr. violated by implying promises the employees would receive benefits and corrections of their complaints if the employees abandon their sup- port for the Union. These implications are shown in the May 3d speech, General Counsel Exhibit 3, by or in the last paragraph on page the first half of page 2, the second paragraph on page 5, the last paragraph on page 6, and the top of page 7. In the May 9th speech, General Counsel Exhibit 4, the last paragraph of page 4 and paragraph 2 on page 7 can only be viewed as violative implied promises. This is especially true when the circumstances of these speeches are considered. The first time the employees were addressed by the president, they were assembled twice during the week before the election during working time, and then finally they were treated to a free lunch imme- diately after the speech on May 9th. portions of the speeches referred to by General Counsel are the following: Looking back on the past few years, we realize that we could have done a better job in communi- cating to you and also listening and responding to your concerns. Unfortunately, in large organizations there tends to be a gap between the front office where I sit and the rest of the staff. This is especial- ly true in organizations like Pickering where we have had to expand in order to meet the needs of our But that is no excuse for us or for any Company. It is important for all of us that we work well together as a team and that the Company gives the proper recognition to each person that does their job well. I have listened to a number of the things you people here at have been saying to Picker- ing-either by the Question and Answer Box, the Hot Line, or by speaking directly with your Group Leaders, to Mary, to Mr. Edinger and Mr. comb. One of the things you said clearly to us is that you are not interested in hearing us tell you that we are in a very competitive business, your main concern is money. The amount of money you get each week, your pay increases and your chances of increased wages and benefits. You have said very clearly that that is what you would like to hear us talk t o you about now. I would like to d o that, but I want to make it very clear that the regulations of the National Labor Relations Board state that we cannot talk to you about what may happen after the election if you were to vote against the Union. Whether we feel that it's proper or not it is the law. The Union, as you know, has been and can make promises. They will tell you they will get you money. They will tell you they will get you more benefits. The law permits this, the Government lets them make these promises because they feel that you know the Union cannot deliver on those prom- ises. The only thing the Union can do if they happen to get in here is to ask the Company to change the wage schedule o r the benefit program. If the Company says no to any of their demands, because the Company is unable to comply with those demands, the only weapon that the Union has is to ask you to go out on strike. Remember that- the only weapon that the Union has is for you to stop working as a group and refuse to come back to work until you have gained higher wages or other benefits. I do wonder if 1979 is the time for us at Picker- ing to change our relationship with our people by bringing a Union into this plant. I heard you very clearly-that you are concerned how rising prices for food, clothing, and rent is leaving very little extra money for anything else from your family budgets. The same thing is happening throughout the country. Our products are certainly not necessi- ties, our customers will buy our turntables and our cartridges only when they have extra money for . them. With the rising prices of things such as gaso- line and heating fuel many of our customers will be spending money on those things rather than on our products. For this reason, I especially ask you to think hard about bringing a Union into your plant. Think about that. Suppose you decide that it is best to give us a chance-vote the Union down. Keep in mind that there are 70 people eligible to pay 12.00 a month dues. That is $840.00 a month that the Teamsters Union is after--over $10,000 a year. Add the money that they can get from initiation fees and fines it comes to a lot of money. You can be sure if you vote the Teamsters out now-they will be back again. If your Company slips up-they can get an- other election in a year. Think about it. I d o not feel that the Teamsters Union would be good for you or for Pickering. What we want is a chance to demonstrate to you that we are responsi- ble management and employers. We d o know that part of our problem has been that we just didn't give proper and equal attention to all the people at PlCKERlNG & Freeport On over havc: Freeport very hi~ve very 1001; year, k'ote other relevant Stanton wage terms contained Stanton. wi th~~ut col~cerned thc rhetoric constitut~: Adshead, Me.y Freeport Stanton off- n:ad: em~lovees .~ - "[nlothing practice. Freeport I CO., INC. 1065 the locations. We don't think that's going to happen again. the other hand, it is important to mention that we have made changes in our benefits and policies the past number of years that shows we do concern for our people-and all our people whether they be located in or Plainview. I can assure you that I will be there. We do have a complaint procedure. We have the Question and Answer Box. Quite frankly, you have spoken up clearly to us. We are aware of your problems. to be honest with you and say that I was busy this last year with pressing problems in running the business. I did not look at the questions and answers. I did not take a personal interest in your complaints. I should have. I should have paid mole attention to your complaints and reviewed all the questions and answers given to you. The more I into the problems facing us, you and me, this the more I become convinced that the Team- ster$ Union is not the answer. Especially, this local and this year. NO on Thursday-give us and give your- selves a chance. If you vote NO,you could have the opportunity to vote again next year with an- union if you want. Give us a chance. The allegation is that stated or im- plied in his speeches to the employees that they would receive increases, hospitalization benefits, and other benefits and improvements in their working conditions and of employment. No such direct promises are in the speeches made by Although the speeches suggest that the employees would be better off a union and that the Company would be more in the future than it had been in the past about problems and the welfare of the employees and strongly recommends to the employees that they not support the Union and not vote for it in the election, such statements are within the ambit of legitimate cam- paign and do not constitute an implied promise of benefits to the employees of such a nature as would a violation of the Act. 11. On or about May 11, 1979, Respondent. by Edna Browe and Florence its supervisors and agents, interrogated its employees concerning their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy in and for the Union. On 9, after he made a speech to the em- ployees, Walter invited the employees to an premises luncheon. The next day group leader Edna Browe circulated among the employees a thank you card which "From some of your loyal employees. Thanks so much for the lovely dinner." When the card was passed to Bertha Flores, Edna Browe called out, "You don't have to put your signature there because you are one of the ones who want the union." Flores com- plained to Mary Williams, the Company's personnel manager, about the incident and was told by Williams, "Don't get mad. I'm going to talk to Edna. Nobody has to scream at you. You are right." Employee Ann McRae testified that she observed the thank you card being passed among the employees and that two or three people were skipped. McRae com- plained to Mary Williams about what was happening. According to McRae, she told Williams, "I didn't think it was right for Edna to be passing a card around, and having some people sign the card, and other people wasn't signing the card." McRae further testified that Mary Williams said that she would check into it, that Williams did, and that the card was sent back for every- body to sign. Mary Williams testified that after receiving the com- plaint from McRae she spoke to Edna Browe about the matter, who agreed that everyone would sign the card. Accordingly the word "some" was struck out and the word "all" was substituted so that the card read, "From all of your loyal employees." It appears to be signed by all the . Respondent argues that more could have been done by Mary Williams in the way of repudiation. Her actions were instantaneous and decisive. Nobody would have mistaken the Company position in this regard; to any employee in Freeport, it was clear right then and there that Mary Williams, not Edna Browe, represented the final word in this matter." I agree with Respondent that, when Browe's activities were called to the attention of Mary Williams, her prompt, corrective action constituted effective repudiation of Browe's clumsy identification of the employees whom Browe be- lieved supported the Union. In the circumstances, I find that the incident involving the thank you card does not prove an unfair labor 12. On or about May 30, 1979, Respondent, by David Gray, its Vice President of operations and its supervisor and agent, threatened employees that they would not be recalled to work from their layoff because of their support for, and activities on behalf of, the Union. The General Counsel relies upon the testimony of Gracie Coffey to prove this allegation of the complaint. Coffey testified that she was employed as a packager at the plant and was laid off sometime in May. Later the same month she went to the Plainview plant with two other laid-off employees where they passed out union literature and solicited employees to sign union au- thorization cards. Coffey testified that David Gray, whom she knew, came to her and they greeted each other. According to Coffey, "I gave him literature. And he took it. He says, 'Well, I guess you think what you're doing is right.' So I said, 'Well, what you all did wasn't right.' And he said, 'Well you know, when things pick Bertha Flores' name appears on the card although she testified that she never signed it. 1C66 ufr, back.'4 w , ~ y dill Pli~inview. Gray's from few yolt've re- fusc:d Thm, "[Slhe how wo111d"look After *might Cofrey frielldly N8-ither cred, queslion I~ack" i:; tle extented es- tablist IV. 111, seveal Having affirmative daigned -- ' cnm-examination pfck be 8(a)(l) 2(6) al- leaed com~laint. " Iqc) \ & Free- "Appendi~."~ (b) u provided Scc. Sec. be its deemed Statcs the DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD you won't be hired So I said, 'Well, that's the things are. That's the way life is."' Coffey further testified that early in August the Com- pany recalled her to work at the Plainview plant but she not return because she had no transportation to version of the conversation differs substantially Coffey's. According to Gray, when he observed Coffey standing with a handful of union authorization cards in her hand, and as he knew she had been laid off a days earlier, he said to her jokingly, "Oh, I see got another job." She replied, "Yes, we have to do something." She then offered him a card which he with the explanation that he had already seen it. according to Gray, asked me if I knew long she would be laid off for and I said, 'I haven't the slightest idea.' Then I said to her. 'If I were vou. I for another job . . . . all, we not call you back." Gray explained that he suggested to that she should look for another job as "a bit of advice" given because he knew that "sales were soft" and that there was a possibility that the laid-off em- ployees might not be recalled to work. Coffey nor Gray testified at any length and the testimony of neither was impeached. I am of the opinon that Gray was the more reliable witness and I t his version of the conversation. In the context of a directed to him as to how long Coffey's layoff would be, his reply that he did not have the slightest idea and his further remarks, "If I were you, I would look for another job . . . . After all, we might not call you is only remotely subject to the interpretation that i t was a threat that Coffey would not be recalled to work because of her activities on behalf of the Union. and more subject to the interpretation that the layoff may for an period of time and it would be to her advantage to seek other employment. I find, there- fore, that the incident involving David Gray does not a violation of the Act. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the States and tend to lead to labor dis- putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon tht: entire record in this case, 1 make the following: On Coffey testified that Gray said. "Well, when things up you know, you can't hired back." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening employees that it will close its place of business before it will let the Union in, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7, and there- by has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Sections and and (7) of the Act. 2. Except as specifically found herein, Respondent has not otherwise engaged in the violations of the Act as in the Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursu- ant to Section of the Act, I hereby issue the fol- lowing recommended: The Respondent, Pickering Co., Inc., Plainview and Freeport, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees that it will close its place of business before it will recognize Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. as their collective-bargaining representative. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Post at its places of business in Plainview and port, New York, copies of the attached notice marked Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent 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 by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced. or covered by any other material. Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT a FURTHER ORDERED that, except for the violation herein specifically found, the allegations of the complaint alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act be dismissed. In the event no exceptions are filed by 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, adopted by the Board and become findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto shall be waived for all purposes. In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of National Labor Relations Board shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."