Tennessee Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 19, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC. I Tennessee Plastics, Inc. and Local Union 464, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL- CIO. Case 10-CA-9611 April 19, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On December 20, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings and findings of the Administrative Law Judge, but we adopt his con- clusions I and recommended order only to the extent consistent herewith. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent discharged employee Evelyn Reece, a prominent union organizer, on the day of the repre- sentation election in Respondent's plant, at least in part because of her union activities, and not solely because she had threatened that morning to cut off employee Norma Jean Dye's hair if Dye did not vote for the Union that afternoon. Respondent excepts to this finding, and we find merit in its exceptions. The essential facts are not in dispute. Reece made herself well known in Respondent's plant as a leading adherent of the Union during its organizational and preelection campaigns. She did this while at work in the plant by means of slogans lettered on her shirt and her pocketbook. Respondent was aware of her activi- ties, and, as part of its campaign to defeat the Union, went so far as to place antiunion posters, in which Reece was personally depicted, around her work sta- tion, in an admitted effort to counteract her influence among the employees. On the morning of May 26, 1972, the day of the election, Reece was handbilling outside the plant as the employees arrived. She handed a pamphlet to Dye as she arrived for work and told Dye that if she or anyone else did not vote for the Union, Reece would cut their hair off. Plant Superintendent Leon Baker learned of this incident, and spoke with Dye, who 1 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Administra- tive Law Judge's dismissal of the complaint 's 8(aXl) allegations. confirmed that Reece had made the threat to her. Baker immediately discharged Reece, as he had an- other employee some months before when the em- ployee had threatened to slash the tires of a fellow employee. Baker promptly posted a notice to the em- ployees informing them of Reece's discharge and the reason therefor, and admonishing that such behavior was impermissible and would be dealt with in the same manner as in the case of Reece . The election was thereafter held that afternoon, and the Union won. In reaching his conclusion that Reece's threat to Dye was seized upon by Respondent as a pretext for discharging her for her union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), the Administrative Law Judge attempted to distinguish the instant case from that of P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc., 199 NLRB No. 145, on the ground that the instant case arises in the context of an organizing campaign , while Berland did not. For support of his pretext finding, he relied upon Respondent's placing of antiunion posters around Reece's work station, and its prompt posting, before the election, of the notice to its employees announcing her discharge. Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find no evidence of pretext in Reece's discharge. Clearly, Respondent posted its notice of Reece 's discharge in an attempt to dissipate the effect of Reece's threat on those employees who might have wished to exercise their statutory right to vote against the Union in the election held later that day. Furthermore, in placing the posters around Reece's work station, Respondent was merely exercising its right to express its noncoer- cive views on the subject of unionization . Reece, hav- ing made herself the focus of the Union's campaign, was therefore a legitimate object for Respondent's countercampaign. Finally, the Administrative Law Judge, in distinguishing Berland, supra, from the in- stant case, makes a distinction without a difference, since a discharge for cause is just as lawful in a case where the union is organizing as in one where it is not. Star-News Newspapers, Inc., 183 NLRB 1003. Reece's threat to Dye to cut off Dye' s hair unless she voted for the Union is firmly established by credi- ble evidence. There is no evidence that any similar threat of personal violence has ever been condoned by Respondent, or that Reece's discharge because of the threat resulted from any unlawful considerations. On all of the evidence, we find that Respondent dis- charged Reece for cause. Star-News Newspapers, Inc., supra; P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc., supra. Accordingly, inasmuch as all other allegations of the complaint have been dismissed by the Adminis- trative Law Judge without exceptions being taken, we shall order the entire complaint herein dismissed. 203 NLRB No. 2 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN. Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on May 31, 1972,' and amended on June 15. The complaint was issued on July 10. The hearing was held on September 6 and 7 in Johnson City, Tennessee. When the hearing opened, the complaint alleged, in addi- tion to independent violations of Section 8(axl) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the constructive discharge of William Ferguson and the discharges of Jimmy V. Cole and Evelyn Jeanette Reece as violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). Over objection of the General Counsel, I approved a settlement between Respondent and the Charg- ing Party with respect to Ferguson and Cole. However, I permitted counsel for the General Counsel to introduce such evidence as they saw fit with respect to the termina- tions of Ferguson and Cole for the purpose of establishing Respondent's antiunion animus. I have made no findings of fact with respect to those terminations because, in my opin- ion, the evidence presented did not establish animus. In any event, as is more fully developed below, the admitted facts surrounding the discharge of Mrs. Reece so clearly establish Respondent's antiunion animus that such evidence would be cumulative at best. As a result of my ruling, the principal issue litigated was Respondent's motive for discharging Mrs. Reece. For the reasons set forth below, I find Respon- dent discharged Mrs. Reece on May 26 in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Upon the entire record, especially by observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of briefs filed by Respondent and the General Counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent , a Tennessee corporation , manufactures heating and air-conditioning equipment in Johnson City. During 1971, a representative period, it sold and shipped finish, td products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Tennessee . Respon- dent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I All dates are 1972 II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Credibility There are three facts in this case which are beyond argu- ment . Mrs. Reece has red hair . Mrs. Reece was the most visible and vocal member of the Charging Party's in-plant organizing committee . Mrs. Reece is tough . My resolution of the crucial credibility conflict in this record hangs on the latter fact. Mrs. Reece was discharged for allegedly threatening an- other employee, Norma Jean Dye, as Mrs. Reece was hand- billing one of Respondent's plants a few hours before a Board-conducted representation election . Mrs. Reece testi- fied that she did not . Her version of the event was that Mrs. Dye drove past her into the parking lot with her car win- dows closed and did not take one of her leaflets . Mrs. Reece testified that she said nothing to Mrs . Dye. Mrs . Dye testi- fied her car window was open, she paused long enough to take a leaflet , and, as she did so, Mrs. Reece said to her that if she or anyone else did not vote for the Union, Mrs. Reece would cut their hair off. There were no other witnesses to the incident. There is no dispute about any of the other details surrounding the circumstances of Mrs . Reece's dis- charge. My finding that Mrs . Reece is "tough" is based in large measure , of course , on her demeanor on the witness stand. The two parts of the record on which I have relied in addi- tion are the sort which I would normally find significant in resolving a credibility conflict in favor of a witness, for they reveal Mrs. Reece's candor in a situation where a less forth- right person might be impelled to be evasive or resort to euphemisms. One relates to her testimony about an alterca- tion which took place outside a bar in Johnson City the evening of the day she was discharged. Mrs. Reece testified that Robert Dennis , one of the owners of Respondent, told her she had been discharged for union activities. While there were several witnesses to the incident, Mrs. Reece said these particular words were spoken when only she was with- in earshot . Dennis denied that he spoke them . His testimony was corroborated by Frank Chandler, Respondent's mar- keting manager. During the course of cross-examination of Mrs. Reece about the incident, the following exchange oc- curred: Q. On the evening of May 26th, 1972, did you call Mr. Bob Henry [Respondent's other owner] a grey- haired son-of-a-bitch? A. No, I called him an old grey-headed son-of-a- bitch. The other relates to words spoken between Mrs. Reece and Anthony Leggio, counsel for Respondent, when Mrs. Reece returned to the plant to vote several hours after her discharge . On cross-examination this exchange took place: Q. And when he [the union organizer who was with Mrs. Reece at the time] said, "Keep your cool," what did you say? A. Do you want me to tell you what I called you? Q. Yes. A. I called you an ugly dago. Q. Didn't you say, "How can I keep my cool when I am looking at an ugly dago?" TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC. 3 A. That's right. To credit Mrs. Reece over Mrs. Dye I would have to find Mrs. Dye invented the entire incident while Mrs . Reece was handbilling , presumably as part of a plot with officials of Respondent to get rid of the Union 's leading adherent as a last minute warning to others not to vote for the Union. Nothing in Mrs. Dye's demeanor or testimony arouses any such suspicion in my mind . Since , in the total context of what happened , the fact that Mrs. Reece threatened Mrs. Dye seems to me more inherently credible than that she did not, I have credited Mrs. Dye over Mrs. Reece. For the same reason , I have also credited Dennis over Mrs. Reece. Several days before her discharge , Mrs. Reece was in- volved in a conversation with Bob Rose , general foreman of the plant in which Mrs . Reece worked, which the General Counsel contends is a threat to discharge . The key quote is "you won 't be around next week to see the fireworks." Rose's version of the conversation was that he was merely checking with Mrs. Reece reports he had received from various employees that Mrs. Reece was planning to quit after the election. According to Rose , the thrust of the con- versation was that Mrs. Reece would be moving on after the election because she would then have accomplished what she came to the plant to do, namely, organize it. Rose de- nied that he had threatened or coerced Mrs. Reece in any way. Unlike the credibility conflicts involving Mrs. Reece al- ready considered , this one presents a two on one rather than a one on one (or , as in the Dennis incident, a one on two) situation , for Mrs . Reece's version of her conversation with Rose was corroborated by another employee who was present at the time . Because her testimony is corroborated, I have credited Mrs. Reece over Rose as to this incident. B. The Discharge of Mrs. Reece 1. Facts Local 464 began a campaign to organize Respondent's three plants in February or March . It filed a petition for an election in Case 10-RC-9176 on May 1. The Regional Di- rector approved a stipulation for certification upon consent election agreement on May 17. The unit agreed to by the parties was a production and maintenance one. More than 500 employees fell within it. The election was scheduled for the early afternoon of Friday, May 26. Mrs. Reece took a prominent part in the Union's organi- zational efforts from the outset . Her role as a leader was known throughout the plant , among both employees and management personnel.' In the closing stages of the cam- paign she carried a pocketbook and wore a shirt which bore legends urging employees to back Local 464. Respondent waged an active campaign against the Union and took special pains to offset Mrs. Reece 's prounion ac- tivities . Among the posters which Respondent utilized was one which , just above the word "or," depicted a woman labeled "union steward" and flanked by a pocketbook bear- ing the legend "464," similar to the pocketbook Mrs. Reece carried. Just below "or" were depicted three smiling male figures labeled "your personal friends of many years." The complete message of the poster , reading from top to bottom, was "To whom do you want to tell your personal problems? And from whom do you expect to get help? Union steward? Or your personal friends of many years? Vote no union." One copy of this poster was specially prepared by col- oring the woman 's hair red. Bob Rose placed it at Mrs. Reece's work station a day or two before the election and called attention to it thereafter by returning to dust it off. On the morning of election day, May 26, Mrs. Reece and several others handbilled Respondent 's plant 1, the plant in which Mrs . Reece worked . Mrs. Reece handbilled from ap- proximately 6:30 a.m. to 6 : 55 a.m . The first shift began work at 7 a.m. Employees arrived at plant 1 by car. Mrs. Reece stood in a roadway linking a highway which runs past plant I and the employees ' parking lot and handed leaflets to those employees who chose to take them as they rode by. Just before Mrs. Reece stopped handbilling in order to go to work, Mrs. Dye arrived for work in her car . Mrs. Dye stopped and took a handbill . As she did , Mrs. Reece said to her that, if she and anyone else did not vote for the Union, Mrs. Reece would cut their hair off. Mrs. Reece encountered Mrs. Dye again at the timeclock as they were clocking in. Mrs . Reece commented on Mrs. Dye's attire-white shorts-by asking if she was cool. Mrs. Dye said she was not. Mrs. Reece said , "They look nice on you." Mrs . Dye thanked her for the compliment. Sometime between 7 and 9 a .m., Mrs . Dye told Mamie Stanton what "the redheaded lady" had said to her as sh' drove into the plant. Miss Stanton had been selected by Respondent as one of its observers in the election to be held that day. She went to the personnel office a few minutes before 9 a.m. to be briefed on her duties at the preelection conference She told Bob Carter , Respondent 's personnel manager, what Mrs. Dye had told her about the "redheaded lady." Carter relayed the information to Leon Baker, man- ager of all three plants. In the meantime, Mrs. Dye had gotten to the first aid room in plant 1 by a circuitous route . As she had been on a couple of days in the recent past, Mrs. Dye was sick at her stomach on the morning of May 26. Her illness was not caused or aggravated in any way by what Mrs. Reece had said to her . Mrs. Dye went to the lady' s room sometime prior to 9 a .m. There she encountered Toby Morrison, the plant nurse , who observed that she was ill . Nurse Morrison took her to the first aid room and had her lie down. As soon as Baker received Carter's report that Mrs. Reece had threatened Mrs. Dye, he went to find Mrs . Dye, picking up Rose on the way. When they entered the first aid room, Baker pulled up a chair and sat down beside Mrs . Dye. He asked what was the matter . Mrs. Dye said she had been sick. Nurse Morrison said she thought Mrs. Dye might be preg- nant . Baker asked Mrs. Dye if that was right . Mrs. Dye said she hoped not. Baker said, "Is there any other problem?" Mrs. Dye said, "No." Baker said , "Have you been threatened in a,iy shape, form , or fashion?" Mrs. Dye said , hesitantly, "No." Baker said , "Are you sure?" Mrs. Dye said that the redheaded lady who was handing out leaflets had told her if she did not vote yes, the redhead- ed lady would cut her hair off. Baker said , "Do you mean Evelyn Reece?" 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mrs. Dye said, "Yes, I do." Baker asked Mrs. Dye if she would sign an affidavit to that effect . Mrs. Dye said she would . Baker sent Nurse Morrison for paper and a notary public . He prepared an affidavit and read it to Mrs. Dye . Mrs. Dye agreed that it was accurate and signed it. It was witnessed by Baker, Rose, and Nurse Morrison and notarized by Fran Deason. It read: While coming to work on 5/26/72 Norma Jean Dye was told by Evelyn Reece that if she and everyone else did not vote for the union in the election they would get their hair cut off. Baker decided immediately to discharge Mrs. Reece. As soon as he left the first aid room , he picked up her timecard and carried it to the accounting department . He ordered her final checks to be prepared , based on a termination as of 9:30 a .m. He ordered Rose to bring Mrs. Reece to the personnel department. Mrs. Reece arrived at the personnel department at 9:15 a.m. Baker told her she was being discharged as of 9:30 a.m for threatening a fellow employee . Mrs. Reece asked which employee she was supposed to have threatened. Baker re- fused to tell her . He escorted her out of the plant. Baker immediately prepared and had posted the follow- ing notice: NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This morning it was necessary for your company to discharge Evelyn Reece because she threatened an- other employee with physical harm if that employee did not vote for the union . Your company cannot and will not tolerate such behavior and we will take appro- priate action toward any employee who threatens his or her fellow worker in connection with the day's election or anything else relating to our company. The election was held as scheduled. Mrs. Reece returned to the plant to vote , presumably 1 of the 31 challenged ballots cast that day. In any event , the votes which were counted showed a result of 299 for and 212 against Local 464. Respondent filed objections on June 5. The Regional Director recommended that the Board overrule them and certify Local 464 on July 12. The Board did so on October 5. Around 7:30 p.m on May 26 Mrs . Reece was driving past an establishment in Johnson City called The Cat's Paw with her husband when she spied Frank Chandler, Respondent's marketing manager, on the sidewalk about to enter. She called out to Chandler and asked him if the outcome of the election had suited him . He said it had not. Mrs. Reece asked where Dennis and Henry, Respondent's owners, were. Dennis happened to be standing at the bottom of a flight of stairs which leads from the sidewalk to The Cat's Paw. Apparently he overheard Mrs. Reece 's question, for he came up the steps and spoke to her. Mrs. Reece told Dennis she was put in his plant to organize it. Dennis said he was aware of that . Mrs. Reece told him not to underestimate the power of a redhead . Dennis told her that she had won a battle but not the war . At this point Leggio, Respondent's attorney , came out of The Cat's Paw and suggested to Den- nis that he would be wiser not to talk to Mrs . Reece under the circumstances. The conversation between Mrs . Reece and Dennis was of the affable , no-hard-feelings type . However , when Henry, Respondent 's other owner, came out of The Cat's Paw, the mood changed . There was an altercation in which harsh words were exchanged by both sides. Baker has , on one other occasion , discharged an employ- ee because of a report he received about that employee's alleged misconduct without giving the employee an oppor- tunity to explain . On that occasion, apparently unrelated to any union or protected activities being engaged in by the employees , two witnesses reported to Baker that the em- ployee in question had threatened to slash the tires on the car of one of them . Unlike the case of Mrs . Reece, Baker did not take an affidavit from the threatened employee or his supporting witness at that time. 2. Analysis and conclusions Since I have found that Mrs. Reece did speak the words she was discharged for speaking and since those words, considering the context in which they were spoken, consti- tuted a serious threat and not a jest, the issue is whether Baker seized on them as a pretext to get rid of Mrs. Reece or whether he was, in fact, solely motivated by them when he decided to discharge her. In that respect, this case is not unlike P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc., 199 NLRB No. 145. In Berland, the incident which triggered the discharge was the disclosure that the alleged discriminatee, Robbins, was carrying a loaded gun when he was arrested for a traffic violation. Robbins' supervisor, Berland , learned of the ar- rest and gun while Robbins was at the police station. Ber- land harbored considerable animus toward Robbins because Robbins had joined the union despite being hired as a potential management employee. He had demonstrated that animus by trying to discharge Robbins on several occa- sions , only to be thwarted by the union. When Berland learned of Robbins' arrest, he decided to discharge him. When Robbins next came to work, Berland did so, on the ground that he regarded Robbins as "too dangerous." In reversing the Administrative Law Judge's Decision that Berland's ostensible reason for discharging Robbins was a pretext masking a motive discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Board said: ... it is fair to assume that the Respondent entertained a desire to get rid of Robbins, whose union activities it resented , and was pleased to have an opportunity pre- sent itself for doing so. But that alone is not enough to establish that the discharge was in violation of Section 8(aX3). The mere fact that an employer may want to part company with an employee whose union activities have made him persona non grata does notper se estab- lish that a subsequent discharge of that employee must be unlawfully discriminatory . If the employee himself obliges his employer by providing a valid independent reason for discharge-i.e., by engaging in conduct for which he would have been discharged anyway-his discharge cannot properly be labeled a pretext and ruled unlawful. TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC. 5 Save where the reason itself is unlawful , it is not for the Board to substitute its judgment for that of man- agement as to what constitutes proper cause for dis- charge . Unless the ground advanced is inherently implausible, is unsupported by credible evidence, or is proved by the record to have been used disparately on the basis of unlawful considerations , its rejection by the Board is unwarranted. Here, the ground advanced for discharging Mrs. Reece is not inherently implausible , and it is supported by credible evidence . If "disparately" is taken to mean that all other discharges in Respondent's history were handled different- ly, the incident of the employee who threatened to slash the tires on another employee's car may well bring this case within the Board's third criterion also. Nevertheless, I find that Mrs. Reece was discharged in violation of the Act. In my opinion, the ground advanced is proved by the record to have been used by Respondent on the basis of unlawful considerations . In other words, I find Baker did seize on Mrs. Reece 's threatening Mrs. Dye as a pretext and his real reason was her union activities. The essential distinction between this case and Berland supra, is the fact that this case arose in the context of an organizing campaign and Berland did not . Baker got maxi- mum advantage out of the golden opportunity presented to him just a few hours before Respondent 's employees were to decide whether they wanted to be represented by a union, a decision vital to Respondent 's interests , by quickly notify- ing them that the leading adherent of unionism among them had lost her job. I am persuaded that Baker seized that opportunity to strike a blow for Respondent by those parts of the record which bear on Respondent 's treatment of Mrs. Reece just prior to May 26 . The person Respondent intend- ed to depict as a union steward to be shunned by the em- ployees on the poster described above was obviously Mrs. Reece, as the use of her pocketbook as a symbol proves. To make the message doubly obvious in the vicinity of Mrs. Reece's work station , the area where her prounion influence would be strongest , Respondent colored the cartoon figure's hair red on one copy and placed it near her, giving it special attention thereafter so that she and the employees she worked with would be constantly reminded of it. While Rose , the man who placed the poster and paid it special heed, denied that he did so to annoy Mrs. Reece , it is ob- vious that his orders came from higher up. The idea of painting the hair red did not originate with him . And, in any event , the crucial motive is not Rose's but Baker's, for it was Baker alone who decided to discharge Mrs. Reece without further investigation as soon as he heard Mrs. Dye 's story. While it relates not to the discharge but to the poster, I find the following excerpt from Baker's testimony while on cross-examination especially revealing: Q. Didn't you tell Bob Rose during this whole peri- od to keep a close watch on Evelyn? A. We kept a close watch on everybody; we've got about 650 people ; yes, sir. Q. That wasn't the question . Didn't you tell him to keep a close watch on Evelyn and watch her? A. No, sir. Q. To see what she was doing and who she was talking to? A. No, sir. Q. Post posters around there and get her annoyed and hope she would do something? A. We posted posters, yes, sir. Q. Right around her table. A. Yes, sir. Q. Why? A. To counteract her signs , the votes that she had and so forth. Q. Weren't you just trying to get her annoyed so that she would say something? A. Possibly, yes, sir; not to fire her but to counteract her situation with her no vote signs , or vote yes signs and the pocketbook ; yes, sir . [Emphasis supplied.] I rely on it especially in finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act on May 26 when Leon Baker discharged Evelyn Jeanette Reece because of her union activities as a whole and not solely because she had threatened that morning to cut off Norma Jean Dye's hair if Mrs . Dye did not vote for the Union that afternoon. C. Section 8(a)(1) Allegations 1. Threat of discharge On the afternoon of Tuesday , May 23 , while the employ- ees were on break , Rose followed Mrs . Reece as she walked toward Fannie Mae Nelson . When Mrs. Reece got to Mrs. Nelson she asked her whether she and another employee were going to "ride up the hill" with her that day. Mrs. Nelson said , "Yes." Rose said, "It's a pity you won't be around here after Friday." Mrs. Reece said , "I will be around." Rose said, "Oh , no, you won't , you are quitting." Mrs. Reece said, "No, I am not quitting . I may be fired, but I am not quitting." Rose said , "Oh, you are quitting , all right , you won't be around next week to see the fireworks, what a pity." The General Counsel relies on this incident to support the allegation that Respondent , by Rose, "threatened employ- ees with discharge for engaging in union activities ." In light of the evidence of various employees , which I credit, that they had reported to Rose conversations in which Mrs. Reece indicated that she was planning to leave Respondent's employ once the election was over , I see noth- ing coercive even in Mrs . Reece 's version of her conversa- tion with Rose. I, therefore , find that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by threatening its em- ployees with discharge. 2. Impression of surveillance Jimmy Cole worked on the second shift at Respondent's plant 2 . Budd Adams is general foreman on that shift. James Frank Pendleton is a departmental foreman. On Wednes- day, May 17, Cole went to supper with two organizers at a nearby restaurant , as he had on prior occasions . On one of those occasions Adams had been in the same restaurant at the same time. After supper on May 17 Cole's work happened to take 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him past Adams and Pendleton. Adams said, "We know about you." Cole said, "What do you know about me?" Adams said, "We know about him, don't we, Frank?" Cole said, "What do you know about me?" Adams said, "Your activities." The General Counsel relies on this incident to support an allegation that Respondent, by Adams, "created an impres- sion of surveillance of its employees' union activities." I think it is too ambiguous to support such a finding. I, there- fore, find that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating an impression of surveillance of its employees' union activities. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Tennessee Plastics , Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local Union 464 of Sheet Metal Workers' Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Evelyn Jeanette Reece on May 26, 1972, in order to discourase the union activities of its em- ployees , Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening its employees with discharge and creating an impression of surveillance of their union activities have not been sustained. THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is neces- sary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practice found and remedy it . I will recom- mend the usual remedy of reinstatement and backpay com- puted on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum , as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I will also recommend that Respondent be required to post appropriate notices. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]