Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 126 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate employees , or by dis-
criminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form , join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain -collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer to Sarah LaRue immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges , and will make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of the discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above -named or any other labor organization.
THE ROGERS MFG. CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-In the event the above-named employee is presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States we will notify him of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 720 Bulk-
ley Building , 1501 Euclid Avenue , Cleveland, Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465.
Von Der Ahe Van Lines , Inc. and Office Employes International
Union, AFL-CIO, Local 13. Cases Nos. 14-CA-3386 and 14-CA-
3565.1 October 11,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 28, 1965, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after , Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
'Subsequent to hearing, Case No. 14-RC-4881 was severed from this consolidated
proceeding and remanded to the Regional Director for Region 14 for further processing.
On August 18, 1965, the Regional Director set aside the election in Case No . 14-RC-4881
on the basis of Petitioner 's objections.
155 NLRB No. 2.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 127
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in the case, including the
exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings,2 Conclusions
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as herein modified.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc.,
Fenton, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
so modified :
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), the present paragraph
2(b) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively relettered :
"(b) Notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.y
,'The Trial Examiner's Decision incorrectly uses June 11 as the date for establishing
the Union 's majority and finds that , of the 27 employees found to be in the unit, 14 had
signed union authorization cards at that time. We find the critical date to be June 15,
the day on which Respondent received the Union 's demand for bargaining . Rea Con-
struction Company, 137 NLRB 1769. The Union had secured at least 17 cards by that
time. Accordingly , while we agree with the Trial Examiner that Wilson and Brewer
should be included , we note that the exclusion of their cards could not affect the result.
It also becomes unnecessary to determine whether Juanita Spiess was properly excluded
from the bargaining unit, since her inclusion would not affect the Union' s majority. We
note, however , that the issue of Spiess ' inclusion does not depend on her prospect of being
or becoming a full-time employee , as it is the Board 's policy to include regular part-time
employees in a unit.
'Inasmuch as we find no support therefor in the record , we do not adopt the Trial
Examiner 's conclusion , set forth in paragraph 8(j) of his Conclusions of Law, that
Respondent violated Section 18(a) (1) by requesting its employees to spy on other em-
ployees in order to report to management on the union activities of such other employees.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 15, 1964,1 the Office Employes International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 13,
herein called the Union, duly filed a petition (Case No. 14-RC-4881) seeking to be
certified as the statutory collective-bargaining representative of the office clerical
employees of Von Der Abe Van Lines , Inc., herein called Respondent . Thereafter
and on June 22, an agreement for a consent election was executed by the Union and
Respondent. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement , an election was conducted under
the auspices of the Regional Director for Region 14 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board.
1 Unless otherwise noted, all dates mentioned herein refer to 1964.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The aforesaid Board-conducted election was held on July 7 and the Union lost it.
On or about July 14 the Union filed timely objections to the conduct of the afore-
said election and to the conduct affecting the results of said election.
Upon a charge and two amended charges (Case No. 14-CA-3386) duly filed on
June 15 and 16 and August 4, respectively, by the Union, the General Counsel 2 of
the Board issued a complaint, dated August 13, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time, 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act
Copies of the complaint, the charges, the Union's objections to the election, the
Regional Director's report with respect to said objections, the order consolidating
Case No. 14-RC-4881 with Case No. 14-CA-3386,3 and notice of hearing were
duly served upon Respondent. Copies of the complaint, the Union's objections to
the election, the Regional Director's report with respect to said objections, the order
of consolidation, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Union.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that Respondent:
(1) Since on or about June 12, and more particularly on or about June 18, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of Respondent's office clerical employees; (2) on or about June 18, declined
the Union's request for recognition and bargaining, although Respondent well knew,
and it did not in good-faith doubt, that the Union was at that time the duly desig-
nated and selected collective-bargaining representative of Respondent' s employees in
the claimed appropriate unit; (3) since on or about June 12, engaged in an illegal
campaign to undermine the Union and to destroy its majority status; (4) on or
about June 12, discharged Lucille Wilson because she had joined or had supported
the Union; (5) on or about June 15, discharged Antoinette Langford and thereafter
refused to reinstate her because she had joined or had supported the Union; (6)
through certain named officials and supervisors unlawfully interrogated the employ-
ees about their union membership and support; and (7) since on or about June 12,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by threatening: (a) to completely shut down its
operations rather than permit its employees to be represented by the Union, (b) to
merge its business operations with another concern, or (c) to move its business to
Salt Lake City, Utah, or to some places on the West Coast; and (8) by certain
stated acts on certain stated dates otherwise interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On August 21, Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the
unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, from Septem-
ber 28 through October 2, before Trial Examiner Howard Myers. All parties were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full and complete oppor-
tunity was afforded the parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses
to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the record at the
conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs, findings of fact, and con-
clusions of law on or before November 2.4 Briefs have been received from each
party and each brief has been carefully considered.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, Respondent's counsel
made various motions to dismiss various portions of the complaint, as amended at
the hearing, for lack of proof. Some motions were granted and others were denied.
At the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, Respondent' s counsel moved to dis-
miss, for lack of proof, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, in its entirety or,
in the alternative, certain stated portions thereof. Decision thereon was reserved.
The motion is hereby disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations hereinafter set forth.
After the close of the hearing, Respondent's counsel filed a motion to correct
certain inaccuracies appearing in the stenographic report of the hearing. The motion
s This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
3 On August 21, the aforementioned Regional Director, by authority of Section 102.33
of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, issued an order consolidating,
for the purposes of hearing, the aforesaid cases.
'At the request of Respondent's counsel, the time to file briefs was extended to
November 23.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 129
is hereby granted and the motion papers, copies of which were duly served upon
counsel for the other parties, are herewith received in evidence as Trial Examiner's
Exhibit No. 1.
On January 29, 1965, the Union filed a charge (Case No. 14-CA-3565) alleging
that since on or about November 1, 1964, Respondent discriminated against Rosetta
Whitehead, Shirley Fredricks, and Margaret Strumsky because of their membership
and activities in behalf of the Union.
The General Counsel's motion to consolidate Case No. 14-CA-3565 with Cases
Nos. 14-CA-3386 and 14-RC-4881, and for leave to amend the complaint, as pre-
viously amended to allege that Respondent by certain acts and conduct further vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, was granted.
The consolidated amended complaint, dated March 22, 1965, alleged, in substance,
that Respondent (1) on or about August 23, 1964, discharged Rosetta Whitehead, on
or about October 6, 1964, discharged Shirley Fredricks, on or about October 9, 1964,
discharged Margaret Strumsky, and thereafter refused to reinstate them because said
employees had joined and assisted the Union; 5 and (2) on certain stated dates
engaged in certain acts and conduct which interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act thereby
violating Section 8(a)( I) thereof.
Pursuant to due notice , the hearing , with all parties represented , was resumed at
St. Louis, Missouri, on April 21 and 22, 1965. At the conclusion of the resumed
hearing, Respondent's counsel renewed the motions to dismiss the complaint and/or
certain portions thereof which had not been previously granted . Decisions thereon
were reserved . The motions are disposed in accordance with the findings , conclu-
sions, and recommendations hereinafter set forth.
On May 17, 1965, the General Counsel and Respondent's counsel filed briefs which
have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Respondent, a Utah corporation, has its principal offices and place of business at
Fenton , Missouri , where it is engaged in, and during all times material has been
engaged in, the operation of storing and transporting, in interstate commerce, per-
sonal effects and household goods.
Respondent annually furnishes to customers, located outside the State of Missouri,
moving and transportation services valued in excess of $50,000.
Upon the basis of the above facts, I find, in line with established Board authority,
that Respondent is engaged in, and during all times material has been engaged in,
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act and that its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the
assertion of jurisdiction.
R. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
On June 15, the Union filed a petition seeking to be certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of all Respondent's Fenton, Missouri, terminal office cleri-
cal employees, excluding professional employees, guards, all other employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
On June 22 , the Union and Respondent executed an agreement for a consent elec-
tion which was approved by the Regional Director on June 23.
On July 7, an election was conducted among the employees in the above-described
unit. The tally of ballots shows that of 40 ballots cast, 15 of them were challenged.
Of the 25 unchallenged ballots, 11 were cast for the Union and 14 against it.
On July 14, the Union filed due and timely objections to the conduct of the election
and to the conduct affecting the results of the election . There were four objections
to the conduct affecting the results of the election and one objection to the conduct
of the election.
5 Respondent 's motion, made during the course of the hearing , to dismiss the complaint
as to Strumsky was granted without objection.
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concerning the 15 challenged ballots, the Union challenged the ballots of June
Shoulders, Raymond Ammons, Annie McAnally, and Vonna Rachell on the ground
that they were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Respondent challenged
the ballot of Lucille Wilson alleging that she was a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act. The Board agent in charge of the election challenged the ballots of six
persons because their names did not appear upon the eligibility list.6
The Union also challenged the ballots of Richard Wohlschlaeger and Robert Brooks
on the ground that they were part-time employees and hence should not be included
in the appropriate unit. The Union also challenged the ballots of Ronald Von Der
Abe and Yvonne Von Der Ahe on the ground that they were son and daughter,
respectively, of Mr. and Mrs. Von Der Ahe, the owners of the entire capital stock
of Respondent.
After investigation, the aforementioned Regional Director, on August 21, issued
his decision on the consent-election agreement.
With references to the challenges, the aforesaid decision of August 21 sustained
and upheld the following challenges:
1. Those against the ballots of Ronald and Yvonne Von Der Ahe on the ground
that they were not employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act.
2. Those against the ballots of Suzanne Johnson, Richard Wolhschlaeger, Lois
Wintermeyer, Carrie Burns, and Robert Brooks on the grounds that they were college
students and only worked part time for Respondent and who clearly had no reason-
able expectancy of permanent employment with Respondent.
3. The challenge of William J. Whitaker's ballot was sustained on the ground that
he was on Respondent's confidential payroll, had no specific office hours, and his
duties included advising Respondent on office work procedures and evaluating tariffs
and the work routines of other employees.
With respect to the remaining seven challenged ballots,7 they remained unresolved
by the Regional Director in his decision.
The Regional Director, in the aforesaid decision, ordered a hearing to be held on
the above seven unresolved challenges before a Hearing Officer to be designated by
him "for the purpose of receiving evidence ... with respect to" said challenges.
However, the Regional Director, on the same day of the issuance of his decision,
August 21, also issued an order in which he ordered that Case No. 14-CA-3386 and
Case No. 14-RC-4881 be consolidated and that a hearing before a duly designated
Hearing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board be held and then proceeded
to order that both cases be consolidated for the "purposes of hearing, ruling, and
decision by a Trial Examiner" and that after said hearing "Case No. 14-RC-4881
shall be severed and transferred to the undersigned Regional Director for further
processing."
In the aforesaid decision, with respect to the Union's five "objections to election"
(one to the conduct of election and four to the conduct affecting the results of the
election), the Regional Director made no disposition or ruling on the "objecting to
the conduct of the election" other than merely noting that said objection had been
made, and regarding the "third" objection to conduct affecting the results of the
election he similarly made no disposition or ruling, merely stating with reference
thereto, that "no disposition will be made at this time on the third objection." How-
ever, regarding "first," "second," and "fourth" objections to the conduct affecting
the results of the election, the Regional Director observed that said objections were
"substantially similar to the allegations of unfair labor practices of the employer
which are alleged in the complaint and notice of hearing heretofore issued in Case
No. 14-CA-3386. These objections raise substantial issues of fact which can best
be determined by a hearing."
In said decision of August 21, the Regional Director ordered a hearing to be held
before a Hearing Officer to be designated by him "for the purpose of receiving evi-
dence relevant to the first, second, and fourth objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election ...."
In his brief, the General Counsel stated that he:
. takes no position with respect to the issues raised by the pending objections
and challenges-his duty with respect to these (to the extent they raise issues
distinct from those raised by the complaint) being solely to see that all relevant
evidence was included in the record. As, however, many of the issues raised by
The eligibility list, supplied by Respondent, showed that as of June 12 through 15,
there were 27 named employees of Respondent.
7 Those of Raymond Ammons, Annie McAnally, June Shoulders, Vonna Rachell, Lucille
Wilson, E. M. Stage, and Juanita Spiess.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 131
the objections and challenges were disposed of by stipulation, it may be conven-
ient to all parties for this memorandum here to summarize briefly the state of
the record.
The Union raised one objection to the conduct of the election and four objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Referred to hearing were the Union's first, second and fourth objections. In
substance, these involve, respectively, an allegation of unlawful surveillance in
the attendance of certain agents of the Respondent at a union meeting on
June 25 at a union meeting on June 25, 1964, allegations of certain coercive
statements threatening shutdown and other reprisals, and an allegation that
Respondent had illegally deprived union supporters of the opportunity to work
overtime. Of these allegations, the first two involved common factual issues
with allegations of the complaint, but the last-the Union's fourth objection-
was not, and will not be further discussed in this memorandum.
As to the remaining issues raised by the Union's objections, while they are not
referred to hearing, some record reference evidence bearing on each of them
exists. Reference is made to TR p. 167-169 in connection with the Union's
Objection to Conduct of Election. And in connection with the Union's third
Objection to Conduct affecting the Results of election, the same factual issue is
now placed before the Trial Examiner by one of the four substantive amend-
ments to the complaint made at the beginning of the hearing, as an additional
violation of Section 8(a) (1).
Accordingly, the only factual issue raised by way of objection and referred to
hearing before the Trial Examiner that is not covered by allegations of the
amended complaint is the Union's fourth objection, relating to overtime.
The factual issues regarding challenges were much simplified by stipulation
at the onset of the hearing, when all parties stipulated that for purposes of the
representation case, on June 16, 1964, (the eligibility date) and on July 7, 1964,
(the date of the election) Raymond Ammons, Annie McAnally, June Shoulders,
and Vonna Rachell were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act. It was also stipulated by all parties that E. M. Stage was not an employee
within the unit during the payroll period ending June 16.
Accordingly, the only disputed challenges remaining before the Trial Exam-
iner for a recommended determination are those alleging the supervisory status
of Lucille Wilson, and that raising disputed employee status of Juanita Spiess.
As to each of these, Counsel for the General Counsel has a position to assert
in connection with the allegations of the complaint.
The original charge filed herein alleged the discriminatory discharges of Lucille
Wilson and Goldie Brewer, plus various allegations of 8(a) (1) violation of the Act.
The amended charge added to the above-named alleged discriminatees, the name
of Antoinette Langford as being discharged in violation of the Act.
The second amended charge dropped the allegations regarding Brewer and added
an allegation of a violation of Section 8(a) (5), and upon that basis, the complaint
issued alleging discrimination as to Lucille Wilson and Antoinette Langford, an
unlawful refusal to bargain, and, as amended at the hearing, some 23 specific viola-
tions of 8 (a) (I).
As to the allegations of the complaint, as amended, the issues were considerably
simplified at the outset of the hearing by admissions and stipulations between coun-
sel for the parties with respect to the Board's jurisdiction, that the Union is a labor
organization, and that the unit alleged was appropriate. The parties also stipulated
that William Porter, Ammons, Shoulders, McAnally, and Rachell were supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.8
Finally, with respect to the question of majority status of the Union in the agreed
appropriate unit, a substantial limitation of the issues was reached by stipulation.
O There are two stipulations with respect to these last four named individuals. One-
appearing at pages 23 and 24 of the transcript-was unrestricted as to its purpose and
was cast in the form that Respondent contended that Wilson, Goldie Brewer, and the
aforesaid four others were supervisors, and all parties were in agreement as to the four
but in dispute as to Brewer and Wilson. The second stipulation-appearing at page 24
of the transcript-regarding Ammons, McAnally, Shoulders, and Rachell-was restricted
to the representation case, and consisted of a stipulation among the parties that the four
individuals in question were supervisors on the eligibility date and on the date of the
Board election.
212-809-66-vol. 155-10
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In response to a subpena calling for certain specified books and records of Respond-
ent, it produced a list entitled "Von Der Ahle Van Lines, Inc., Employees As Of
June 12 through June 15, 1964." This list contained the names of 27 employees.
The list referred to immediately above included the names of Juanita Spiess and
Joyce Haus, and failed to include the names of Wilson and Brewer. With the names
of Spiess and Haus physically stricken, the list was introduced and received in evi-
dence as a General Counsel's exhibit, with the covering stipulations: (1) to the effect
that, as modified, the list contains the names of employees as to whom all parties
were in agreement that said employees were within the unit during the period June 12
through 15, inclusive; and (2) that as to the disputed two employees, Spiess and Hans,
all parties agreed that they were not physically at work during the period June 12
through 15. Respondent, however, contends-and the General Counsel disputes-
that they were employees on leave of absence during that period.
It should also be noted that the aforementioned list contains the names of none
of the employees whose ballots were challenged at the Board-conducted election of
July 7, or the names of those employees whose challenges were sustained by the
Regional Director, or the names of those employees whose challenges were disposed
of by stipulation at the hearing herein, or does it contain the names of Wilson and
Brewer.
Accordingly, the question of majority status in the admittedly appropriate unit
resolves itself into the question whether there was a valid majority designation (at
the relevant time) among an agreed-upon list of 27 named employees to which list
the General Counsel would add the names of Brewer and Wilson and to which
Respondent would add the names of Spiess and Haus.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion; the refusal to
bargain collectively
1. The pertinent facts s
On June 7, Robert Babcock, the Union's business agent, met with Wilson at her
home and there mapped plans for an organizational campaign among Respondent's
Fenton, Missouri, terminal office clerical employees.
On June 11, Babcock and two other officials of the Union met with 13 employees
of Respondent at a motel near Respondent's place of business.
Wilson was the most active person in Respondent's employ in making the arrange-
ments for this meeting, inviting various employees to attend, including McAnally,
an admitted supervisor. As a result of this invitation, McAnally attended this meet-
ing, but left before any of the others and before any union authorization cards were
signed.io
At the above referred-to meeting, Babcock (1) explained about the advantages of
unionization; (2) asked the employees to sign cards applying for union membership
and authorizing it to represent them for collective bargaining; (3) explained that if
a majority of the office clerical employees signed such cards, he might be able to
obtain union recognition from Respondent without the necessity of a Board-conducted
0In the light of my observation of the conduct and deportment at the hearing of all
the persons who testified, and after a very careful scrutiny of the entire record, all of
which has been carefully read and parts of which have been reread and rechecked several
times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the credibility
problems here involved, of the fact that in many instances testimony was given regard-
ing events which took place months prior to the opening of the hearing, and of the fact
that very strong feelings have been generated by the circumstances of this case, coupled
with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this Decision to summarize all the
testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein, the following
is a composite picture of all the factual issues involved and the conclusions based thereon.
The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions, findings, and conclusions
herein, the record as a whole has been carefully considered; relevant cases have been
studied ; and each contention advanced has been weighed, even though not specifically
discussed.
1o The record fully supports the statement in Respondent's brief (p. 8), "There is no
evidence that Annie McAnally said anything at this meeting which could by any stretch
of the imagination be argued to have interfered with the rights of the employees." In
fact, McAnally attempted to persuade the employees from joining the Union by stating,
among other things, there was no need for them to organize. Obviously, since McAnally
was invited to this meeting, Respondent cannot rightfully be charged, because of such
attendance, with any violation of the Act.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 133
election, but that if such voluntary recognition was unobtainable, he could use the
cards in support of petition for an election; (4) explained the distinction between
the 30 percent showing needed to support such a petition and the majority require-
ment for recognition; and (5) explained the Union's policy of waiving the payment
of the $15 initiation fee in an organizational drive for a period of 30 days following
a Board-conducted election. After some further discussion by those attending the
meeting, all 13 nonsupervisory employees signed membership application cards,11
which cards were then handed to Babcock.
At the conclusion of the aforementioned meeting, all those attending, except
McAnally, who had left before the end of the meeting, went into the motel restaurant
for refreshments. Sitting in a booth, eating their evening meal at the time the employ-
ees entered the restaurant, were Hildred Link, a nonsupervisory employee and her
husband, Claude, a supervisor.12
Upon seeing the group of her coworkers come into the restaurant, Mrs. Link asked
Wilson, "Where have you been, to a meeting?" When Wilson replied that the
employees had been to a union meeting, Mrs. Link inquired as to what transpired.
After some further conversation, the details of which will be set forth below, Mrs.
Link signed a union membership application card,13 which she handed to Wilson,
who immediately delivered it to Babcock.
Immediately prior to, or shortly after, starting -time the next day, June 12, Wilson
secured from Jerald Cole, James Mathis, and William Robinson signed union mem-
bership application cards 14 which Wilson delivered to Babcock during her lunch
hour that day.
a. The appropriate unit
The consolidated amended complaint , as amended at the hearing , alleged , Respond-
ent admits ,15 and I find that at all times material , all Respondent's office clerical
employees at its Fenton, Missouri , terminal, excluding professional employees,
guards, supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees , constituted, and
now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, with respect to grievances , labor disputes,
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment.
I further find that said unit insures to Respondent's employees the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and collective bargaining , and otherwise effectuates the
policies of the Act.
b. The Union's majority status in the appropriate unit
At the hearing, there was introduced in evidence by the General Counsel a list
prepared by Respondent containing the names of 27 persons in Respondent's employ
during the period June 12 through 15.16 On behalf of the General Counsel, there
were offered and received in evidence 17 cards, signed by persons in the unit here-
inabove found appropriate, expressly authorizing the Union to represent the signers
thereof for the purpose of collective bargaining.17 The genuineness of the signatures
appearing on said cards, all being placed thereon on either June 11 or 12, was not
questioned or challenged.18
Respondent contended at the hearing, and in its brief argued, that the cards of
Wilson, Link, Cole, Mathis, and Robinson should not be counted. It further con-
tended and argued that Haus and Spiess were employees on leave of absence at all
times material and therefore they should be included in the appropriate unit. These
contentions and arguments will be discussed seriatim.
11 These cards also expressly authorized the 'Union to represent the signers thereof for
collective bargaining.
18 At that time the Links were living at the motel.
18 Identical to those signed at the aforesaid meeting.
14 Identical to those signed at the June 11 union meeting.
15 Respondent's answer denied the appropriateness of the unit alleged . However, at
the hearing and in its brief, Respondent admitted this allegation of the complaint.
Counsel for Respondent stated on the record that while he had no objection to appropri-
ateness of the unit as described in the complaint, he does object to the inclusion and
exclusion therein of certain named persons. This objection is discussed below.
18 This list includes the names of Joyce Hans and Juanita Spiess but does not contain
the names of Wilson or Goldie Brewer.
17 These cards included those of Wilson and Brewer.
18As found below, Doris Skaggs (also referred to in the record as June Skaggs) inad-
vertently failed to sign her card.
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is the contention of Respondent that Wilson, during all times material herein,
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. If this contention is meritorious,
then the Union did not, on June 11, or at any time thereafter, have an uncoerced
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, for, as the record clearly estab-
lishes, Wilson was not only the spearhead of the Union's organizational drive, but
she was instrumental in bringing the Union into the Respondent's terminal, solicited
members from Respondent's rank-and-file employees, and obtained signatures to at
least four union authorization cards.
Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as:
... any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline
other employees, or responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances,
or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the
exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment. [Emphasis supplied.]
Where the evidence fails to show, as here, that a purported supervisor possesses
one or more of the necessary statutory requisites, such a person cannot be classified
as a supervisor within the meaning of the statutory definition.19
At the hearing the General Counsel contended that Raymond Ammons, Annie
McAnally, June Shoulders, and Vonna Rachell were supervisors within the meaning
of the Act and they should therefore be excluded from the unit. Respondent agreed
with the General Counsel that these four named individuals are supervisors, but con-
tended that Wilson and Brewer have the same duties and supervisory responsibilities
as the other four and therefore Wilson and Brewer should likewise be excluded from
the unit. On the other hand, the General Counsel contended that Brewer and Wilson
are not, and during all times material were not, supervisors and should therefore be
included in the unit.
Prior to Wilson's employment by Respondent, she had worked with her husband
at Big Springs, Texas, in the operation of another company, which did some busi-
ness with Respondent on an agency basis.
In the early part of 1962, Wilson was hired by Mrs. Von Der Ahe to assist her
and Respondent in preparing for an Interstate Commerce Commission hearing. This
employment lasted but a few weeks.
Then Wilson was assigned by Mrs. Von Der Ahe to help McAnally in the claims
department. When her job in McAnally's department ended, Wilson assisted Mrs.
Von Der Ahe with various "odds and ends," after which Wilson was assigned to help
Mary Broomhall in the purchasing department. Wilson next "went to work" in
what is loosely called the papers and file department.
Early in the fall of 1962, after two safety and compliance department employees
had quit, Mrs. Von Der Ahe assigned Wilson to that department.
ss The Senate, in reporting its amendment to include a definition of a supervisor, clearly
showed its intention to be the drawing of a line between supervisors that are truly man-
agement and minor supervisors having no such connections . Senate Report No. 105 of
S. 1126 [1 Leg. Hist. 407, 410 (1947) ] aid:
In drawing an amendment to meet this situation , the committee has not been
unmindful of the fact that certain employees with minor supervisory duties have
problems which may justify their inclusion in that act. It has therefore distin-
guished between straw bosses, leadmen, set-up men, and other minor supervising
employees on the one hand, and the supervisor vested with such genuine management
prerogatives as the right to hire or fire, discipline, or make effective recommendations
with respect to such action. In other words the committee has adopted the test
which the Board itself has made in numerous cases when it has permitted certain
categories of supervisory employees to be included in the same bargaining unit with
the rank and file. (Bethlehem Steel Company, Sparrows Point Division, 65 NLRB
284 (expediters ) ; Pittsburgh Equitable Meter Company, 61 NLRB 880 (group lead-
ers with authority to give instructions and to lay out the work) ; Richards Chemical
Works, 65 NLRB 14 (supervisors who are mere conduits for transmitting orders) ;
Endicott-Johnson, 67 NLRB 1342, 1347 (persons having the title of foreman and
assistant foreman but with no authority other than to keep production moving).)
[Emphasis supplied.]
See also N.L.R.B. v. Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Co., 169 F. 2d 571 (C.A. 6) ;
E. B. Law and Son, 92 NLRB 826.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 135
When Wilson was first assigned to the above referred to safety and compliance
department there was a male employee working there, who was later replaced by a
girl named Katchen. When Katchen quit, her job was taken by Bertha McManus,
a new hire.
In April or May 1963, Wilson was transferred to the license and permit depart-
ment as a clerk, which job she held until June 12, 1964, when she was discharged.
Seven days later Wilson was rehired and since that date she has been performing the
same duties she performed immediately prior to her discharge.20
In support of its argument that during all times material Wilson was a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, Respondent states in its brief (p. 13), "It is undis-
puted that June Skaggs, Rosetta Whitehead and Bertha McManus were all recom-
mended for hire by Wilson and they were in fact hired."
With respect to McManus' hiring, Wilson credibly testified that when Katchen
quit, Mrs. Von Der Ahe asked her if she knew anyone who could replace Katchen; 21
that she telephoned one of her neighbors, Mary Griffin, the evening of the day Mrs.
Von Der Ahe had made the aforementioned inquiry, to ascertain whether Griffin
desired to work for Respondent; that Griffin stated that she was employed, but that
she thought another neighbor, Bertha McManus, was looking for a job; that the next
day she told Mrs. Von Der Ahe that Griffin, the person whom she thought might
accept the job, was presently employed but had remarked that another neighbor,
Bertha McManus, was looking for work; that she also told Mrs. Von Der Ahe that
day that she did not personally know McManus, did not know whether McManus had
any office experience, but that Griffin had said that McManus "was a good girl and
was a hard working girl"; that Mrs. Von Der Ahe replied, "Find out about her, find
out if she can type, and how old she is" and whether she will work for $50 a week;
that McManus, at her invitation, called at her home that evening and answered the
questions Mrs. Von Der Ahe had requested her to ask McManus; that she then
informed McManus that she would relay her answers to Mrs. Von Der Ahe and let
her know what Mrs. Von Der Abe had to say; that the next day, after she had related
to Mrs. Von Der Ahe the details of McManus' responses to the questions asked,
Mrs. Von Der Ahe said, "Well, tell her to come in but mind you ... if she doesn't
work out, we won't keep her"; that she informed McManus that Mrs. Von Der Ahe
had requested her to come to the plant; and that on the day specified by Mrs. Von
Der Ahe, she drove McManus to the plant and Mrs. Von Der Ahe hired McManus.
The facts surrounding Skaggs' employment with Respondent are as follows: Wil-
son met Skaggs when both were hospitalized in January 1964. During their various
conversations at the hospital, Skaggs mentioned several times that she did not intend
to return to her old job and asked Wilson to let her know when she heard of any
opening. After Wilson's release from the hospital, the workload in her department
increased to such an extent that it became necessary to hire another person; when
she informed Mrs. Von Der Ahe that she needed assistance, Mrs. Von Der Ahe asked
Wilson if she knew of a capable worker. Wilson told her about meeting Skaggs at
the hospital and of Skaggs' desire for employment. Mrs. Von Der Abe then
requested Wilson to have Skaggs come for an interview. Wilson did as requested.
Skaggs came to the plant, filled out an employment application form, and was
interviewed by Mrs. Von Der Ahe. About 6 weeks later, Mrs. Von Der Ahe asked
Wilson to contact Skaggs and ascertain if she still wanted to work for Respondent
and, if so, she should come to work. Skaggs reported for work, was hired by Mrs.
Von Der Ahe, and was assigned to the same department in which Wilson worked.
With respect to obtaining employment with Respondent, Skaggs testified, and I
find, that after her release from the hospital she kept in contact with Wilson; that
during one of their various telephone conversations, she mentioned to Wilson that
she would like to work for Respondent; that one morning Wilson telephoned and
stated that Mrs. Von Der Abe wanted to interview her; and that the day she went
for her interview the following transpired:
Q. Will you tell us who you saw when you went to the office and what you
did, who you talked to?
A. I went to the front window and asked for Lucille Wilson because she was
the only one in the office that I knew and I started walking on back to her
office, he showed me where her office was and she met me and took me upstairs
to Mrs. Von's office.
20 This break in Wilson's employment is discussed more fully below.
ai The credited evidence establishes that when additional help was needed Mrs. Von
Der Ahe would, on occasion, inquire among Respondent's employees if they knew of any-
one looking for a job and if they did, they referred the person to Mrs. Von Der Ahe.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Then what happened?
A. I sat in Mrs. Von's office.
Q. Was anyone else present?
A. No, sir.
Q. How long were you in Mrs. Von's office, if you recall?
A. I can't recall how long I was in there.
Q. Can you give us an approximation, two minutes or all afternoon?
A. I wasn't in there all afternoon, I was in there, I would say, a good 30
minutes at least I was in there.
Q. Tell me as best you can what you and Mrs. Von said to each other. If
you can't recall the exact words, tell us the substance of it, what was discussed.
A. One thing I can remember here and I am talking about, was where my
husband worked and I moved over here when Chrysler came over here....
Q. (By Mr. KuBIE.) When and where did you fill out application?
A. In Mrs. Von's office upstairs.
Q. Do you recall where you got the application form?
A. I can't recall whether Mrs. Von gave it to me or whether Lucille gave
it to me, I don't recall which one gave it to me.
Q. What happened after you finished talking to Mrs. Von?
A. I left out of her office and went back downstairs [sic].
Q. Whom did you see?
A. I stopped by Mrs. Wilson's desk and talked to her for a very few minutes
Q. What did you and Mrs. Wilson say to each other?
A. Nothing regarding the job, I mean all I was talking to her about was her
health since she was in the hospital the same time I was.
Regarding her employment with Respondent, Whitehead, who is Wilson's next-
door neighbor, testified, and I find that one day McManus came to her home and
said, to quote from Whitehead's credible testimony, "Mrs. Wilson and I discussed ...
an opening at Von Der Ahe Lines in the papers department and ... if I wanted to I
could fill out an application to work there ... I said , 'O.K.; I will go there Monday'
and she said, 'O.K.'; that the following Monday, she went to the plant and filled out
an employment application form; that when she got to the plant, she asked for
McManus; that after she (McManus) and Wilson had a few pleasantries, Wilson sug-
gested that she see Mrs. Von Der Ahe; that after she had filled out the application
without any help or suggestions from Wilson, the latter told her McManus would
direct her to Mrs. Von Der Ahe's office; that after being ushered into Mrs. Von Der
Abe's office by McManus, she and Mrs. Von Der Ahe discussed her scholastic back-
ground, her marital status, and the duties she would have to perform if she were
hired; and that after an hour or so of discussion, Mrs. Von Der Ahe told her to
report for work the following Monday, November 25, 1963, and she did so.
The above recital of the credited facts clearly establishes that Wilson did not rec-
ommend the hiring of either McManus, Skaggs, or Whitehead; that, at best, Wilson,
at Mrs. Von Der Ahe's specific request, obtained applicants for Respondent.
Respondent states at page 13 of its brief, "It is undenied that Wilson, at the same
time she was placed in charge of filing, recommended that the man (Mallon) who
had been doing this work be terminated and he was terminated." This statement
finds no support at all in the record . This finding is buttressed by the following
portion of Mrs. Von Der Ahe's testimony on direct examination by Respondent's
counsel:
... Then at her suggestion we let one of the filing men go, although it was
common concensus [sic] of opinion that he wasn't any good, and then directly
at her suggestion, in fact, she said to me, "Why do you not let Al Mallon go
and let me take over the filing department and I will organize it. It is a mess.
Wilson was the only employee in the licensing and registration department from
the time she was assigned to that department as an hourly paid clerk, in April or
May 1963, until Skaggs was hired in April 1964. Wilson's duties after Skagg's hir-
ing did not change one iota, except that at the commencement of Skaggs' employ-
ment she "broke in" Skaggs. Furthermore, ever since Wilson worked in the licens-
ing and registration department, she had been an hourly paid employee.
Much evidence was introduced by Respondent in furtherance of its contention that
Wilson, during all times material , was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 137
For example, testimony was given to the effect that: (1) Wilson's first assignment
as a regular, permanent employee, as distinguished from the time she was assisting
Mrs. Von Der Ahe with the ICC hearing, was the task of organizing and setting up
a filing system and training personnel; (2) upon Wilson's personal recommendation
McManus, Skaggs, and Whitehead were hired; (3) as a result of Wilson's personal
recommendations of department heads with respect to overtime are generally fol-
and registration department Respondent's "Agency Rosters," which are issued period-
ically to its agents throughout the world, were corrected to show that Wilson was a
deparment head at the Fenton, Missouri, terminal, along with McAnally, Rachel],
Ammons, and Shoulders; and (5) until the advent of the employees' union activities,
Wilson was part "of the management team" and spent more time in Mrs. Von Der
Ahe's office than any other employee, visited the Von Der Ahes' home on several
occasions, and frequently lunched with Mrs. Von Der Abe, Shoulders, and McAnally,
at which times company schedules and personnel problems and kindred topics were
discussed.
The testimony in support of Respondent's contention that Wilson was a super-
visor was elicited mainly through Mr. and Mrs. Von Der Ahe, Porter, Shoulders,
McAnally, and Ammons.
Mr. and Mrs. Von Der Abe each stressed the point that throughout all of Wilson's
employment, she had the authority to discipline employees, Skaggs in particular; and
that Wilson had the same managerial responsibilities as those possessed by Porter,
Shoulders, McAnally, and Ammons. In order to buttress the testimony of these
six named persons, Respondent introduced certain unconvincing, self-serving, docu-
mentary evidence.
Wilson denied that she was advised by anyone connected with management that
she was a supervisor with authority to discipline employees or that she possessed that
authority or any of the other types of authority set forth in the Act. Everything
considered, including the fact that Wilson impressed me as being one who is careful
with the truth and meticulous in not enlarging her testimony beyond her actual
memory regarding each and every event to which she testified, and the fact that Mr.
and Mrs. Von Der Abe, Porter, Shoulders, McAnally, and Ammons each gave me
the distinct impression that he or she was studiously attempting to conform his or
her testimony to what he or she considered to be in the best interest of Respondent, I
find Wilson's testimony to be substantially in accord with the facts.22
With respect to Mrs. Von Der Abe's entire testimony regarding the issues raised
by the pleadings in this case, I give very little credence to any of it for the reason,
in addition to that set forth above, that she denied during her cross-examination by
the General Counsel that she knew whose handwriting appeared on a certain paper
which was handed to her by said counsel while on the witness stand, whereas the
uncontroverted, credible testimony clearly establishes that the handwriting on said
paper was hers.23
Upon the basis of the entire record, I find that (1) Wilson was never apprised by
anyone connected with management that she was a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act, and (2) no Respondent employee was ever advised that Wilson was a
supervisor.
Since the amendment to the Act in 1947, it has been consistently and repeatedly
held, in cases dealing with the determination whether an employee was or was not a
supervisor, that it was an absolute necessity for the record to clearly show that one
or more types of authority set forth in the Act be present in order to prove that a
22 This is not to say that at times Wilson was not confused on certain matters or that
there were not variations in her objectivity and convincingness. But it also should be
noted that the candor with which she admitted, during long and searching examinations,
that she could not be certain as to dates, times, or exact words used, only serves to add
credence to what a careful study of her testimony shows what she honestly believed to
be the facts.
23 The writing in question reads: "When that man talks to you don't let him know you
are against the union in fact if it comes into the deal make like you are FOR them [sic]."
This note was written by Mrs. Von Der Abe on July 16, the day a Board agent was in
Mrs. Von Der Ahe's office interviewing the employees as part of the Board's Investigation
of the Union's pending objections and challenges to the aforementioned July 7 Board-
conducted election. After Mrs. Von Der Ahe had written the note, she placed it on
Respondent's telephone switchboard and then called the switchboard operator's attention
to it.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
person possessed a supervisory position.24 Likewise, it has been consistently held
that the intention of an employer to confer supervisory status upon an employee is
insufficient absent a clear announcement by him to said employee of such authority.25
It is thus clear that Wilson never possessed nor exercised any independent judgment
or discretion in the performance of her duties sufficient to warrant a finding that
she responsibly directed the work of other employees.26 The mere attachment of
the appellation of supervisor without affirmative proof of the presence of the statu-
tory requisite did not convert Wilson into a supervisor within the congressional defi-
nition. Furthermore, the notation on Respondent's "Agency Rosters," which are
issued periodically to its worldwide agencies, that Wilson was a "department head"
was in fact essentially nothing more than a paper transaction by which Wilson
became a conduit for relaying messages , directions, and the like to and from Respond-
ent and said agencies.
Under the circumstances, I find that Wilson should be included in the appropriate
unit.
Upon the entire record in the case, I find that at no time during her employment
with Respondent was Wilson a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Respondent also contended that Goldie Brewer was a supervisor and hence should
be excluded from the appropriate unit.
As to Brewer, the only evidence introduced at the bearing with respect to her pur-
ported supervisory status was the testimony of Mrs. Von Der Ahe who testified that
Brewer was in charge of "our domestic billing and she has under her Mrs. Hood and
Mrs. Kohler." Mrs. Von Der Ahe also, testified that "the department head is the
one who knows where the workload is and recommends the overtime," and that the
recommendations of department heads with respect to overtime are generally fol-
lowed. Certainly, the above description of Brewer's purported supervisory status, as
described by Mrs. Von Der Ahe, even if credited, did not make Brewer a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, and I so find. This finding is buttressed by the fact
that there is no credible evidence in the record that Goldie Brewer was ever informed
by any managerial official that she was a supervisor, that any Respondent employee
was ever informed that Goldie Brewer was a supervisor, or that Goldie Brewer ever
exercised any supervisory authority. Furthermore, Brewer, without challenge, voted
at the Board-conducted July 7 election, and there is no evidence in the record that
her duties had in any way since the date of the election changed. I further find that
Goldie Brewer should be included in the appropriate unit.
With respect to Juanita Spiess, who the General Counsel would exclude from, and
Respondent would include in, the appropriate unit, the facts are as follows 27
Spiess first worked for Respondent from 1951 until 1955, at which time she quit.
She returned 6 months later and worked until 1957, when her first child was born.
Thereafter she worked for Respondent each year from April or May until the end
of the year. In December 1963, Spiess told Mr. and Mrs. Von Der Ahe that she
had to quit her job because, as Spiess credibly testified, "My second child was going
to kindergarten and we live within a radius of the school that is walkable for a bigger
child but they don't supply the bus service for the smaller ones and I had to take her
to school and pick her up at noon and I wouldn't get to work before 1:30."
2i For example, Sioux City Brewing Company, 85 NLRB 1164, where it was held that
an employee without authority to hire, discharge, or otherwise affect the status of other
employees of his employer was not a supervisor; Calumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper
Company, 86 NLRB 126, where It was held group leaders without the statutory requisites
were not supervisors; and Warren Petroleums Corporation, 97 NLRB 1458, where it was
held that gang foremen who do not possess or exercise the power of effectively recom-
mending or responsively directing a crew were not supervisors ; F. M. Reeves and Sons,
Inc., 114 NLRB 1243, where it was held that department heads, although they instruct
the employees as to the manner in which the customers should be handled, were responsi-
ble for the arrangement of stock and fixed the lunch hours for their department but who
lacked authority to hire, discharge, promote, discipline, or to effectively recommend such
action, were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. In accord- Spiegel, Inc.
d/b/a Spiegel Fashion Shops , 85 NLRB 437; Dunlap Chevrolet Company, 91 NLRB 1115;
Montgomery Ward Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 640.
25 See, for example, Continental Oil Company, 95 NLRB 358; George R. Knight, et al.,
d/b/a Geo. Knight & Co., 93 NLRB 1193; United States Gypsum Company, 91 NLRB
404.
2e Bear Brand Hosiery Company, 93 NLRB 95, and Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 85
NLRB 1170.
271t Is the Respondent 's contention that Spiess was on leave-of-absence status on the
eligibility date (June 12 to 15).
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 139
Spiess returned to Respondent's employ on June 29, 1964, and since said date has
been working, as she testified, "One or two days a week, whenever I can make it in."
Upon the basis of the foregoing, I find contrary to Respondent's contention that
Spiess should be excluded from the appropriate unit because (1) she was not an
employee who normally would be considered on leave of absence since her rehiring
was unpredictable; (2) when she did return to work on June 29, 1964, her employ-
ment thereafter was of a part-time nature; (3) Spiess is now working but one or two
days a week, that is "whenever" she "can make it"; the likelihood of Spiess' return-
ing to Respondent's employ on a full-time, permanent basis is extremely remote; and
(4) the fact that Spiess did not appear upon the June 12 to 15 payroll list submit-
ted by Respondent clearly indicates that Respondent's present "leave of absence"
contentions is but an afterthought.
As in the case of Spiess, Respondent contends that Joyce Hans was on leave-of-
absence status during the June 12 to 15 eligibility date and also at the time of the
Board-conducted election and hence should be included in the appropriate unit.
Haus was first employed by Respondent about 4 or 5 years prior to the opening
of the original hearing herein; in 1963, she worked from February or March until
December when she quit to give birth to a child; at the time she quite in December
1963, she and Porter had the following conversation, to quote from Haus' credible
testimony:
... [Porter said] any time I wanted to come back to come back, and I told him,
well, when I got the baby sitter arranged and I felt like the baby could be left,
then I would be back.
Several days prior to Hans' return to Respondent's employ in August 1964, she had
two conversations 28 with Herman Schulte.29 In the second conversation, Hans
informed Schulte that she would like to return to work and he replied that she should
report as soon as possible.
Upon the foregoing, I find, contrary to Respondent' s contention , that Haus should
be excluded from the appropriate unit because: (1) She was not an employee who
normally would be considered on leave of absence since her rehiring was unpredict-
able; (2) there was no showing that she was carried on Respondent's records as an
employee on leave of absence; and (3 ) her name did not appear upon the June 12 to
15 payroll eligibility list submitted by Respondent which clearly indicates that
Respondent's present "leave of absence status" contention is but an afterthought.
Relying heavily on N.L.R.B. v. Gorbea, Perez & Morell, 300 F. 2d 886 (C.A 1),
Respondent argues in its brief (p. 30): "The cards which were signed at the meet-
ing were, to put it bluntly, bought." Respondent's reliance upon the above-recited
case is misplaced . The facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from
Gorbea, Perez & Morell. The employees present at the Union's June 11 meeting
were not mislead into signing the cards by any statement of Babcock, or of any other
union official, that the purpose of the cards was merely to obtain an election. Nor
was Babcock's statement that the Union's policy to waive-or defer-the payment of
initiation fees until 30 days after a Board-conducted election any indication that the
cards signed at the aforesaid meeting were "bought." This is not a situation, as in
Gorbea, Perez & Morell, where employees are told by the representative of the
labor organization involved that certain fees and/or dues would be waived only for
those who signed authorization cards or joined the union prior to becoming recog-
nized by an employer as the collective-bargaining representative. In fact, controlling
law is basically as the second circuit recently pointed out in Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America (Edro Corp.) v. N.L.R.B., 345 F. 2d 264, regarding a case very
similar to the instant one:
We have no doubt that Amalgamated's waiver helped to induce Edro's employ-
ees to sign the authorization cards; but so did Amalgamated's promise to better
their working conditions if it obtained majority status. The question remains
whether the inducement was proper or improper. [N.L.R B. v. Gorbea, Perez &
Morell, 328 F. 2d 679-681 (C.A. 1).] We must consider, among other things,
what justification there may have been for the waiver and the extent to which it
foreclosed a rational decision on the part of the employees. Id. at 681-682.
We are satisfied that Amalgamated had a construction reason to waive its
initiation fees prior to the time when it signed a contract with Edro. Employees
otherwise sympathetic to the union might well have been reluctant to pay out
money before the union had done anything for them. Waiver of the payments
The first conversation was by telephone and the second in person.
The head of Respondent ' s accounting department.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would remove this artificial obstacle to their endorsement of the union. We are
also satisfied that the waiver did not unduly pressure Edro's employees into
signing up at once with Amalgamated. The authorization cards clearly stated
that the waiver was effective until the union executed a collective bargaining
agreement. This statement gave adequate notice to all employees, whether they
approved or disapproved of the union, that they had nothing to lose by waiting
for the union to achieve recognition before applying for membership. Accord-
ingly, we hold that the waiver of initiation fees by Amalgamated in no way
nullified the proof that it enjoyed majority support among Edro's employees
prior to the election. N.L.R.B. v. Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co., 112 F. 2d 756,
758 (2 Cir. 1940); N.L.R.B. v. Taitel, 261 F. 2d 1, 4 (7 Cir. 1958), cert. denied
359 U.S. 944 (1959).
In its brief (p. 30) Respondent argued, and at the hearing contended, that Mil-
dred (Lou) Link, James Mathis, and Jerald Cole were induced to sign union cards
through "misrepresentation and pressure, i.e., there was going to be a closed shop
forcing all employees to be union members; a majority had already signed up, so
there was no question that the Union would be the bargaining agent; they would
have to sign up anyway and by signing now they could save the initiation fee. Cards
obtained in this manner are not entitled to be counted." The circumstances under
which each of the three named persons signed union authorization cards will be
discussed seriatim.
As noted above, when Mrs. Link saw a group of her coworkers enter the motel's
restaurant the night of the June 11 union meeting, she asked Wilson whether the
group had attended a meeting. After being advised by Wilson that the employees
had attended a union meeting, Mrs. Link asked what happened thereat. According
to Wilson's testimony the following then transpired:
And I said, "Well, it is kind of a long story, do you mind if I sit down?" And
she said, "No, not at all." And she scooted over and I sat down next to her and
I explained briefly what had taken place at the meeting, that we had talked with
Mr. Babcock about the pros and cons of a union, and she said, "Well, what did
you decide?" And I said, "Well, all of us with the exception of Annie decided
we wanted to be members at the meeting and we signed some membership
cards."
TRIAL EXAMINER: Who is Annie?
The WITNESS: Annie McAnally.
A. (Continuing) So to the best of my recollection, she said something about
well, do I get to, or am I going to have a chance to, and I had some in my hand
and I said, "Sure," and I slid the card across the table to her and I said, "Put your
money where your mouth is," and she looked at her husband and said, "Should
I," and Claude said, "Don't ask me, it is up to you." She looked at the card
and she looked at her husband and she said, "Well, do you really think I should?"
And her husband said, words to the effect, "Now, look, girl, that is your decision
to make, don't ask me." "Well," she said, "I think I will," and her husband
handed her a pen and she filled out the card. And before that, though, she
said, "How many do you have?" And I said, "We need one more to make a
majority," and then that is where she asked her husband, and when she finished
filling out the card she handed it to me and said, "Well, there it is." And Mr.
Babcock was sitting at a table close to us and I just reached across and I said,
"Here you are, Mr. Babcock, here is another one and that makes a majority."
Mrs. Link and I and Mr. Link chatted for a few minutes longer about union
activity, the pros and cons of the union and Mr. Link and Mrs. Link both agreed
that unions had their good points and then I rejoined the group I came in with
at the table and ordered dinner.30
Regarding the circumstances surrounding her signing the union card, Mrs. Link
testified as follows:
Q. Now, Mrs. Link, will you tell the Trial Examiner exactly what occurred
on the night of June 11 when you signed the union card which is in evidence as
General Counsel's Exhibit 11?
A. Mr. Link and I were in the restaurant eating dinner in the evening. We
received it in a booth and a group of Von Der Ahe employees came in with a
gentleman whom I later learned was Mr. Babcock and they walked back close
to where we were and the greater share of the group sat down at a table and
° Employee Goldie Brewer, who attended the meeting, sat at the Link table for a few
moments. She left prior to Mrs. Link's signing the union card.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 141
Mrs. Wilson sat down in the booth beside me and Mrs. Brewer sat down beside
my husband. How long she sat there I don't remember. She sat there for a
few minutes. I asked Lucille where they had been and she said they had been
to a union meeting and I asked her where and she told me in a motel room and
she numbered it, but I don't remember which one she said. So my husband
asked her if it was a union meeting concerning Von Der Ahe and she said yes
and Claude said, "You are crazy," and she said, "Well, we may be, but we have
got a union, the majority has already signed cards and the ones that have not
will sign them in the morning and there will be a man in the office Monday
morning to organize the union."
Q. Now, what did you say at that time when Mrs. Wilson told you that a
majority had already signed and the rest were going to sign in the morning and
the union man would be out Monday morning?
A. I said it was surely going to be a union, a closed shop. She said, "Yes,
it would be a closed shop" and if I wanted to work there, I would have to sign
a union card and I said, Well, if it was going to be a closed shop I would go
along with it and she said, "Put your money where your mouth is" and she
pulled a card out of her purse and I signed it, but I didn't read the card.
Mr. Link's version of the events leading up to his wife's signing the union card,
as given under direct examination by Respondent's counsel, is as follows:
A. I think we had just finished lunch and a group of the employees came in
lust as we were finishing lunch and we-I think Lou asked [Wilson] where in
the world have you been or something of that sort, I am not quoting, this is the
gist of what exactly happened, where have you been, and I was at a meeting,
and she said, a meeting, what kind of a meeting, a union meeting, so I said,
"Well, girl, you are crazy." This is Lucille I am speaking to. And she said,
"Well, we may be, but we've got a union anyway, because we already have a
majority and the rest of them will join in the morning and the union fellows will
be out there, the gentlemen to organize the union Monday morning."
Q. (By Mr. MOLLER.)31 Was there, do you recall, any conversation about a
closed shop?
A. Yes, sir, there was. I don't-it would be impossible for me to tell exactly,
everyone was talking big and loud and the tables had filled up with all of these
employees and actually it was hard for me to tell what was going on at my own
table, because everybody was in a jesting mood, laughing and talking on and,
as I recall, it was said, well, if it is going through like that then it will, it will be
a closed shop. I think possible my wife must have said that. I think one of us
said something about the closed shop. I said to my wife, "That throws you in a
pickle then, because if it is like that, it will be a closed shop," and she asked the
question then about this being a closed shop and she said it would be a closed
shop and if they all voted it would go in as a landslide.
Q. What did Lucille say in reply to the question?
A. I don't remember, to that question.
Q. Were the other people who were seated at the other table near by, were
they employees of Von Der Ahe?
A. Yes. That was the idea, when they first came in, Lucille sat down with
my wife and Mrs. Brewer sat down with me. She stayed there no longer than
it took the rest of them to seat [sic] at the table and I would guess that possibly
in less than a minute she got up after the others were seated and went over and
sat down with the group....
Q. Now, what were the people seated at the table next to you doing while
your wife and Lucille and you were talking?
A. It would be impossible for me to tell because they were all talking, every-
one, the meeting was just breaking up. They were, in fact, talking so much it
was hard for me to concentrate on what was going on at my table.
Under cross-examination by the Union's counsel, Mr. Link testified as follows:
Q. (By Mr. BARTLEY.) Mr. Link, you used the phrase "closed shop." By
that phrase do you mean a union contract which requires people who are work-
ing for the company to become a member of the union within a certain number
of days after?
31 Respondent's counsel.
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. I know nothing about the certain amount of days. I am talking that you
are required to belong to it if you work. In fact, I didn't even know at the
time, I wasn't even aware but what a Mr. Babcock had just come out and put
his stamp on the place that then it was unionized.
Q. Do you know what closed shop is, sir?
A. I know that you must belong to the union to go to work.
Q. Before or after you go to work?
A. To work, to be able to work there.
Q. Do you have to be a member before you go to work or after you go to
work?
A. I know what you are getting at, but I might as well make myself clear,
out of my 30 years of working I have either been an employer or in the super-
visory class about 28 years. That should answer everything.
Q. Well, I am only asking you, sir, what you understand about the phrase
"closed shop."
TRIAL EXAMINER: You use different words. What he wants to find out, do
you have to be a member of the union before you can get the job or do you have
to become a member after you got the job?
The WITNESS: It is my understanding that, limited understanding, I will put
it that way, that if you are with an organization as it goes in, there are no
charges on getting in, because you are part of the initial, we will say, charter
members, but if you naturally come dragging along behind or are employed
later, naturally you would pay initiation fees.
Q. (By Mr. BARTLEY.) Do I understand your last statement to be your
understanding of what was meant by the phrase "closed shop?"
A. Yes, sir, more or less.
Q. As you understand it?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Link's entire redirect examination is as follows:
Q. (By Mr. MOLLER.) What is your understanding about a closed shop with
respect to whether or not you must belong to the union?
A. If it is closed shop, you would certainly be a union member. In fact,
we have a closed shop in our local work out there. We use, the one I supervise,
we use no one
TRIAL EXAMINER: (interrupting): I will assure you that you haven't got a
closed shop. You have a union shop.
The WITNESS: Let's not argue. I don't even know anything about union.
All I know is being a supervisor sometimes is a headache.
Upon the entire record in the case, I am convinced, and find, that at no time dur-
ing the above referred-to conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Link did Wilson mention
the words "closed shop" or the words "union shop"; nor did she inform the Links,
prior to Mrs. Link's signing the union card, that the Union had already obtianed the
signatures of the majority of Respondent's employees. This finding is not only
based upon my observation of the demeanor of the three named persons while they
were on the witness stand, but is also buttressed upon the convincingness and uncon-
vincingness of their respective testimonies.32 Furthermore, no other witness testified
that Wilson, or anyone connected with the Union, mentioned the words "closed
shop" or "union shop" in their various conversations with the employees. If the
above-quoted words were used in the June 11 conversation between Wilson and the
Links, they were used by Mrs. Link and not by Wilson. Moreover, the record not
only discloses that Mr. Link does not know the difference between a "closed shop"
and a "union shop," but the fact that he did not hear everything his wife and Wilson
said is illustrated by the following question propounded to him by Respondent's
counsel and his answer:
Q. Now, what were the people seated at the table next to you doing while
your wife and Lucille [Wilson] and you were talking?
A. It would be impossible for me to tell because they were all talking, every-
one, the meeting was just breaking up. They were, in fact, talking so much it
was hard for me to concentrate on what was going on at my table.
8 It has been my observation that since the development of machinery for "union
security" the term "closed shop" has taken on a generic meaning, applied generally by
laymen, to any provision of a collective-bargaining contract that contains an element of
compulsion in the matter of becoming a member of a contracting union or maintaining
membership in good standing therein.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 143
Under the circumstances, I find that Mrs. Link's card should be counted.
James Mathis testified that on the morning following the June 11 meeting, Wilson
came to his desk and asked if he would "sign an application for union membership";
that he asked her "if [the Union] had been voted in and she said it carried by a safe
majority and I stated that I would go along any time with the majority and I did
sign a card."
Wilson testified that on the morning of June 12, before entering the building to
go to work, she walked over to Mathis, who was sitting in his car, and told him
about the June 11 union meeting; that when she started to explain about the Union,
Mathis interrupted her by telling her that he knew all about unions, having been on
both sides, 33 and that after going inside the terminal building she talked to Mathis
further. Wilson further testified that she could not recall whether she had given
Mathis a union card outside of the building or inside the building; that she believed
she gave him the card inside the building because the cards were in her purse; that
when she again asked Mathis while they were inside the building if he wanted to
sign a membership card, he said, "Sure, why not, what have I got to lose"; and that
he signed a union card and handed it to her.
Apparently, it is Respondent's contention that Mathis would not have signed the
card if he had not been assured by Wilson that "a safe majority" of the employees
had already signed cards. The record, however, does not support such an apparent
contention for there is nothing in Mathis ' testimony to indicate that he had relied on
any assurances of the Union's majority before he signed the card.
Under the circumstances, I find that the Mathis card should be counted.
Jerald Cole did not attend the union meeting of June 11, but signed a union card
at Wilson's request the following morning.
Regarding the circumstances surrounding Cole's signing the card , Wilson testified
that, in the presence of Jan Griffith and Rose Whitehead, she told Cole about the
meeting the Union held the previous night at which union cards had been signed;
that she then asked him if he wanted to sign a card and he replied, "How many do
you have?"; that after she had stated, "More than enough," he said he would sign;
and that he then and there signed the union card which Wilson gave him.
Cole testified that at 8:20 a.m. on Friday, June 12, Wilson, in the presence of Jan
Griffith and Barbara Paul (and he thought two other employees were also present),34
told him that everyone around had joined the Union the night before; that Wilson
told him that the reason he had not been told about the Union or invited to the
meeting was due to the fact that Wilson feared that if he were advised of the meet-
ing he would "tell Ray Ammons or Bill Porter about it and [Wilson also told him]
that if I joined now that it wouldn't cost me anything and if I waited until later,
there would be some fee."
Wilson denied that she told Cole that if he "joined now that it wouldn't cost [him]
anything." In fact, she testified, "Money was not discussed, initiation fees was not
discussed and dues were not discussed."
As noted above, Wilson was a credible witness. On the other hand, Cole was not.35
Accordingly, I find that Wilson's version of what was said and done at the time Cole
signed the union card to be substantially in accord with the facts. I further find
that Cole's card should be counted.
There is, apparently, some question of the validity of the union card of Betty
Clark. The facts concerning this card are as follows: Clark arrived at the June 11
union meeting after Babcock had finished explaining the significance of the cards
1a Prior to Mathis ' employment with Respondent he had been a union member and at
another time a member of management.
as Presumably , Bertha McManus and Rose Whitehead.
as This finding is based not only on the fact that Cole, while under cross -examination
by the counsel for the General Counsel, clearly displayed his contempt for said counsel
but upon these further facts : ( 1) Cole gave a dinner party at his apartment to a small
group of his friends , including Porter, the night before the Board -conducted election.
Porter remained at Cole's apartment after the other guests had departed . Up to that
evening, Cole had always openly expressed his sympathies for the Union and had been
elected a member of the Union's bargaining committee. The day following the aforesaid
dinner party, Cole told former employee William Robinson that as a consequence of his
conversation with Porter the previous evening, he had changed his mind and voted
against the Union at the aforesaid election; (2) when Cole was subpenaed by the General
Counsel to testify in the instant proceeding , he informed counsel for the General Counsel
that he did not want to talk to him; and (3) Cole told employee Lucille Scharnhorst
that he intended to falsely testify that he was pressured into signing the union card and
was "misinformed " when he signed it.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which had been distributed; when Wilson handed Clark a card, she glanced at it and
then filled it out and signed it; and, Clark handed it back to Wilson, who, in turn,
handed it to Babcock.
Clark credibly testified that she read the boldfaced heading, "OFFICE EMPLOYES
INTERNATIONAL UNION," appearing on the union card which Wilson had given
her; that she "might have" read the words "Application for Membership," which
words appear on the line immediately below the above-quoted boldfaced typed words;
that she "glanced" at the following:
Desiring to become a member of a Local Union chartered by the Office
Employes International Union, AFL-CIO, I hereby make application for admis-
sion to membership and authorize such organization to be my exclusive collec-
tive bargaining representative.
Clark further credibly testified that [s]he read the rest of her card, filled in the blank
spaces calling for (1) her name, (2) her social security number, (3) her street
address, (4) her telephone number, (5) the city and state of her residence, (6) her
occupation, (7) her employer's name, and then she dated and signed the card. It is
safe to infer, which I do, that when Clark filled in, dated, and signed the card, she
knew that the purport of the card was the seeking of membership in the Union and
authorizing it to represent her for the purpose of collective bargaining. This finding
is supported by the fact that Clark has had 3 years of high school, has attended busi-
ness college for 2 years, and has been a legal secretary for 7 years.
Upon the record as a whole, I find that Clark's card should be counted.
At a prehearing conference with June Skaggs, the General Counsel called her
attention to the fact that her union card was unsigned. Skaggs testified, and I find,
that she unintentionally failed to sign the card; that she did, however, complete the
remainder of the card, calling for name, social security number, address, telephone
number, occupation, and name of employer. Skaggs was then shown General Coun-
sel's Exhibit No. 20, which she identified as the card she had filled out, and which
lacked her signature.
Under the circumstances, Skaggs' signature to the union card was not essential to
a valid authorization of the Union as her collective-bargaining representative,36 and
her failure to sign the one here involved through simple oversight, cannot be of any
consequence 37
I have compared the names appearing on the aforementioned union membership
application-authorization cards received in evidence as General Counsel's exhibits
with the June 12 to 15 payroll list submitted by Respondent and received in evi-
dence 38 and find, that, as of June 11, 14 employees 39 in the appropriate unit had
signed cards designating the Union as their collective-bargaining representative 40
I therefore find that on June 11, the Union was, and at all times thereafter has been,
the duly designated representative of Respondent's employees in the unit hereinabove
found appropriate. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union
was, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
c. The refusal to bargain
Mrs. Von Der Abe testified that about 9:30 a.m. on June 12, she and her husband
arrived together at Respondent's place of business; 41 that as they entered the side
door of the terminal building she noticed "all of the employees were huddled about
86 American Newspaper Publishers Association v. N.L.R.B., 193 F. 2d 782 (C.A. 7).
37 Irving Taitel, et al., d/b/a I. Taitel & Son, 119 NLRB 910, enfd. 261 F. 2d 1 (C.A. 7).
Is To which list the names of Brewer and Wilson are to be added.
9 Namely, Goldie Brewer, Betty Clark, Virginia Hood, Juanita Kohler, Hildred Link,
Antoinette Langford, Bertha McManus, Patricia Payne, June Skaggs, Lucille Scharn-
horst, Margaret Strumsky, Rosetta Whitehead, Lucille Wilson, and La Verne Wilt.
4o r also find that on June 12, Cole, Mathis, and Robinson signed cards designating the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
41 The normal starting time for the office employees was 8 a.m.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 145
in little groups, no one was doing any work," there "was a commotion"; that because,
"I had some papers in my hand, I went on the way up the backstairs to my office.
As I passed [Wilson' s] door I said, "What is this? Come on up." 42
What transpired immediately after she arrived at Mrs. Von Der Ahe's office, Wilson
credibly testified as follows:
Mrs. Von Der Ahe first opened the conversation by saying, "I want you to tell
me all about that business ," and I said, "What business?" And she said, "You
know what I mean, that union business." And I told her, "I will tell you what
I can." And she said, "Who was at the meeting last night and who signed
cards?" And I said, "I am sorry, I can't tell you that." She then asked me who
was, who started it and who was responsible for it and I said, "Well, if you
want to blame anyone, blame me, I started it, I will take full responsibility."
She then went on to say, "You, how could you do this, what were you thinking
of? Why did you do it?" And I started to explain to her why we did it. I tried
to tell her that it was not meant as a personal affront to her, that there were many
people in the office who felt that everybody could benefit from the union by
being organized. Mrs. Von Der [sic] was very upset, she told me I didn't know
what I was talking about and that that was what was wrong with America today,
unions were bad, that she would not stand for a union being in her office. It was
her company, she would run it the way she wanted to and that before a union
came in she would blow it up first, and many, many things.
Q. Blow what up first?
A. Just, "I will not have a union in here, I will blow it up first."
Q. Go ahead.
A. And she was very upset and talked rapidly. It would be difficult for me
to tell everything that she said in continuity at this time. At one point she told
me I could get my little group together, tell them to back down and retract or
we would all be sorry.
Wilson further testified that at this point, she noticed McAnally standing in the door-
way of Mrs. Von Der Ahe's office; that she remarked to Mrs. Von Der Ahe, "If Annie
wants to come in, if it is all right with you, it is all right with me"; that McAnally
then entered the office and Mrs. Von Der Ahe immediately asked McAnally, "Tell
me what went on in the meeting last night"; that McAnally told Mrs. Von Der Abe
"in general terms" that Babcock had discussed the pros and cons of union organiza-
tion ; that then McAnally "went on to tell about how she had tried to persuade the
people at the meeting that we didn't need a union where we worked, that a union
wasn't needed at the Von Der Ahe office and how she had tried to persuade the
people not to consider organizing the union in the office"; that she asked McAnally
who was present at the hearing; that before McAnally could answer Mrs. Von Der
Ahe's question, the telephone rang and upon picking up the telephone receiver, Mrs.
Von Der Abe said, "All right, come on up, but when you get on up here keep your
mouth shut and listen for a change"; that shortly thereafter Mr. Von Der Ahe entered
his wife's office and immediately said, "We'll get rid of those god-damned billers 43
first, the s.o.b.'s are causing all of this trouble, bunch of damn Communists, and the
first one to go is that Commie (pointing at Wilson), we will get rid of them and
bring I.B.M 44 in"; that thereupon, Mrs. Von Der Ahe told her husband to "shut up
42 It seems incredible to me that a person of Mrs. Von Der Ahe's "overpowering" per-
sonality-the impression she clearly demonstrated while she was present at the hearing-
coupled with the fact that she was, according to the record as a whole, the one who, in
reality, supervised and directed the duties of all office personnel , supervisory as well as
nonsupervisory , would not have stopped to ascertain why the employees were not at work
upon her arrival at the terminal merely because she had "some papers" in her hand.
Mrs. Von Der Ahe's "overpowering" personality is forcibly shown when , in the presence
of Wilson and McAnally , she ordered Mr. Von Der Abe over the telephone to join her,
Wilson, and McAnally in the meeting which was then taking place in her office on June 12
(the details of which will shortly be set forth ) in the following words: "Come on up,
but when you get here keep your mouth shut and listen for a change," and by the fact
that when Mr. Von Der Abe arrived at the meeting and had attempted to express his
opinion of Wilson and the Union, Mrs . Von Der Abe immediately told him to "shut up
and sit down."
43 The persons working in the billing department.
d4 International business machines.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and sit down"; and that at this juncture, Mrs. Von Der Abe received a telephone call,
left the office, and Mr. Von Der Ahe remained with her and McAnally; that after
Mrs. Von Der Ahe had left the office, Mr. Von Der Ahe turned to McAnally and
remarked that she "was not involved in this union business because she was in a
supervisory capacity, that the only reason she was on a time clock was because the
Labor Board 45 had made [Respondent] put her on a time clock"; and, that when
Mrs. Von Der Ahe returned to the meeting, her remarks were "more or less more
of the same [nature] .... She wouldn't tolerate a union in her business" and that
she (Wilson) "had better understand that" and "retract" her union affiliations 46
On June 14, Babcock wrote Respondent that the Union represented the office
clerical employees and requested that Respondent recognize the Union as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of those employees and to set a date for the purposes
of discussing the matter.
On June 16, one of Respondent's counsel replied to Babcock's letter, stating, in
pertinent part:
My client has no evidence before it that its office clerical employees have
authorized you to represent them ....
My client is entitled to have exhibited to it evidence of your Local being so
designated . If you have such evidence , please contact me ....
Upon the entire record in the case, I find that on June 16 ,47 and at all times there-
after, Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit hereinabove found
appropriate. I further find that by such refusal , which is violative of Section 8(a) (5)
of the Act, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Setcion 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) thereof.
About 5 p.m. on June 12, Herman Schulte, head of Respondent's accounting depart-
ment, met Wilson at the time clock and asked whether Wilson wanted her check.
When Wilson replied, "What check?" Schulte said, to quote from Wilson's undenied
and credible testimony, "You have three days coming." When Wilson asked, "Am I
fired?" Schulte replied in the affirmative. Wilson then left Schulte, went to the office,
and there, according to Wilson's credible testimony, the following transpired:
I went right to the door of the office and I said, " Excuse me , but am I fired?"
Mr. Von Der Ahe said, "You bet you are," and Mrs. Von Der Abe said, "Yes,
baby doll, you are," and Mr. Von Der Ahe said, "And not for the reasons you
think." I said, "Well, what are the reasons, I would like to know." Mr. Von
Der Ahe said, "You will get those reasons in a letter." I said, "I would like to
know now," and Mrs. Von Der Ahe said, "All right, we will tell you the reasons
in just a moment." And I went to a telephone and asked for Herman and asked
Herman if he would make out my check and bring it down and he told me he
would. And Mrs. Von Der Ahe said, "These are the reasons you are being
fired," and she read off reasons like I didn't have any tact, I was belligerent,
I was unable to cope with my job, it was affecting my health, I couldn't get along
with people in the office, and I don't remember what they all were. She read
off a list of reasons and just as she was finishing reading Herman came in with
my check and he went to hand it to me and I indicated that he hand it to Mrs.
Von Der Ahe for signature and she signed it and handed it to me, and I looked
at her and looked at the payroll stub and asked her if she would mark the pay-
roll stub "termination," and I asked if she would initial it and she said yes and
she handed it back, and I told her thank you and she made some remarks, "You
have got a bad problem and I feel sorry for you," and I said, "Thank you," and
left.
Pursuant to a telephone call from one of Respondent's counsel, Wilson was rein-
stated on June 19 to her former job without loss of pay.
Upon the record as a whole, I find that Wilson was discharged on June 12 because
of her membership and activities in behalf of the Union. I further find that by such
discharge, Respondent violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
45 Undoubtedly, meaning the wage and hour division of the Labor Department.
The above referred-to meeting lasting about 2 hours.
47 The date of the aforementioned letter of Respondent 's counsel to Babcock.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 147
Between 9:30 and 10 a.m. on June 13, Mr. Von Der Abe stopped at the desk of
employee Lucille Scharnhorst and, according to Scharnhorst's testimony, the follow-
ing conversation between her and Mr. Von Der Ahe took place:
Q. And what did he say to you and what did you say to him?
A. When he stopped at my desk, the conversation started there, and he said,
"I understand we have a lot of dissatisfied people and we are going to have a big
union office." And I said, "Well, Mr. Von, I really don't know." And he said,
"Are you dissatisfied?" And I said, "Over a couple of things,' and I asked him,
"Would you like to talk about it, Mr. Von," and he said, "Yes." And I said,
"I don't care to discuss it at my desk, may I come into your office?" And we
went in and we talked and Mr. Von, I asked Mr. Von, I said, "Is this an employer
and employee or just as friends?" He said, "Let's talk as friends." And he asked
me what people were dissatisfied, what I was dissatisfied about, and I told him
and he made the remark, well, if we were, why didn't we just quit, and we just
thoroughly discussed it.
Q. What else did he say?
A. Well, he stated that he was very much against having the union and at
that time he didn't feel like he was financially able for a union, and he said he
could do several things, he could merge with U.S. Van Lines or he could move
the office to the West Coast or Salt Lake City or he could just shut his doors,
and he also made the statement that he could bring his family in and they could
run the business themselves.
Regarding the incident referred to immediately above, Mr. Von Der Ahe testified
as follows:
Q. There was testimony yesterday, by Mrs. Scharnhorst, that on Saturday,
June 13, you had asked her about her union membership or how she felt about
the union. Do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you say anything like that to Mrs. Scharnhorst?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you threaten to merge with U S. Van Lines rather than permit repre-
sentation of your employees by the union)
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you threaten to move your business to Salt Lake City or the West
Coast or shut down rather than permit your employees to be represented by
the union?
A. No, sir.
In the light of the entire record, coupled with the fact that Scharnhorst impressed
me as being an honest, straightforward witness, whereas Mr. Von Der Ahe did not
so impress me, it is found that Scharnhorst's version of her talk with Mr. Von Der
Ahe on June 13 to be substantially in accord with the facts and that Mr. Von Der
Ahe's version thereof is rejected.
On June 12, several hours after he had signed a union card, William Robinson,
a former Respondent employee, was called into Mr. Von Der Ahe's office and, in
the presence of Mr. Von Der Ahe's son, Ronald, and Salesman Breen, the following
took place, according to Robinson's testimony:
A. Mr. Von Der Ahe called me in to his office and he said, "Robby," he says,
"why did you sign that card?" And, "Why do people want a union?" And I
told him, I said, "Mr. Von Der Ahe, actually I don't think that the people want
a union, they just want better organization within the company and we feel that
we can't get it, you know, ourselves, so that is why they wanted a union."
Q. Do you recall anything else that was said?
A. Well, there was a lot of conversation.
Q. As much of it as you can recall?
A. He said that he could always shut down the plant and turn it over to
another company, but I forgot what company he said it was.
Q. He mentioned a company?
A. Right, but I forgot what it was And then Mrs. Von Der Ahe came in
and she listened to our conversation for a couple of minutes and she said, well,
everybody that signed the cards would be fired unless they retracted it and Mr.
Von Der Ahe says, "Everybody?" And she said, "Everybody." So the conver-
sation ceased with that.
212-809-66-vol. 155-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regarding the incident referred to in the above-quoted Robinson testimony, Mr.
Von Der Abe testified as follows:
Q. You heard Mr. Robinson's testimony yesterday, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the morning of June 12 did you call William Robinson into your office
and say, "Robbie, why did you sign that card and why do people want a union?"
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you call him into your office that morning and talk about the union
at all?
A. No, sir.
Q Did you at any time say to William Robinson that you could always shut
down the plant and turn it over to another company?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mrs. Von Der Ahe ever say in your presence, in your office and in
the presence of William Robinson, that everybody who signed a card would be
fired unless they retracted?
A. I never heard her say that, make a statement like that.
In the light of the entire record, and from my observation of Mr. Von Der Ahe
while each was on the witness stand , I find that Robinson 's version of what was said
and who were present during the aforesaid conversation , to be substantially in accord
with the facts. This finding is buttressed not only by the fact that Mr. Von Der Ahe
did not impress me as being a forthright , honest witness (whereas Robinson impressed
me as being a very honest and truthful witness), but by the fact that while not deny-
ing that a conversation with Robinson took place as described in detail by Robinson,
Mr. Von Der Ahe failed to give his version of what was said.
Later that day, June 12, Robinson asked Mr. Von Der Ahe if he should work the
next day, Saturday, June 13. Mr. Von Der Ahe replied in the negative, adding that
Robinson 's job would soon be eliminated and therefore there was no present need
to work overtime 48
That evening , June 12, Raymond Ammons, supervisor of Respondent 's overseas
department, telephoned Robinson. Regarding this conversation, Robinson testified
as follows:
Q. Can you tell me what Mr. Ammons said to you and what you said to him
on the telephone that evening?
A. We found out that Lucille (Wilson) was fired, in fact, I was there when
they told her.
Q. Is this something that he told you?
A. This was something that was discussed in the conversation that I was get-
ting to, you know, he called and I knew that Lucille was fired and she was going
to go to the National Labor Board with this thing and that he said Goldie, Mr.
Von Der Ahe told Edsel that he would have to let Goldie go for a few months
because if she stayed around there it would mean his job, and he told me, he
said , "Well, Lucille got fired today" and I probably will be next. And "Why
don't you go to Mr. Von Der Ahe tomorrow and tell him the reason you signed
that card was because they assured you that the union was going to come in
and that it was just more or less cut and dry." And I said, "No, I am not going
to do this." And I said I signed that card because I wanted that union.
Q. Was anything further said?
A. I wouldn't retract my card or my statement or anything from him because
I told him, "If I believe in something, I am going to believe in it," you know.
Q. Was that all that was said?
A. Yes, on the telephone.
Q. Who is Edsel Brewer, if you know?
A. He is the shop foreman 49
Q. And who is Goldie Brewer9
A. She is an employee of Von Der Ahe Van Lines, his wife.
Q. Did Goldie Brewer, in fact, come to work the following Monday morning?
A. No, she did not.
48 It was customary for Robinson to inquire of Mr. Von Der Ahe on Friday if he should
work the following day. Apparently, Robinson ' s normal workweek was Monday through
Fri day.
19 Goldie Brewer 's husband.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 149
Ammons denied having any telephone conversation with Robinson nor that he
ever "advised or instructed [Robinson] to retract or withdraw his support from the
union."
I find that Robinson, in fact, had a telephone conversation with Ammons on
June 12, and also find that Robinson's version thereof to be substantially in accord
with the facts. The unreliability of Ammons' entirely testimony is clearly indicated
by the following portion thereof:
Q. (By Mr. BARTLEY,) Mr. Ammons, did you say this telephone conversa-
tion between you and Mrs. Wilson was on June 14, is this the right date?
A. Sunday.
Q. I don't recall what date you gave?
A. Yes, Sunday, June 14.
Q. And you say she used the word that in effect, "I am threatening you and
I am blackmailing you?"
A. She said, "This is a threat and blackmail."
Q. And what did she tell you she was going to do to you if you didn't do what?
A. She said, "This is a threat and blackmail," that if you do not go around
to all of the employees and retract what I had said about the union and encour-
age them to join the union that she would personally place in Mr. Von Der Ahe's
hand Monday morning a list of five signatures affirming the fact that I had
called the Labor Relations Board and complained of padded payroll and time-
cards. In the course of the conversation she also said, she hesitated and I said,
"Are you making a recording?" And she said yes, she was, and she also told
me that the National Labor Relations Board has a recording of my telephone
call to them where I complained of the padded payroll and timecards.
TRIAL EXAMINER- Aie you sure she said the National Labor Relations Board?
The WITNESS: Yes, she did, where I contacted an attorney Monday morning
about this.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Didn't she say the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor
Department?
The WITNESS: No.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You are sure she said the National Labor Relations Board?
The WITNESS: Correct.
On Friday, July 3, Robinson informed Respondent that he was terminating his
employment on July 10.
On Monday, July 6, the day before the aforementioned Board-conducted election,
William Porter, Respondent's office manager, called Robinson into his office and
said, according to Robinson's testimony, "Mr. Von Der Ahe informed me to tell
you that if the union didn't come in . . . I would get a week's severance pay."
Porter denied making the above-quoted statement. I reject Porter's denial, and
find that he did make the statement and that the statement was made for the pur-
pose of influencing Robinson's vote at the forthcoming Board-conducted election.
In the forepart of the afternoon of Monday, June 15, McAnally went to Antoinette
Langford's work area and told Langford that she had just received a call from the
head office that Respondent had decided to discharge several employees and that
she was sorry that Langford was one of them.
McAnally then said to Langford, according to the latter's testimony, "Maybe after
all this furor is over, will you consider coming back to work for us?" Langford
replied that she considered herself "fired along with the rest," but would return to
Respondent's employ providing she was asked to do so and had not received other
employment in the interim.
Langford further testified that McAnally said that she could not understand why
she had to discharge or lay off anybody in her department because this was a busy
season and that she did not know how she was going to handle all the work with
less employees.
Pursuant to a telephone conversation Langford had with Respondent's counsel,
Langford was reinstated on August 17 to the same job she had prior to June 15.50
McAnally's version of this event differs a great deal from Langford's. McAnally
testified that on the morning of June 15, Mrs. Von Der Ahe inquired of her regard-
ing the workload in her department; that she told her, "We were caught up and
that Antoinette was coloring maps"; and that Mrs. Von Der Ahe said, "You will
have to cut back, three of you should be able to handle the work for a while"; that
she said to Mrs. Von Der Ahe, "I hate to do that because Antoinette has had a
w Langford did not receive any pay from Respondent during the period from June 15
to August 17.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
months' training which would be useful when the work picked up"; that Mrs. Von
Der Ahe then said, "Well, tell her you will call her back, but we have to cut down
expenses"; that early in the afternoon of that day, June 15, she told Langford,
"Since we were caught up that I would have to let her go"; that when she asked
Langford would she return to Respondent's employ when the work picked up, Lang-
ford replied "No, I want to work steadily and if I can I will find another job imme-
diately"; and that the following then ensued:
We talked a couple of minutes very pleasantly, I expressed my regret at having
to let her go, even the fact that I would have preferred to keep her through this
period, and she always said she had enjoyed working for us and that if I would
call her back when we needed help, if she had not found another job she would
be glad to return. A few minutes later she said, "Since there is really nothing
for me to do can I go on home now?" She had been coloring maps. I said,
"I will check with"-I have forgotten whom, Bill Porter or Herman Schulte and
I did go to one or the other of them and say "Antoinette wants to know can she
go on home now," and whichever one it was, said no, she should stay until her
usual quitting time and we will have her check ready.
No explanation whatever was offered by Respondent for Langford's termination
other than that business conditions compelled it to reduce its work force. Respond-
ent, however, introduced no books and records to support its contention regarding
the necessity for Langford's termination or for the termination of any other employee
on that date. Langford was hired in May 1964, just as work was picking up in
McAnally's department. In the third place, Langford was not hired, as contended
by Respondent, as a seasonal employee but was hired on a permanent basis to take
the place of Judy Bargan who had quit just before Langford was hired. Further-
more, the credited evidence in the record shows that in 1964 the normal seasonal
pattern was irrelevant to the personnel needs of McAnally's department because of
certain major reorganization of the files which took place in the department during
the first half of the year. Finally, it appears from the entire record that the so-called
seasonal peak in McAnally's department fluctuates so widely and unpredictably that
no generalization can be made as to when the peak season may arrive and when work
slackens.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses who
testified regarding Langford's discharge on June 15, including the testimony of Mrs.
Von Der Ahe with respect thereto, I am convinced and find that Langford was laid
off on June 15 for discriminatory reasons.
During the morning of June 16, Supervisor June Shoulders asked Scharnhorst
how she felt about the Union. When Scharnhorst replied she was in favor of the
Union, Shoulders remarked, "If the union comes in Mr. Von [sic] will close his door
and become an agent, he will set standards so high for each job that none of us will
be able to come up to them."
On June 25, Babcock held a meeting in Fenton, Missouri, which was attended by
about 10 or 11 Respondent employees.
During the course of the aforesaid meeting, Supervisors Porter, Shoulders, and
Ammons, accompanied by Ronald Von Der Abe, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Von Der
Ahe and a part-time employee of Respondent, entered and seated themselves facing
most of the employees present.51 Wilson introduced each of said supervisors and
Ronald Von Der Ahe to Babcock who had not previously met them. In response
to Babcock's inquiry as to whether any of the four persons had any questions to
ask, Porter said, "As office manager [I am] very interested in anything concerning
Von Der Ahe and the employees." When Ammons, in effect, asked why he and his
companions were not welcome at the meeting, Babcock explained the reason was
that he, Porter, and Shoulders were supervisors and that Ronald Von Der Ahe was a
confidential employee. After some further discussion, Babcock asked the said four
persons to leave the meeting and they did so.
On July 20 or 21, Muriel McCann telephoned Respondent's terminal and asked a
friend, employee Betty Hill, if there were any part-time jobs at Respondent. Hill
replied that she would take the matter up with her supervisor, Ammons. That after-
noon, Ammons telephoned McCann and, after discussing McCann's qualifications,
asked her to report for work. McCann commenced her employment with Respond-
ent on July 23.
McCann was first assigned to the overseas department, under Ammons' supervi-
sion, where she typed, filled, and operated the Xerox machine. Her starting salary
was $75 per week.
m The four named persons were not invited to the meeting.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 151
Around the first of August, Ammons transferred McCann to the papers depart-
ment with instructions to straighten out the "mixed up problem" which existed
there. At the time of McCann's transfer to the papers department, Rosetta White-
head and Gerald Cole 52 worked there. Whitehead's duties were mainly to file
folders and registration cards, to open the mail and prepare it for Porter's attention,
and to look "after folders that were needed by the different departments." Cole's
duties were practically the same as Whitehead's except that he did not handle the
mail.
About that time, Ammons told McCann that if she wanted to get on the good side
of Mrs. Von Der Ahe, she should recommend to Mrs. Von Der Ahe that Whitehead
and Cole be fired.
Sometime between August 1 and 5, McCann told Mrs. Von Der Ahe, in Ammons'
presence, that the cause of "the mess" in the papers department was due to the imma-
turity of both Whitehead and Cole, that they fooled around too much, and that one
of them should be terminated. Mrs. Von Der Ahe replied that she was aware of
the problem and that McCann should do whatever McCann thought best to clean
up "the mess."
On August 10, McCann informed Porter that she could not do all the work she
had to do in the papers department within the 9 hours the wage and hours division
of the Labor Department permitted her to work in any one day, and then asked,
"Is there any way I can work any more hours?" After agreeing with McCann that
she could not lawfully work more than the allotted 9 hours per day, Porter excused
himself and went to confer with Mrs. Von Der Ahe. Porter returned within 5 or
10 minutes and said, to again quote from McCann's credible testimony, "You are
now a supervisor, you will make $100 per week and you can work as many hours as
you want, and, by the way, you will have to fire Rosetta Whitehead tomorrow."
The next day, August 11, Mrs. Von Der Abe and McCann conferred in the
former's office, at which time the following took place, according to McCann's credi-
ble testimony:
We discussed Jerald Cole and Rosetta Whitehead, and I asked her, I said, "I
was told to fire Rosetta Whitehead." She said, "Yes, fire her." And I told her
that I felt that Rosetta Whitehead would be the better of the two because she
was more willing to work, more cooperative, and Jerald Cole spent more time
talking than he ever did working. She told me she wanted to get rid of the
little union snipe who had voted for the union at the election, that she had only
kept her on as a favor to her because she was the sole support of her mother,
and she wanted to get rid of her, and also that Jerald Cole had come over to
their way of thinking, and so to tell Rosetta Whitehead that the reason she was
being fired and not Jerald was because Gerry was a boy and he could lift the
heavy things, and that I did.
Pursuant to Mrs. Von Der Abe's instructions, McCann discharged Whitehead on
August 11.
The same day Whitehead was terminated, Mrs. Von Der Ahe told McCann to
insert an advertisement in the newspaper for a replacement for Whitehead. Mrs.
Von Der Ahe instructed McCann to interview those answering the advertisement.
Within a day or two after the insertion of the aforementioned advertisement, appli-
cants began arriving at Respondent's establishment. After interviewing said appli-
cants, McCann informed Mrs. Von Der Abe that of all the applicants she had inter-
viewed, only two seemed to her to be acceptable. Whereupon, according to McCann,
the following took place:
Mrs. Von Der Ahe said to me, "You are asking these people if they have any
affiliation with the union, aren't you?" And I said, "I will." She said, "You
have to be careful. Make sure that no one you hire has any union affiliation, has
ever been a member of a union or has any interest in any unions." She says,
"I don't want any more of those union sons of bitches in my place again."
After the above-quoted conversation, McCann interviewed about eight or nine more
job applicants. McCann asked each of said applicants, after she had discussed the
applicant's qualifications, if she was "a member of a union, has ever been a member
of a union, and if [she] were interested in unions," and if her husband was a union
member.
On or about August 11 or 12, Ammons asked McCann whether she was asking
all applicants whether they had any union affiliations, and McCann replied in the
affirmative.
52 Also referred to in the record as Jerry Cole and Jerold Cole.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After interviewing eight or nine applicants, McCann went to Herman Schulte, the
head of the accounting department, and asked him whether she had the final say in
selecting the person to be hired.53 Schulte suggested that McCann should select two
persons whom she thought acceptable and then "let Bill Porter interview them and
let him have the last word." Schulte then asked, "You are making sure these people
have no union interest or affiliation?"
Pursuant to Schulte's suggestion, McCann told Porter of all the girls she had
interviewed, there were only two girls who she thought were acceptable. Porter
replied, after McCann had assured him that neither applicant had any interest in
unions, that he would interview them on Friday, August 14.
After having been interviewed by Porter, Shirley Fredricks was hired and she
reported for work on Monday, August 17.
From almost the beginning of her employment with Respondent until about a
month prior to her quitting in January 1965, McCann, Betty Hill, and Ammons
lunched together almost every workday. On many occasions, during the month of
August, when the aforenamed three persons lunched together, Ammons named the
employees who had signed union cards; remarked that Wilson had instigated the
unionization of Respondent's employees; that Cole "had been pro-Union but Bill
Porter had talked him out of it"; that both Mr. and Mrs. Von Der Ahe "were death
on the union, that they would not stand for the union to come" in; "that Mr. Von
Der Ahe had made the comment he'd blow up the place if a union got in there, he'd
[close] the doors and that would be the end of" Respondent.
About 3 or 4 weeks after Fredricks had gone to work for Respondent, she started
asking questions of McCann about the Union, asking what the Union could do
for the employees, such as obtaining sick leave pay, coffee breaks, and the like.
McCann's usual replies were to the effect that the Union could not obtain any worth-
while benefits for the employees. In fact, on one occasion McCann told Fredricks
that she had better quit asking questions about the Union because the Von Der
Ahes "were death on the union and she was going to get herself in a lot of trouble
if she didn't quit asking questions."
About a week prior to the opening of the original hearing in the instant proceed-
ing, Mr. Von Der Ahe, in the presence of Mrs. Von Der Ahe, Porter, Ammons, and
McCann, asked Nancy Grimshaw, who had just returned to Respondent's employ
after an absence therefrom of some years, whether she "had ever been involved with
union." When Grimshaw replied in the affirmative, Mr. Von Der Ahe, to quote
from McCann's credible testimony, replied, "No union is coming in my place
because I'll blow [the place] up before a union will come in here." McCann credibly
testified further that Mr. Von Der Ahe also stated on that occasion that if the Union
successfully organized the employees, he would "close the doors and these people
could walk a picket line out in the cold and he didn't give a damn. He'd hire cheap
help and he'd have everything taken care of. He didn't care one way or another
but no union was going to take 20 years of his hard work."
Shortly before the opening of the original hearing herein, McCann told Ammons
that she thought that Fredricks was interested in the Union.
During the course of the original hearing, Porter approached McCann and said
that he understood that Fredricks was asking questions about the Union and she
appeared to be prounion. McCann replied that she thought that Fredricks was prob-
ably prounion.
During the course of original hearing herein, many of Respondent's officials,
supervisors, and nonsupervisory employees attended; hence, the normal work routine
at the terminal was adversely affected; many employees were assigned to other jobs
in addition to their usual ones. For example, McCann, on occasion also operated the
telephone switchboard. On October 2, the day the original hearing concluded, Fred-
ricks operated said switchboard.
On Monday, October 5, the first workday after the close of the original hearing,
McCann went to Mrs. Von Der Ahe and asked whether Fredricks should continue
to operate the switchboard or be reassigned to the papers department.54 The fol-
lowing then transpired, according to McCann's credible testimony:
She told me that she had been meaning to talk to me about Shirley Fredricks.
She said she understood that possibly Shirley Fredricks was interested in unions,
53 McCann sought Schulte's advice on this matter because he had been discussing the
hiring question with McCann upon a number of previous occasions.
54 It seems that the regular telephone switchboard operator was not at work that day.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 153
that she had been asking questions and very possibly that she would be pro-
union. I said, "That's correct." She said, "I don't want the little union snipe
on the telephone, she could listen in on my phone calls to my lawyers and so
forth and I don't want the bitch on the telephone, in fact, I want her out of here,
fire her." I said, "Today?" She said, "Today."
McCann discharged Fredricks that day.
Prior to being transferred from the papers department to the domestic traffic
department on or about November 1, McCann had a long talk with Mrs. Von Der
Ahe wherein the latter, among other things, commented in detail upon the union
affiliations of many of the employees. For example, she said that Goldie Brewer,
was a "bad witch" because she was prounion but she would not fire her because
Brewer did her a favor some years ago; that Virginia Hood was "one of those union
and she is a bad witch and I want to get rid of" her; that she was not sure
whether Juanita Kohler was a "good witch" or a "bad witch"; that Mrs. Lou Link's
"I.Q. is subnormal, . . . has worked for me for seven years and she doesn't know
her ... from a hole in the ground.... and her husband doesn't know much more"; 55
that Gail Landon was a "bad witch" and "we were going to get rid of her right
quick"; 56 and that Lucy Scharnhorst was prounion and she was going to get rid of her.
Mr. and Mrs. Von Der Ahe, Schulte, Porter, and Ammons denied making any of
the antiunion remarks attributed to each of them by McCann. Mrs. Van Der Ahe,
Schulte, Porter, and Ammons denied that they instructed McCann to be sure that in
her interviews with job applicants she should ascertain whether or not the said
applicants were, or ever had been, union members or sympathizers. Mrs. Von Der
Ahe, Porter, and Ammons denied that they instructed McCann to discharge White-
head and Fredricks because said employees were members of, or sympathetic toward,
the Union. Upon the entire record in the case, coupled with the fact that McCann
impressed me as being an honest, forthright, and truthful witness, whereas Mr. and
Mrs. Von Der Ahe, Schulte, Porter, and Ammons did not so impress me, it is found
that McCann's entire testimony, as epitomized above, to be substantially in accord
with the facts. Accordingly, I find that Whitehead and Fredricks were discharged
in violation of the Act. Since said discharges interfered with, restrained, and coerced
the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, it is
found that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
I further find that by: (1) Mrs. Von Der Ahe's, Schulte's, Porter's, Ammons',
and Shoulders' statements to Wilson and various other employees, as set forth above,
(2) the unlawful surveillance of the Union's June 25 meeting attended by some of
Respondent's employees,57 (3) inviting employees to submit grievances directly to
Respondent and to bargain directly with Respondent instead of through the Union,
(4) threatening to blow up Respondent's facilities rather than deal with the Union
or any other labor organization representing its employees, (5) threatening its
employees with discharge or other reprisals if they became or remained union mem-
bers, (6) unlawfully interrogating its employees regarding their union membership
and sympathies, (7) threatening to raise the work standards if the Union success-
fully organized the employees, (8) threatening to move its terminal outside the State
of Missouri if the Union successfully organized the employees, (9) unlawfully inter-
rogating applicants for employment concerning their sympathies for and/or member-
ship and activities in behalf of unions in general, and (10) otherwise discouraging
membership in the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion 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, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices,
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
55 My evaluation of the Links' testimony Is set forth above.
6e Apparently, in Mrs. Von Der Ahe's mind, a "bad witch" denotes a person sympathetic
to unions.
67 See W. T. Carter and Brother, 90 NLRB 2020; Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc., 92
NWIB 1854; Crusader-Lancer Corp., 144 NLRB 1309; Brookside Industries, Inc., 133
NLRB 842-851, modified on other grounds 308 F. 2d 224 (C.A. 4).
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that Respondent on June 16, 1964, and at all times thereafter, has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly designated representative
of the employees in an appropriate unit, I will recommend that Respondent, upon,
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of said
employees, and, if an agreement is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
Having found that Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment and the terms and conditions of employment of Lucille Wilson,
Antoinette Langford, Rosetta Whitehead, and Shirley Fredricks, it is recommended
that Respondent offer Rosetta Whitehead and Shirley Fredricks immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges. It is also recommended that Respond-
ent make Whitehead and Fredricks whole for any loss of pay each may have suf-
fered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of
a sum of money equal to the amount each normally would have earned as wages
from the date of her discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less her net earnings during that period. Backpay and interest thereon at the rate
of 6 percent per annum to be computed and paid in accordance with and in the man-
ner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
It is further recommended that Langford be paid a sum of money equal to the
amount she normally would have earned from June 15 to August 17, 1964, less her
net earnings during that period. Backpay and interest thereon at the rate of 6 per-
cent per annum to be computed and paid in accordance with and in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 58
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent are of
such a character and scope that in order to insure Respondent's employees of their
full rights guaranteed them by the Act, it will, be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist in any manner from interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in their exercise of the rights of self-organization.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the record as a whole,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is, and during all times material was, an employer engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is, and during all times material was, a labor organization within:
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and the terms.
and conditions of employment of Lucille Wilson, Antoinette Langford, Rosetta
Whitehead, and Shirley Fredricks, thereby discouraging membership in the Union,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. All Respondent's Fenton, Missouri, terminal office clerical employees, exclud-
ing professional employees, guards, and all other employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute, and at all times material constituted, a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the-
Act.
5. The Union was on June 12, 1964, and at all times thereafter has been, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-described appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of-
the Act.
6. By refusing on June 16, 1964, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collec-
tively with the Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices-
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
K9 Since Wilson was reinstated with the loss of pay, no affirmative remedy will be rec-
ommended for her.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC. 155
7. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and the terms
and conditions of employment of Wilson, Langford, Whitehead, and Fredricks,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
8. By: (a ) questioning , in an unlawful manner, its unit employees and applicants
for employment regarding their union membership and activities , (b) threatening
its employees with various monetary and other reprisals if they remained or became
members of the Union, (c) surveillance of the Union's meeting of its employees,
(d) inviting its unit employees to submit grievances directly to management instead
of through the Union, their selected and designated collective-bargaining representa-
tive, (e) attempting to bargain directly with its unit employees instead of with the
Union, the selected and designated collective-bargaining representative of its employ-
ees, (f) threatening to blow up its Fenton, Missouri, terminal if the Union success-
fully organized the unit employees , ( g) threatening to move its Fenton , Missouri,
terminal out of the State of Missouri if the Union successfully organized the unit
employees , (h) threatening to discharge , cull out, or otherwise terminate the unit
employees because of their union activities , ( i) threatening the unit employees with
higher work standards if the Union successfully organized them, (j) requesting its
employees to spy on other employees in order to report to management on the union
activities of such other employees , ( k) otherwise unlawfully attempting to wean its
unit employees away from the Union, and ( 1) threatening an employee with loss
,of benefits in order to influence his vote at a Board-conducted election , Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9. 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 the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, I recommend that Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc., Fenton,
Missouri, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit
with respect to grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment.
(b) Questioning, in an unlawful manner , its employees and applicants for employ-
ment concerning union membership, activities, and sympathies ; threatening to blow
up or move its Fenton , Missouri, terminal if its employees became or remained union
members; threatening its employees with various monetary or other reprisals if they
became or remained union members; discouraging membership in, and activities on
behalf of, the Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discrimina-
torily discharging or refusing to reinstate its employees, or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment; keeping union meetings of its employees under surveillance;
inviting its employees to deal or bargain directly with it rather than through the
Union; threatening its employees with higher work standards if they became or
remained union members; requesting its employees to spy upon their coworkers'
union membership and activities; threatening to discharge, cull out, or otherwise
discharge its employees if they became or remained union members; threatening
employees to deprive an employee of benefits in order to influence his vote at a
Board-conducted election; and attempting , in an unlawful manner, to wean its
, employees away from the Union.
(c) In any manner interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization , to form, join , or assist the Union or any
other labor organization of their chosing, and to engage in concerted protected activi-
ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, and
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Reinstate Rosetta Whitehead and Shirley Fredricks to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Make Rosetta Whitehead, Shirley Fredricks, and Antoinette Langford whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as the result of Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner and to the degree set forth in the section above
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively, to the extent and at all times required by
law, with the Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and embody in
a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for the deter-
mination of amounts of pay due under this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its establishment in Fenton, Missouri, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 59 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 14, shall, after having been duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.so
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt
of this Decision the Respondent notify the Regional Director, in writing, that it will
comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
51 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Exam-
iner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree
of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
60 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify the said Regional-Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of any of our employees in Office
Employes International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 13, or any other labor organi-
zation, by discharging, laying off, or in any other manner discriminating against
any employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT (a) cause surveillance of employees' union activity, (b) urge
employees to bargain directly with us at a time when said employees are repre-
sented by a labor organization in an appropriate bargaining unit, (c) unlaw-
fully interrogate employees with respect to their union activities, (d) derogate
supporters of the above-named labor organization, (e) threaten to go out of
business or move our terminal to another State because of employees' union or
concerted activities, (f) create the impression that we are spying on the employ-
ees with respect to their union or concerted activities, (g) threaten to deprive
employees of benefits in order to influence their votes at representation elec-
tions, (h) threatening employees that we will not recognize or bargain with a
labor organization which is the collective-bargaining representative of said
employees in an appropriate unit, (i) unlawfully interrogate applicants for
employment concerning their union membership, activities, and union sympa-
thies, and (j) encourage employees to spy upon other employees in order to
report to us on the union activities of such other employees.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 157
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in their rights to self-organization, to form or join labor organizations, including
the above-named labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All office clerical employees of the Employer at its Fenton, Missouri,
terminal, excluding professional employees, guards, supervisors, as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
WE WILL offer Rosetta Whitehead and Shirley Fredricks immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole employees Rosetta Whitehead, Shirley Fredricks, and
Antoinette Langford for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 4459
Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St . Louis, Missouri , Telephone No. Main
4-2167.
Skouras Theaters Corporation and Sidney Jackson, Jr. and The
International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees and
Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada,
Local 642, Party to the Contract
The International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees
and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada,
Local 642 and Sidney Jackson, Jr. and Skouras Theaters Corpo-
ration, Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 22-CA-1896' and 22-
CB-7P92. October 12,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
155 NLRB No. 19.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 157
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in their rights to self-organization, to form or join labor organizations, including
the above-named labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All office clerical employees of the Employer at its Fenton, Missouri,
terminal, excluding professional employees, guards, supervisors, as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
WE WILL offer Rosetta Whitehead and Shirley Fredricks immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole employees Rosetta Whitehead, Shirley Fredricks, and
Antoinette Langford for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE -We will notify any of the above- named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4459
Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri , Telephone No. Main
4-2167.
Skouras Theaters Corporation and Sidney Jackson , Jr. and The
International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees and
Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada,
Local 642, Party to the Contract
The International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees
and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada,
Local 642 and Sidney Jackson , Jr. and Skouras Theaters Corpo-
ration , Party to the Contract . Cases Nos. 22-CA-1896 and 22-
CB-722. October 12,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
155 NLRB No. 19.