Playskool Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 25, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1417 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1417 by it for a period of 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. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith .5 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations , Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304, Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Work- ers International Union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all our employees in the appropriate unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached , embody such agreement in a signed contract. The appropriate unit is: All laundry and drycleaning production and maintenance employees em- ployed at our Denver, Colorado, plant, excluding all office clerical em- ployees, drivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304, Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers International Union, to bargain collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described above. IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING CO., Employer. Dated------ ---------------- By----------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Twenty-seventh Regional Office, 609 Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets, Denver 2, Colorado, Telephone No. Keystone 4-4151, Extension 513, if they have any ques- tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Playskool Manufacturing Company and Furniture and Bedding Workers Union , Local 18-B, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Playskool Manufacturing Company and Furniture and Bedding Workers Union, Local 18-B, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Not. 1.9-RC-8430 and 13-CA-4864. February 25, 1963 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On October 9, 1962, Trial Examiner Edwin Youngblood issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 140 NLRB No. 143. 1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that this conduct was not grounds for set- ting aside the March 22, 1962, election in the representation case. Thereafter, the Petitioner-Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing herein, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent with its decision herein. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we agree with the Trial Ex- aminer's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by the statements which its supervisors made to employees Sim- mons, King, Hawkins, and Boeker. However, we cannot agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the statements during the critical preelection period,' and which constituted, unfair labor practices, were too isolated to have substantially interfered with the election and hence did not warrant setting the election aside. Shortly before the election, Supervisor Jameson visited employee Simmons in the boilerroom. Jameson and Respondent knew that Simmons was working "for the Union" and had been selected to act as union observer at the forthcoming election. During this visit, Jameson warned that Simmons had "better watch your step" in pur- suing his union activities because "I hate to see you get fired." Some- time later, Jameson told Simmons that Respondent would eliminate paid holidays, bonuses, and overtime if the Union was successful. On the day before the election, Plant Manager Mosbacher informed employee Boeker that, if the Union won the ensuing election, Boeker would be deprived of his helper and would be required to perform his truckloading duties alone. Early on the day of the election, Foreman Adair approached em- ployee King at her work station. After observing that King had been designated as a union observer at the election and that she was "the big shot of the Union," Adair asked King whether she liked her job 'From March 7, 1962 , the date of execution of the stipulation for certification upon consent election , to March 22 , 1962, the date of the election PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1419 and cautioned that she should think twice before she voted, and that, while Respondent could not lay her off it could arrange to discharge her. In our opinion, the foregoing threats of discharge made to two of the leading union adherents, and the threats of economic loss and the imposition of additional job burdens if the Union succeeded in the election, which we have found to constitute violations of Section 8(a) (1), can hardly be characterized as "isolated" or "insubstantial" in their impact on the election. Indeed, conduct of this nature which is violative of Section 8(a) (1) is, a fortiori, conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in an election? Accordingly, we shall set aside the election of March 22, 1962, and direct the Regional Director to hold another election as early as pos- sible thereafter. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. [The Board set aside the election held March 22, 1962, among the employees of Playskool Manufacturing Company.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part : I agree with the Trial Examiner that in the circumstances of this case the election should not be set aside. 2 See Dal-Tew Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER AND REPORT ON OBJECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE In Case No. 13-CA-4864 upon a charge duly filed by Furniture and Bedding Workers Union , Local 18-B , United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region ( Chicago, Illinois), issued a complaint on June 15, 1962, alleging the commission of unfair labor practices by Playskool Manufacturing Company, herein called Respondent , in viola- tion of Section 8(a) (1) and affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Respond- ent filed an answer denying the alleged unfair labor practices but admitting certain facts. In Case No. 13-RC-8430 , pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election signed March 7, 1962, the Regional Director conducted an election among Respondent's employees on March 22 , 1962, which the Union lost.' ' In Case No. 13-RC-8430 the chronology of events is as follows* petition filed Febru- ary 16, 1962; stipulation for certification upon consent election signed March 17, 1962; election conducted March 22, 1962 , resulted in 71 votes for the Union, 126 votes against the Union , and 20 challenged ballots, approximate number of eligible votes, 228 ; March 28, 1962 , Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election ; May 11, 1962 , the Acting Regional Director issued report on objections, recommending to the Board that a hearing be directed to resolve credibility issues with respect to Peti- 1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to due notice , a hearing in the consolidated cases was held before Trial Examiner Edwin Youngblood at Chicago , Illinois, on July 30 and 31, 1962. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing , and were granted the right to present evidence and to examine and cross -examine witnesses . Disposition of the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint upon which ruling was reserved at the conclusion of the hearing is made by the following findings , conclusions, and recommendations . After the close of the hearing , a motion was received from the Respondent to correct the transcript as to numerous typographical errors and to repaginate a certain page. Said motion showed on its face that it was served upon the other parties. No objection having been received, the motion is granted, the transcript is hereby corrected in accordance therewith , and the motion is hereby made a part of the record in these proceedings . The parties waived the opportunity afforded them at the conclusion of the hearing to argue orally upon the record. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the consolidated cases, and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent , an Illinois corporation , is engaged at Chicago , Illinois, in the manu- facture , design, and sale of toys . During the past calendar year, Respondent sold and shipped goods valued at in excess of $50,000 from its Chicago plant directly to other States of the United States. Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over its operations. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find that Furniture and Bedding Workers Union , Local 18-B, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION In the unfair labor practice case the complaint alleges that Respondent (1) interrogated its employees concerning their union membership , activities , and desires, and (2 ) threatened employees with loss of employment or other reprisals if they became or remained members of the Union or gave any assistance or support to it. In compliance with the Board 's order concerning a hearing with respect to the objections to the election , referred to above, testimony was taken on the issues whether Respondent ( 1) in its preelection campaign made threats of reprisal depending upon the results of the election , and (2 ) on or about March 22, 1962, threatened an em- ployee with possible discharge because of said employee 's participation in the organiza- tional effort of the Union.2 A. The unfair labor practice case 1. The supervisory issues a. Frank Dutcher General Counsel contends and Respondent denies that Frank Dutcher is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Respondent operates a toy manufacturing plant at 1750 N. Lawndale , Chicago, Illinois. Pauline Laverne King, a witness called by the General Counsel , testified that she works in the finishing department and that Dutcher directs her work. King further testified that she had formerly worked in the assembly room under Gene Rose tioner's objections Nos. 1 and 2; July 10 , 1962 , Board issued order directing hearing; July 16, 1962, Board issued order amending order directing hearing ; and on July 20, 1962, the Acting Regional Director issued an order consolidating the representation case with the unfair labor practice case for hearing. 2 The parties having executed a stipulation for certification upon consent election on March 7, 1962, only that evidence relating to events occurring between March 7 and 22, 1962 (the date the election was held ), will be considered In passing on the objections to the conduct of the election American Molded Products Co., 134 NLRB 1446. PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1421 who asked her to transfer to the finishing department to help Dutcher 3 King testified that she talked with Dutcher in the finishing department who stated he liked her work and asked if she would transfer. King was then transferred to the finishing department. King testified that when she wanted time off for a day, she asked Dutcher who granted her time off. When she wanted more than a day off she would either ask Dutcher or Gene Adair, foreman of the finishing department. If she asked Dutcher, he would ask Adair about it. King also testified that she overheard Dutcher on an occasion in November 1960 tell her daughter, Joyce York, "I'm sick and tired of your work, the way you are doing, you are fired. Punch out." King's paychecks were given to her sometimes by Dutcher and sometimes by Adair. Finally, King testified that Dutcher assigns employees in the finishing department to particular jobs Lennie B Hawkins, another employee in the finishing department, testified she worked under Dutcher who "tells the girls where to go." Hawkins also testified she was taken by Dutcher to work in another department and Dutcher told her that it was a permanent transfer. Hawkins further testified that both Adair and Dutcher have handed her paychecks. Frank Dutcher testified that he worked as a setup and stockman in the finishing department along with approximately 50 other people. The finishing department is located on the third floor of the plant and about 70 percent of the employees in this department are women. Dutcher testified he spends 90 to 95 percent of his time in setting up machines and handling stock, and that there are two other setup and stock- men located on the third floor. Adair has responsibilities in the tumbling room lo- cated on the first floor and spends considerable time there. The tumbling room is part of the finishing department. Dutcher admitted he signed a Board affidavit in 1961 stating he was assistant foreman, but testified that he was later advised by Adair that he was not an assistant foreman. However, Dutcher testified Adair often called him his right-hand man. Admittedly, Dutcher moves employees from ma- chine to machine as often as eight to nine times a day. Dutcher testified he has handed paychecks to employees but states this was when Adair was not in the finishing department and the girl who brought the checks to the department asked him to pass them out. He admits employees have asked him for time off but states this was when Adair was not present and he would tell the employee that he would go find Adair and get his permission. Then Adair would tell the employee himself or tell Dutcher to give the employee Adair's answer. Dutcher denied he ever gave an employee time off without consulting and getting Adair's approval. He denied he ever asked King to transfer to the finishing department, and further denied he transferred Hawkins Dutcher admits that Adair told him if he (Adair) was not on the floor and he (Dutcher) ever saw York putting her coat on prior to quitting time, he should tell her to punch her card and go home. Dutcher did not specifically deny the statements to York, which King testified she heard him make. Dutcher also admitted be made out assignment cards for the girls. Adair testified that he told Dutcher to take Hawkins to her new workplace and to tell her she was being transferred. In addition, Adair admitted Dutcher handed out paychecks when he was not present. Further, when he was off the finishing de- partment floor, which was a good deal of the time, Dutcher acts for him on his instructions. Adair also testified that Dutcher was the best qualified man to handle contingencies that might arise in his absence. Thus, a synthesis of the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel and for the Respondent reveals that Dutcher is next to Adair in line of authority in the finish- ing department, acts for Adair during the considerable periods of time when he is absent from the third floor, and is indeed Adair's "right-hand man." Dutcher as- signs work to the girls and moves them from machine to machine as required. He has advised employees of their transfer, has sent them home from work before quitting time, handed them their paychecks, and employees have come to him with requests for time off. Although Dutcher denied granting employees time off directly, when viewed in the light of all the evidence that Dutcher acts for Adair in so many respects, it seems improbable that Dutcher would seek out Adair, who frequently is on the first floor, to ask him about employees' requests for time off. In addition, in resolving credibility in this instance, as well as all other instances in this report, I have attached great weight to the impressions and reactions I received from a care- ful scrutiny of the witnesses and, therefore. I discredit Dutcher and credit King in this regard and conclude and find that Dutcher had the authority to and did grant time off to employees. Further, I credit King's testimony with respect to what she heard 3 Rose is identified elsewhere in the record as foreman of the assembly and packing department. 1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dutcher tell York. From the above and under all the circumstances , I conclude and find that Dutcher is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. In any event, since Dutcher was held out to employees by Respondent to be acting in its behalf, I would find Respondent responsible for his statements to employees. b. Russell Jameson General Counsel contends, and Respondent denies, that Russell Jameson is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Bennie Simmons, a witness for the General Counsel, testified that he performs maintenance work for Respondent and worked for Jameson until the latter quit Respondent's employ recently. He testified he reports to Jameson in the morning, who "tells me the jobs to go on, what to do." If he finishes a job during the day, he reports back to Jameson who would direct him to the next job. Jameson inspects his work and hands him his paycheck. Simmons was working for Respondent when Jameson was hired and further testified that At Sage 4 introduced Jameson to him "as his new maintenance foreman." Simmons also testified that he asked Jameson for a raise and Jameson later advised him that he got him a raise. Jameson testified he worked for Respondent as a maintenance supervisor, that there are five employees including himself performing maintenance work, that he passed orders from different foremen to the "help," and suggested and approved Simmons' raise. Further, that the only other person whose approval is required to get a raise for a maintenance employee is Plant Manager Sage. He inspects the employees' work "in his gang" and tells them what to do, and testified further that maintenance is a separate department. Jameson testified that he initiates general maintenance work and assigns employees to perform such work. Upon these facts and the entire record, I conclude and find that Jameson is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 2. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion a. Bennie Simmons As noted above, the stipulation for certification upon consent election was signed on March 7, 1962. Simmons testified he was present at the Board office on March 7, 1962, and General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1(z) reflects that Simmons was an observer for the Union at the election held on March 22, 1962. Simmons testified that some- time after March 7, 1962, "maybe the next week or maybe a few days later," Jameson came to the boilerroom where he was working and said, "Bennie, it's none of my business but you'd better watch your step. You know the Company's onto you, you work for the Union." Jameson then inquired of Simmons if he knew what was liable to happen, to which Simmons replied, "Well, the Company can do anything they want to." Simmons further testified that Jameson then said, "Well, you're a good man, I hate to see you get fired." The same day or the next day, Simmons testified that Jameson came back to the boilerroom and said, "You know the Company, if the Union gets in, they will cut out paid holidays, they'll cut out bonus money, Christmas paid holidays . . Now, they'll cut that all out. You're making $5 overtime on Saturdays. That will be cut out. You'll be cut to forty hours a week." Jameson admitted he had a "small conversation" with Simmons but denied he said anything in regard to "threats of the Company or what might be done " He denied making any statement to Simmons concerning overtime, Christmas bonuses, the possibility of Simmons' losing his job, or loss of holidays. Jameson further stated he did not recall making any statement to Simmons about what might happen in the event of a union victory and did not recall asking Simmons any questions concerning the Union in the 2-week period prior to the election. He denied having conversations with any employees in the 3- or 4-week period prior to the election concerning the Union or the election. Jameson did not recall telling Simmons prior to the election that he would hate to see him get fired, or that the Company was onto him. Nor could he recall giving Simmons his opinion as to whether the Union could benefit him. Moreover, Jameson could not recall having any direct conversation with any employees about the election. On cross-examination, Jameson's attention was directed to an affidavit taken by a Board agent prior to the hearing He then admitted telling the Board agent that during the 2-week period before the election his only conversations with employees about the Union or the election would have been in reply to questions they may have asked Thus, it seems clear that Jameson did have conversations with employees during this period about the election. *Identified elsewhere in the record as plant manager PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1423 Jameson further admitted talking with Simmons about a union in his previous place of employment. However, he denied discussing "union" with Simmons. Jameson's testimony was contradictory and evasive. His denials were not con- vincing. Simmons, on the other hand, testified in a straightforward, honest, and sincere manner. I credit Simmons' testimony and find that, in substance, Jameson made the statements attributed to him by Simmons. In its brief, Respondent, relying on Neco Electrical Products Corporation, 124 NLRB 481, contends Jameson's state- ments to Simmons were merely personal predictions and not violative of the Act. I reject this contention. Jameson's statements were not predictions of possible fu- ture actions of third parties in the event the Union won the election. On the con- trary, his statements constituted threats of what Respondent would do if the Union won, and are clearly coercive. Cf. "M" System, Inc., Mobile Home Division, Mid- States Corp., 118 NLRB 502, 509. Respondent further contends that its letter to employees dated March 19, 1962, specifically refuted Jameson's statements. Respondent's letter makes no specific reference to Jameson's statements. It refers in only a general way to Respondent's intention to maintain good wages and working conditions. Jameson's statements, in my opinion, constitute a warning to Simmons to cease his activities on behalf of the Union on pain of being discharged if he did not do so. They also constitute clearly expressed threats to detrimentally change the working conditions of employees if the Union were successful in the election. In my opinion, Simmons' coercive state- ments were not neutralized by the letter. Cf. Haynes Stellite Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation, 136 NLRB 95. I find no merit to this contention. b. Pauline Laverne King King is employed by Respondent in its finishing department and testified pur- suant to a subpena issued at the request of the General Counsel. King attended a conference in connection with the representation petition at the Board's Chicago, Illinois, office on March 7, 1962, and also acted as observer for the Union at the election. King testified that about 2 weeks before the election , but prior to March 7, 1962, Dutcher talked to her about the Union saying, "He didn't see how the Union would help us employees out because if he thought it would help out, he would vote him- self for the Union, but he didn 't see because paid holidays would be cut out, our overtime would be cut out , and if we finished a job during the day, we would have no other job that he could put us on , we would be sent home and that he couldn't see how it would help us out at all." Dutcher denied telling King that if the Union got in, holidays would be cut, over- time would be cut, that employees would be sent home when they completed their work instead of being used in some other operation , but admitted telling her that he did not see how a union could help out. On cross-examination , Dutcher denied suggesting to employees how to vote in the union election . He then admitted telling employees he did not think the Union could do them any good and further telling employees "they had all the benefits now, just mean paying dues and that they just would have to pay dues to the Union." Further, Dutcher, on cross-examination , emphatically denied that he had ever changed the lunch time of any employee and testified if there were any lunch time changes, Adair changed them . However, Dutcher's pretrial Board affidavit ( General Counsel's Exhibit No . 2) demonstrates that an employee changed her lunch hour at Dutcher's request. Dutcher was evasive and contradictory in his testimony . I do not credit his de- nials and find that he made the statements attributed to him by King. I find no merit in Respondent 's contention that Dutcher 's statements to King were only an opinion and a prediction , and, therefore, not violative of the Act. I find Dutcher's statements to be clearly coercive . Cf. "M" System , Inc., supra. King testified that on the day of the election , Adair came to where she was work- ing and the following colloquy ensued: Adair said , "So you are the big shot of the Union, are you?" King replied , "I wouldn't say that , why?" Adair stated, "You must be, your name is on the list . . You are supposed to be an observer today You must be the big shot ." King replied , "Well, if that's what you want to call it, that 's what it is." Adair asked , "'Don't you like your job?" to which King replied, "I like the job but I dont like to be shoved around and pushed around." Adair stated , "Do you think you are getting it rough now . you are really go- ing to get it rough if you lose this election today . . . . You should think twice be- fore you vote . . If you don 't like your job, you can quit," to which she replied, "I am not about to quit . They are going to fire .me or lay me off." Adair then said, 1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "We can't lay you off, but the firing part can be arranged." The conversation was then terminated. King then testified she went to Sage's office where Sage and Assistant Plant Man- ager Henry Mosbacher were present. She inquired of Sage, "Mr. Sage, has Gene got a right to tell me who I can vote for, what I am to vote for, or am I a free American, vote any way I want to." Sage replied, "You are a free American, vote any way you want to," and asked what happened. King then related the argument she and Adair had, and Sage said he thought King was lying because he did not think Adair would make those statements . Kmg then demanded that Adair be brought to the office so she could tell Sage in front of Adair just what had happened, to prove ,she had not lied about it. Sage said he would call Adair and left the office. When he returned he told King to return to her work and at 3 o'clock to take off and go to the election. Sage further told King if Adair bothered her any more "he would tell Gene off," adding, "Anyone bothers you up there, let me know, you come back to the office." 5 Sage did not appear at the hearing and Respondent's Counsel stated that he was hospitalized No request for a continuance was made. Mosbacher testified that he was present in the office during the conversation between King and Sage. He testified that when King came in, she said, "Mr. Sage, isn't this a free country that one can do as he pleases? I just had a run in with Mr. Adair and he called me a liar. I never was interested in the Union until Mr. Adair put me on a job I did not like and then I became interested in the Union and started working for them." Mosbacher further testified that Sage excused himself and stepped out of the office While Sage was gone, Mosbacher testified he said to King, "Pauline, please don't worry about this. We will straighten out this matter." When Sage returned he (Sage) said to King, "I don't believe Mr. Adair would call you such a name. Pauline, you don't have anything to worry about. Return to your job and I will talk to Mr. Adair about it." With respect to the events of March 22, 1962, Dutcher testified that he was work- ing with King who said she hoped to continue working even though she had partici- pated in union activities. Dutcher told her he thought she had nothing to worry about. Dutcher further testified he told Adair that King was worried about losing her job and in effect told him that he had reassured her about it. Adair testified that Dutcher told him King was concerned over having jeopardized her job by volunteering as an observer for the Union and that Dutcher told him he had reassured her about her job. Adair further testified that he talked with King and in effect testified that he reassured her about her job and King "then said she was sorry that she had gotten involved with the Union, she really didn't want to, and wished that she hadn't." Adair testified he told her he found this hard to believe and King again repeated she was sorry she had become involved and she had only become involved because the Union had asked her to take the place of Sadie Benkich, an employee who had left. Adair testified that at this he grinned and said, "I'm sorry, Pauline, I can't buy that." That terminated the conversation and he walked away. Adair also testified that about 5 minutes later King walked up to Adair and Dutcher who were both near the timeclock and asked Dutcher if she could go to the office Dutcher relayed this request to Adair who granted permission to King. Adair testified Sage called him and asked him if he had called King a liar and he told Sage "he had certainly not" and that Sage asked him to come to the office and talk about it. 5 On cross-examination, King was asked if she told Sage when she went into his office that Adair had called her a liar She stated that she did not remember making that statement Her attention was then directed to a meeting she had with Respondent's counsel before the trial and she was asked if she stated at that time that when she went to the office she had told Sage that Adair had called her a liar King denied making that statement Her attention was then directed to a pretrial statement taken by Respondent's counsel which she admitted signing This statement (Respondent's Exhibit No 4) con- tains the following sentence: "I told him [Sage] Gene had called me a liar and I was tired of being pushed around " King testified that she did not know the quoted sentence was in the statement and that although she looked the statement over, she did not have her glasses with her at that time and she could not read the statement without her glasses In summary then, she denied uttering the sentence quoted above in Respondent Counsel's presence and asserts she signed a statement containing the quoted sentence without having read it I do not believe this is plausible and King's demeanor while testifying on this point was not convincing I discredit King in this regard and find she uttered the quoted sentence at the pretrial interview with Respondent 's attorney and that she told Sage that Adair had called her a liar. PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1425 In substance then , according to Mosbacher 's, Dutcher 's, and Adair 's version of the events of March 22, 1962, King was worried about losing her job on account of her union activities and both Dutcher and Adair reassured her about this. Notwithstand- ing these reassurances, King went immediately to the plant manager's office to com- plain simply because Adair had called her a liar, after first being sure to get Dutcher's and Adair's permission to leave her work station. I cannot accept this version of the events of March 22, 1962. I do not believe it plausible that King would go to the plant manager simply because Adair had called her a liar. Her primary concern, according to Dutcher and Adair, was over losing her job and she had just been reassured by both of them that this would not happen. Why then would she rush to the plant manager to complain about Adair's calling her a liar? But, according to Adair's version, he did not call her a liar. He grinned and said, "I'm sorry, Pauline, I can't buy that." This is not harsh treatment and these are not harsh words. Secondly, it is more likely that King went to Sage's office because, as she testified, Adair threatened to make it rough for her and in effect threatened to fire her. This, in my opinion, would cause an employee to rush to the plant manager. Significantly, King's version of what she said to Sage is corroborated, at least in part, by Mosbacher as related above. Finally, the statements attributed to Adair by King are substantially similar to the statements attributed to other supervisors by witnesses who are credited herein. Adair was an evasive witness on cross-examination and tried to fence with counsel in his answers. His denials were not persuasive or convincing. Under all the circumstances, I discredit Adair and find that he made the statements attributed to him by King 6 In its brief Respondent contends Adair's statements were repudiated and disavowed by Sage and Mosbacher. Respondent relies on Marr Knitting, Inc., 90 NLRB 479', which involved a situation wherein the president of respondent company specifically referred to certain statements made by supervisors that the plant might be closed and called these statements false. He also posted a notice to the effect the plant would continue to operate In the instant case, neither Sage nor Mosbacher referred to Adair's coercive statements at all. To the contrary, Sage refused to admit Adair had made the statements and Respondent denies Adair made any threatening or coercive statements. In these circumstances Sage's and Mosbacher's statements to King could not reasonably be held to have dispelled the coercive effects of Adair's statements. I reject this contention. Cf. Haynes Stellite Company, supra. c. Lennie B. Hawkins Hawkins is employed by Respondent as a dip operator in the finishing department. She testified that "sometime in March before the election" in a conversation with Dutcher he asked, "What about the Union? You hadn't asked any questions." She replied, "Frank, I don't know anybody to ask." Dutcher then said, "I'm not telling you how to vote, but don't vote where you'll be sorry." Dutcher denied making the statements attributed to him by Hawkins. I have previously found that Dutcher made a substantially similar statement to King. Moreover, Dutcher admitted saying to King in a conversation sometime within several weeks of the election, "Pauline, we don't need a union here." Also, Dutcher admitted telling Hawkins on March 8, 1962, that he did not think a union could do them any good because they were getting all the benefits now the Union wanted to give them without paying dues. Under all the circumstances, I do not credit Dutcher. Hawkins impressed me as a reliable witness. I find that the statements attributed to Dutcher by Hawkins were made substantially as testified to by her Respondent contends Dutcher's inquiry of and statements to Hawkins are non- coercive. I find Dutcher's inquiry and statements made in the context of the other unfair labor practices, to be coercive and violative of the Act. Cf. Producers, Inc., 129 NLRB 1161. d. Kenneth Boeker Boeker testified as a witness for the General Counsel, pursuant to subpena He is presently employed loading trucks for Respondent He testified that on March 21, 1962, he had a conversation with Mosbacher who told him that if the Union got in he would lose a helper and have to do the work by himself Boeker replied that if In crediting King over Adair with respect to this con' -ersation . I am, of course, cog- nizant of the fact that I have discredited King as to part of her conversation with Sage nevertheless, for all the reasons stated above and under all the circumstance, I have credited King in this regard. See N.L R B v . Universal Camera Corporation , 179 F 2d 749, 754 (C A. 2) 1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he had to do the work by himself , he wanted the packing room moved back up to the third floor so he could do it by himself. Boeker further testified that he had a helper since the previous September. On cross-examination , Boeker testified that Sage came out to him on March 21, 1962, and asked him who he thought was going to win the election , to which Boeker replied he thought it could go either way. Sage then said , "If I had a couple of bucks, I'd bet on the election with you." General Counsel at the hearing contended this conversation constitutes illegal interrogation . Sage, as noted above, did not testify. I credit Boeker 's version of this conversation but consider it to be an innocuous conversation , as contended by Respondent in its brief , and not violative of the Act. Mosbacher denied the statements attributed to him by Boeker. Although Mos- bacher admitted talking to Boeker on the dock on March 21, 1962, he testified all he said was as follows: "I said `Good morning , how are you ,' like I do whenever I make by rounds , and, `If you have any problems ' and that is all the conversation I had with him." Mosbacher was reluctant to answer questions on cross-examination and testified in a way which indicated to me more of a concern not to give answers unfavorable to his employer than to disclose the true facts as he knew them. Under all the circumstances , I discredit Mosbacher and credit Boeker and find that Mos- bacher made the statements attributed to him by Boeker. Concluding Findings In its brief , Respondent contends the statements of its supervisors are isolated and a cease-and -desist order unwarranted . Under all the circumstances of this case , I reject this contention . Hilton Hotels Corporation d/b/a Statler ';ilton Hotel, 138 NLRB 135. Cf. Producers , Inc., supra. On the basis of the above findings, and on the whole record, I find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following: 1. The statements of Supervisor Jameson to employee Simmons. 2. The statement of Supervisor Dutcher to employee King. 3. The statement by Supervisor Adair to employee King. 4. The statement by Supervisor Dutcher to employee Hawkins. 5. The statement of Assistant Plant Manager Mosbacher to employee Boeker. B. The objections to the election Only the conduct set forth above in paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 occurred in the period March 7 and 22, 1962, and , therefore , may be considered in passing on the objections to the election . The conduct set forth in paragraph 4 will not be considered because the evidence is insufficient to find that it occurred during the critical period. American Molded Products Co., supra. Respondent contends in its brief the election should not be set aside because the incidents involved are isolated. In the instant case, only 3 employees of approxi- mately 228 eligible voters were involved in the objectionable conduct. The evidence does not establish that these employees communicated what they were told by Respondent 's supervisors to other employees. Although it might be argued the effect of the interference should not be measured by simply relating the number of coercive acts committed to the size of the voting group ,7 in view of the Board 's decisions in Morganton and Western Table Company and Western Picture Frame Company, 110 NLRB 17, I am constrained to find and do find that the facts raised by the objections do not establish substantial interference with the election . I recommend the objections be overruled and the results of the election certified.8 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent 's activities found to be unfair labor practices in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described 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 ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 7 See dissenting opinion of Member Murdock in Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Com- pany, Huffman Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills , Inc, 107 NLRB 1534 s This recommendation is made even though I am fully aware this might be considered anomalous since I have rejected herein Respondent's contention set forth above that its violations of Section 8(a) (1) were isolated. PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1427 V. THE REMEDY In view of my finding that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and post an appropriate notice. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondent, Playskool Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating any of its employees with respect to their views concerning, or sympathies for, Furniture and Bedding Workers Union, Local 18-B, United Fur- niture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) Threatening to discharge its employees, curtail their hours of work, eliminate paid holidays, overtime work, and bonus money, or threatening to discriminate against its employees in any other manner because of their union or concerted activities. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act: (a) Post at its place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tive, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what stops the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.io 9If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, the words "As ordered by" shall be substituted for "As recommended by a Trial Examiner of" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of a United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order of" shall be substituted for "As ordered by " 10 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, In writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor Relations Act: WE WILL NOT interrogate any of our employees with respect to their views concerning, or sympathies for, Furniture and Bedding Workers Union, Local 681-492-63-vol . 140-91 1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 18-B, United Furniture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employees , curtail their hours of work, eliminate paid holidays, overtime work, and bonus money , or threaten to discriminate against them in any other manner because of their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in any union activities. All our employees are free to become or remain members of Furniture and Bedding Workers Union , Local 18-B, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL- CIO, or any other union , and they are also free to refrain from joining any union unless in the future we should enter into a valid union-shop contract with a union which represents our employees. PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 176 West Adams Street , Chicago 3 , Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Joint Board , Cloak, Suit, Skirt and Reefer Makers Union , Inter- national Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO and Free- Play Togs , Inc. Case No. 2-CB-3405. February 26, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On November 13, 1962, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re- spondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There- after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Respondent also filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, and the entire record in the case, including the excep- tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ,Except , however, that we do not adopt his comments relating to the issuance and prose- cution of the complaint appearing in footnotes 27, 28, and related portions of the Inter- mediate Report. These are clearly unnecessary and extraneous to the decision of the case. 140 NLRB No. 144.