West Point Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 1161 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

WEST POINT MFG. CO., WELLINGTON MILL DIVISION 1161
previously enjoyed , and we will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
MUSHROOM TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Charles Keeler, if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States , of his right to be restored on our extra list, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Security Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania,
19107, Telephone No. Pennypacker 5-2612, if they have any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
West Point Manufacturing Company, Wellington Mill Division
and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO. Case No.
11-CA-f018. Jwne 17, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27, 1963, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Respondent filed a sup-
porting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and finds merit in the Respondent's exceptions. The relevant find-
ings of fact made by the Trial Examiner, as indicated below, are here-
by adopted, but his conclusions and recommendations are adopted only
to the extent consistent with our decision herein.
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that Hugh Rodgers,
"personnel assistant" of Respondent, is a supervisor and agent of Re-
1 The Board has treated the Charging Party's letter of April 19 , 1963, as exceptions to
the Intermediate Report. In view of the fact that the complaint herein is dismissed,
we hereby deny the Charging Party's request for an Order broader than that recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner. Its request for oral argument , contained in the April 19
letter, Is also denied , as, In our opinion , the record , exceptions, and brief adequately
present the positions of the parties
142 NLRB No. 126.
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent, and that he engaged in certain acts of surveillance of em-
ployee's union meetings and activities during the period of April and
May 1962. The Trial Examiner finds that Rodgers did engage in acts
of unlawful surveillance and that, although he is not a supervisor, he
is an agent of the Respondent, and the Respondent is therefore re-
sponsible for his acts. We do not agree that the evidence in this case
is sufficient to establish that Rodgers' activities constituted unlawful
surveillance of employees' union activities.
The record shows that on three separate occasions during April and
May 1962, Rodgers was seen "driving by" the Massey Motel while
union "committee meetings" were taking place in the room of Joseph
Pedigo, representative of the Union, with three employees present.'
On another occasion Rodgers was seen driving by while Talmadge Al-
len was with Pedigo outside the motel. Pedigo's room is located on a
front corner of the motel, about 75 feet from the highway. The motel
is located just outside the city limits of Anderson, about 2 miles from
the Wellington Mill plant. On these occasions Rodgers is said to
have been driving at a very moderate speed, or about 35 miles per hour
(in a 55 m.p.h. speed zone). On one of these occasions he was accom-
panied by Sam Jordan, former personnel director. Also alleged as
surveillance are several incidents in the month of May, when Rodgers
was seen on separate occasions driving by the homes of : Milford Allen,
while Milford was standing alone on his front porch; Talmadge Allen,
as he was driving away from his house; Roy Pike (an employee), while
Pike was standing in his front yard with Milford Allen, Talmadge
Allen, and Winfred Hudgens (an employee) ; McKinney, while he was
talking to "two friends" in his front yard; and Ella Mae Newton (not
herself an employee of Respondent, but Talmadge Allen's girl friend)
while she was walking toward her house.
All of the incidents took place within a radius of 2 miles of the
Wellington plant, most of them on one or the other of two main
highways in that area. Rodgers did not deny that he had driven
by the places named. He explained that he is accustomed to using
the route from the Wellington to the Equinox plant which passes
by the Massey Motel, and that he also has to pass by the motel on
his regular visits to see his friend Tolly, who is employed at Miller
Motor Express terminal, located very near the motel. Although
there is a shorter route between the two plants, it does not appear
that the route which passes the motel can be characterized as an un-
reasonable one to take; indeed, it appears to be a somewhat logical
route to take to the Miller terminal. Rodgers explained further that
he has many friends and acquaintances in Anderson, and that in
going to their homes he sometimes has to pass by the homes of some
' Present were employees Milford Allen , Talmadge Allen, and Hiller C. McKinney.
WEST POINT MFG. CO., WELLINGTON MILL DIVISION 1163
of the people named above. Others of those named above live in
such locations near the plant that he might well pass by their homes
quite regularly in coming to and from the Wellington plant.
It is alleged that these incidents are interrelated, and that they
reflect a course or pattern of unlawful surveillance activities. The
Trial Examiner so found. His conclusions are based upon the
ground that he discredited Rodgers' explanation of his activities.
He placed great weight upon the fact that Rodgers did not, in his
opinion, give plausible or satisfactory reasons for, inter alia, the pres-
ence of Sam Jordan in his car, or for taking what the Trial Examiner
characterizes as a "longer and less feasible route than appears neces-
sary between Wellington and Equinox" or other points in the area,
and upon the fact that Rodgers passed by the motel on three occasions
while union committee meetings were in progress.
In the circumstances of this case, we disagree that the explanations
given by Rodgers for his activities are so implausible or unsatisfac-
tory as to give rise to the inference that the true purpose of his
"trips" was to engage in surveillance of employees' union activity.
As the Trial Examiner recognizes in his report, even though em-
ployees may have subjective fears and suspicions of the presence of
company representatives, the fears are clearly no reason for restrict-
ing legitimate freedom of movement of management personnel.
Upon the entire record, and especially in view of the physical loca-
tions of the motel and homes which Rodgers was seen "driving by,"
we conclude that General Counsel has not established by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that Rodgers' conduct constituted un-
lawful interference with the employees' Section 7 rights. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the complaint herein?
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER FANNING , dissenting :
I would affirm the Trial Examiner . In this connection , I note,
as a matter of background to the evidence in this case , that the
Respondent has recently committed other serious violations of the
Act .4
s The Trial Examiner denied the General Counsel's request that he take judicial notice
of Cases Nos . 11-CA-1821 and 11-CA-1823, involving the same parties as herein, on the
grounds that those cases had not yet been decided by the Board , and because it had not
been shown that they were relevant to the issues herein . Since those cases issued on
the same date as did the Trial Examiner 's Intermediate Report, they had not been avail-
able to him when he made his decision (see 141 NLRB 819). To the extent relevant
to the issues herein, the Board has taken judicial notice of those cases, and considered
the Respondent 's conduct herein in the context of the activities revealed by those deci-
sions . So considered , we are not satisfied that the General Counsel has proven his case.
` Wellington Mill Division, West Point Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 819.
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, which was heard before Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton in
Anderson, South Carolina, on December 20, 1962, involves allegations by the Gen-
eral Counsel that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.' All parties were
represented and participated in the hearing. Opportunity was afforded the parties
to argue orally on the record, which they waived, and to file briefs with the Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel submitted a brief which has been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and production of cloth fabrics. Well-
ington Mill Division, named in the complaint, and the Equinox Mill, both separately
located in Anderson, South Carolina, are plants of West Point Manufacturing Com-
pany. During the 12 months preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent had a
direct outflow of finished products in interstate commerce valued in excess of $100,000
and a direct inflow of purchased materials in interstate commerce valued in excess
of $100,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
In substance, the complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that one Hugh Rodgers
on behalf of Respondent engaged in acts of surveillance of employees ' union meetings
and activities during the period of April and May 1962.2 Collaterally in dispute is
the question whether Rodgers is a supervisor and Respondent 's agent concerning the
incidents of alleged surveillance .3
B. The incidents
The testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses is virtually undisputed. Re-
spondent's defense consists essentially of testimony by Rodgers to show explanation
for conduct.
I The charge was filed and served on August 14, 1962, and the General Counsel's com-
plaint was issued on September 28, 1962.
2 Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein are in 1962.
3 At the hearing , ruling was reserved on the General Counsel's request that the Trial
Examiner take official notice of (1) the findings and record of a prior unfair labor prac-
tice proceeding, Cases Nos. 11-CA-1821 and 11-CA-1823, in which An Intermediate
Report had been issued on April 27, 1962, finding certain alleged violations of Section
8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act; and (2) a temporary injunction, under Section 10(j) of the
Act, issued on December 30, 1961, by a U.S. District Court against Respondent in con-
nection with the aforementioned Board cases , as reported in Johnston v Wellington
Manufacturing Division, West Point Manufacturing Company, 49 LRRM 2536 (D C.S C.).
It is settled that the Board takes official notice of its own decisions . E.g., E V. Prentice
Machine Works , Inc., 120 NLRB 1691, 1692 , N L.R B . v. Reed & Prince Manufacturing
Company, 205 F. 2d 131, 139 (C A. 1). However, as of this date, the prior case involving
this Respondent has not yet been adjudicated by the Board, and as exceptions had been
filed to his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner's findings in that case are at this
stage inconclusive for any purpose Nor has it been shown that the record of that pro-
ceeding contains any particular evidence relevant to the issues herein which is not in
the present record. Cf. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 128 NLRB 342 The
same considerations control the question of taking notice of the Section 10(j) Injunction
proceeding in the district court There, the standard of evidenre was merely that of
"reasonable cause to believe" the alleged violations were committed, and explicitly only
"temporary relief" was granted pending final determination by the Board. Accordingly,
the General Counsel's request is denied.
WEST POINT MFG. CO., WELLINGTON MILL DIVISION 1165
Joseph Pedigo , representative of the Union , came to Anderson , South Carolina,
early in 1961 , for the purpose of organizing various textile mills in the area, includ-
ing Respondent 's Wellington Mill. In 1962, until June, Pedigo stayed for 5 days of
the week at the Massey Motel on U.S. Highway 29? The motel was located immedi-
ately outside the city limits and south of Anderson , about 2 miles above Wellington
Mill. Pedigo had a corner room and kitchenette from which there was a clear front
and side view of Highway 29, about 75 feet away.
In the months of April and May , four incidents are related in the testimony in
which Rodgers was seen in a car on Highway 29 driving by Pedigo 's motel room.
On three of these occasions , "committee meetings" were taking place in Pedigo's
room among the same four individuals , namely Pedigo, Milford Allen , William
(Talmadge) Allen, and Hiller C. McKinney. Talmadge Allen is an employee of
Respondent ; his brother , Milford Allen , and McKinney had been discharged by
Respondent the previous year and are alleged discrimmatees in the prior Board case
heard in December 1961. The three men had been working with Pedigo in organizing
employees of Respondent . Pedigo testified that Milford Allen and McKinney also
assisted him in organizing activities at various other textile companies in the area,
and that they received a reasonable allowance for expenses , e.g., for the use of a
car, meals, and sometimes lodging.5 There is no indication that the committee meet-
ings were publicized. Milford Allen testified that during April and May they usually
had their meetings on Wednesday ; Talmadge Allen said that the same four persons
had meetings in the mornings and some in the evenings ; and McKinney said that
meetings were held about twice a week , on Tuesday and Wednesday . While visiting
Pedigo , their cars were parked in front of his motel room. Talmadge Allen drove a
1962 white Chevrolet, and McKinney a 1960 blue Chevrolet.
At the Massey Motel
1. In April , on a date and time uncertain, Rodgers was observed driving past
Massey Motel during a "meeting ." Talmadge Allen, sitting on a high stool in the
kitchenette of Pedigo 's room , remarked , "There they go." Milford Allen came to
the window and saw Rodgers, with Sam Jordan alongside , driving a new Ford heading
north and looking toward the motel .6 Jordan was then the overseer of the clothroom,
but had been the personnel director at Wellington Mill at the time of the prior case
and until March 1962.7
2. In the second week of April , Rodgers was seen from Pedigo 's room driving
south on Highway 29. He passed the Massey Motel at about 35 miles per hour (in
a 55 in p.h. speed zone ), and in 2 or 3 minutes came by again from the opposite
,direction.8
3. On Thursday , May 24 ,9 Talmadge Allen and Pedigo were outside the Massey
Motel , having just arrived together from an automobile trip to Georgia . Allen had
left Pedigo and was driving off in his own car when he saw Rodgers coming down
the road looking toward him . Pedigo said Rodgers was "driving a very moderate
speed."
4. On Wednesday evening, May 30, Milford Allen happened to be looking out the
window from his seat on a high chair in the kitchenette of Pedigo 's room when he
saw Rodgers . He said , "Here comes Rodgers," picked up Pedigo 's binoculars, and
ran out the door , McKinney following. Milford went to the edge of the highway and
peered through the binoculars. In 3 or 4 minutes, Rodgers was seen coming back
past the motel on the northern route, at a speed not over 35 miles per hour. Rodgers
had his right hand beside his face.io
Rodgers, who recalled this incident, said that he saw McKinney and (Milford) Allen
come to the road and throw up their hands ; whereupon he threw up his hand.
4 The parties stipulated the admission in evidence of a map of Anderson and vicinity,
with markings to indicate certain pertinent locations in the testimony
5 Pedigo stated that there were "weeks and months " when the expenses may have
equated $ 50 a week , although there were similar periods when no reimbursements were
made
6 Milford Allen testified to this incident.
7 Rodgers testified that Jordan had been personnel man in name , but his major job at
the same time was testing in the laboratory In March 1962 , Tom Camak was made per-
sonnel director . Jordan had a long period of employment with Respondent and knew the
people in Anderson fairly well.
8 Testimony of Pedigo and Talmadge Allen
8 Pedigo estimated it was the end of April or early May, but Talmadge Allen, describing
the same incident , fixed the date as May 24
10 The two Aliens, McKinney, and Pedigo testified as to this incident.
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Away from the Massey Motel
5. In early May, Milford Allen was on the screened-in front porch of his home fac-
ing the highway when he saw Rodgers slowly driving by and looking toward
the house . Allen went to the edge of the highway and watched Rodgers' car turn
around three streets below his house and come back . As he repassed Allen's house,
Rodgers had his left hand up by the side of his face. Milford Allen lives on South
Main Street , or Highway 81, a principal road which ran north and south through the
center of Anderson . His house is about one -half mile north of Wellington Mill.
6. On May 10, Milford Allen, Talmadge Allen, Winfred Hudgens, and Roy Pike 11
were standing together near the road on South Main Street close to Pike's house,12
when Rodgers drove by. As he passed Rodgers "kind of slammed on his brakes,"
slowly proceeded for a short distance , circled and came by Pike's house again , having
his hand beside his face.
7. On May 23 , Rodgers drove by McKinney 's home, while McKinney was in his
yard talking to two friends. Rodgers was "not driving too fast" and looked toward
the McKinney house. Keys Street, where McKinney lives, is about a mile by road
from Wellington Mill and lies several blocks east of South Main Street.
Rodgers testified that a supervisor , Thrasher , lives on Key Street , and that he has
visited Thrasher several times for social reasons.
8. On May 30, about 4 p.m., McKinney was on his front porch when Rodgers
again drove by, with his hand on the side of his face.
9. On May 25, Talmadge Allen started to drive away from his house on Riley
Street, and through his car mirror , he saw Rodgers go by looking toward his car.
Talmadge proceeded to the home of his girl friend, Ella Mae Newton, on Burson
Road, and waited for her to return from town.
Talmadge Allen's house is one block from Wellington Mill, one side of which is
on Riley Street . South Main Street intersects , after a short distance , from various
streets leading west and north of the plant, including Riley Street.
10. Later on May 25 , Talmadge Allen saw Rodgers with Sam Jordan drive by
Milford Allen's house on South Main Street.
11. Continuing on May 25, Talmadge Allen's girl friend, Ella Mae Newton, was
walking from the bus stop toward her home on Burson Road when she saw Rodgers
driving along this street. Talmadge Allen's car was parked in front of her house.
She observed Rodgers turn around at the comer , repass her house , and then circle
on the opposite corner and drive by the house again . She arrived home , told Allen
about Rodgers , and Allen left . In 15 or 20 minutes, she again saw Rodgers, ac-
companied this time by Sam Jordan , slowly drive past her house.13
Rodgers testified he did not know whether or not he was ever on Burson Road.
He is acquainted with a "recreation man," Erly Hanner , who lives in that vicinity,
and whom he has visited several times socially.
C. Rodgers' status
It was stipulated that Rodgers is a "personnel assistant " employed by West
Point Manufacturing Company, at West Point, Georgia, and that he has authority
to bind the Company 's credit in the rental of automobiles on authorization . Rodgers
gave the sole testimony as to his duties . He worked as an assistant to the direc-
tor of personnel of all the company plants , in Georgia , Alabama, and South Caro-
lina. He visited these various plants for the sole purpose and function of helping
the local personnel director of each plant install and maintain adequate and uni-
form personnel records, e .g., applications, instant reports, warnings , attendance
records, separations , and separation interviews . He entered upon his present job
in 1960, and in the summer of 1961 came to Anderson , South Carolina. At the
time, the personnel records at the Wellington and Equinox plants were "practically
non-existent," and neither plant had a full -time personnel man. In Anderson,
he had no set hours and allocated his time equally between both plants, from which
he sought to obtain adequate applications from the employees on all three shifts
His contacts were principally with and through the supervisors and local personnel
people. He was authorized to use the cars he rented for personal visits on his
off-duty time. He is a college graduate. He maintained his home in Lannett,
Alabama, where he was previously a personnel clerk at the company plant.
He had never done any public relations work for the Company and had never
been given any assignment or responsibilities in connection with union or labor
11 Hudgens and Pike are employees of Respondent . They did not testify.
1 Three houses above that of Milford Allen
P9 Respondent did not cross -examine Ella Mae Newton.
WEST POINT MFG. CO., WELLINGTON MILL DIVISION 1167
relations matters. The director of personnel, under whom he worked, was in turn
subordinate to the director of public and industrial relations.14 He "may have,"
but did not recall, driving around with Sam Jordan, the former personnel director
at Wellington.
However, it was developed that Rodgers was in attendance throughout the 4 days
of Board hearing in the prior case in December 1961. He was seen taking notes
at the hearing but gave no testimony. He stated that he was at the hearing at
his own request, on company time, and that it bore no relation to his work on
personnel records. He also made admissions , as follows:
Q. (By Mr. WYNNE.) Now isn't it a fact, Mr. Rodgers, that you inter-
viewed some of the people who testified at the unfair labor practice hearing
here in about December, before they testified, and took statements? Yes or
No.
A. I talked with some of them, yes.
Q. And you asked some of them to sign statements, or asked them whether
they'd be witnesses, isn't that a fact? Yes or no.
A. I asked them, on Mr. Prowell's [Respondent' s counsel]-he asked me
to talk to them to get some facts, that's all.
While there is no evidence that Rodgers had authority to affect employment
conditions of employees, or responsibly to direct their work, as would constitute
him a supervisor, as such, the record as described well supports the finding, which
I make, that he was a real or apparent agent, and that Respondent is fully ac-
counatble for any of his acts of surveillance which may be unlawful. Without
more at this point, it is sufficient that Rodgers was an assistant to the director
of personnel; was in the company of Sam Jordan, a supervisor and recently re-
placed personnel director, while involved in certain of the alleged surveillance; was
identified with management in his consistent appearance on company time at the
prior Board hearing; and on behalf of Respondent had interviewed and taken state-
ments from employees in connection with the previous case.
D. Rodgers' explanations for his conduct 15
As noted, he did not attempt to contradict the General Counsel' s witnesses.
Concerning his passing the Massey Motel, he indicated that (a) it was along the
route which he daily and frequently took to and from the Wellington and Equinox
plants; (b) it was en route to and from the airport; and (c) "many times" he visited
a friend, George Fred Tolly, who was employed at Miller Motor Express and was
sometimes also to be found at Sally Rand Truck Stop, both located near the Massey
Motel on Highway 29. Rodgers lived at a motel on Main Street, or Highway 81,
in the center of Anderson, to which he drove to and from Wellington Mill (as per-
tains to the incidents on South Main Street). And generally, he has visited socially
"a lot of homes" of employees who reside in the general vicinity of the mill.
The Equinox plant is north of the Wellington plant and on the other side of
Anderson. On the city map in evidence, the route between these plants taken
by Rodgers, which passes the Massey Motel, covers a distance of about 71/a miles.
A shorter and apparently more feasible route of about 51/2 miles has been shown,
which does not go by the Massey Motel. Rodgers stated that his route is quicker
and encounters less traffic and street lights. Pedigo testified, without contradiction,
that the shorter route has only one traffic signal. Rodgers' testimony concerning
his "numerous" stops to visit his friend Tolly on Highway 29 was intended to
explain the reasons for his turning around and repassing the Massey Motel within
minutes. Rodgers said that one time he was told at Miller Motor Express that
Tolly was at a truck stop "over the hill," which was south of the Miller terminal
on the other side of Massey Motel, and that when he found Tolly was not at the
truck stop, he returned and again passed the motel. Tolly, called for corroborative
purposes, said he first met Rodgers at the Miller terminal in January or February
1962, and has had social contact with him on a "more or less spasmodic" basis.
Tolly was vague and unclear. Construed most favorably to Respondent, Tolly
testified that since their first meeting, Rodgers next came to the terminal about a
month later, and one or two times thereafter in "the first part of summer and spring."
In the course of his work, Tolly said he has occasion to visit several truck stops on
Highway 29, including Sally Rand Truck Stop near Massey Motel, but he gave no
testimony that Rodgers visited him at any of these truck stops.
14 Rodgers' expense vouchers were charged to the public and industrial relations division.
15 In addition to those already briefly indicated.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Concluding findings
Immediately apparent is a major inconsistency in Rodgers ' testimony . He main-
tained a posture throughout that his presence in Anderson was confined to "instigating
and installing" uniform personnel records, and that he had nothing to do with the
Union. But in the final portion of his cross -examination , he was confronted with,
and admitted , the fact that he interviewed and took statements from employees
regarding alleged unfair labor practices in the prior Board case . And he was on
company time during the entire length of the earlier Board hearing , admittedly un-
related to his described duties. I do not credit Rodgers as concerns his responsibilities
at the Anderson plants, and find that they clearly did include union and labor
relations matters. Moreover , Rodgers' account of his innocuous and routine -appearing
clerical functions seem , in my opinion , highly improbable from an ordinary business
standpoint. Under closer examination , Rodgers disclosed that identical personnel
forms were already in existence and supplied to all company plants, and his job was to
see that particular plants used the prescribed forms in a uniform manner. Unques-
tionably the media of telephone and written communication for these purposes were
available. Yet Rodgers was involved with his alleged limited function in Anderson
since early summer of 1961 (coincidental with the Union 's organizing drive ); he had
no set hours, working the three shifts; headquartered elsewhere , he was on an expense
account (charged to the public and industrial relations department ); and he exten-
sively traveled about at various hours in rented automobiles. Respondent offered no
evidence in corroboration of Rodgers as to his alleged duties. Because I find that
Rodgers' story is incredible and that he did in fact have a definite role on Respondent's
behalf in relation to the Union 's campaign , this does not of itself establish the Gen-
eral Counsel 's case. But it is a factor to be considered that Rodgers sought to screen
his actual purposes.
The burden is, of course , on the General Counsel . On an issue such as surveillance,
even though employees in their union activities may have subjective fears and
suspicions of the presence of company representatives , there is clearly no reason for
restricting legitimate freedom of movement of management personnel . In this record,
no attempt was made by Respondent to deny the testimony of the 11 incidents of
alleged surveillance . Consequently , as I find the General Counsel 's prima facie
case established , it was incumbent upon Respondent to show justification for Rodgers'
conduct,i6
It is the sense of the General Counsel 's contentions that the various incidents at
and away from the Massey Motel within the time period of April and May 1962 are
interrelated and reflect a course or pattern of surveillance activities . I find merit in
this approach . Of particular significance is the failure of Respondent to show any
reason for the presence , with Rodgers , of Sam Jordan , recent personnel director
and one who fairly well knew the people in Anderson . As to one instance , on May 30,
Rodgers said his hand was beside his face because he was returning a hand greeting
of McKinney and Milford Allen. But he did not deny, and failed to explain, the
several other instances when his hand was in the position of an attempt to conceal
his face.17 Rodgers' explanation of the reason , on one occasion , for his turning
around and repassing the Massey Motel within a matter of minutes is vague and not
effectively supported by Tolly's testimony . The other instances of repassing were
unexplained . In addition , there were the slowdowns at, and looking toward, the
point of alleged surveillance . All these factors bespeak a deliberateness of purpose
to seek out and watch the motel or the particular person's house in question . Further,
although not in isolation sufficient , is the evidence that Rodgers chose a longer and
less feasible route than appears necessary to travel between Wellington and Equinox
or the airport . It is clearly inferable from this record that Respondent was aware of-
the organizing activities of the Aliens and McKinney , and surely that of Union
Agent Pedigo. On three occasions in the testimony , Rodgers came by the Massey
Motel while union meetings or activities were in progress . A regularity in holding
these meetings has been shown . All the incidents took place within the radius of 2
miles of the Wellington plant-a circumscribed area in which were located the homes
of many employees , including the Aliens and McKinney . The residences of the
Aliens, McKinney , and Pedigo , as well as the identity of their automobiles, were
readily ascertainable , especially with the aid of Rodgers' companion , the former
personnel director , Sam Jordan . It appears to me more than coincidental that Rodgers
16 E.g., New England Die Casting Company, 116 NLRB 1, 18; Dal-Tee Optical Co, 13T
NLRB 274.
IT See New England Die Casting Co., supra, p. 18.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1169
also drove by the homes of the same three employee organizers who were in meetings
at the Massey Motel.
Rodgers has been discredited in his efforts to cover up the fact that his business in
Anderson over a period of time included duties related to the Union 's organizing
drive at Respondent 's plant . In consideration of all the factors described ,18 I find
Rodgers' explanations for the alleged surveillance activities implausible and unsatis-
factory; I do not credit them. On the affirmative side, the evidence is sufficient that
Rodgers, at times with Sam Jordan , was deliberate in seeking to observe the meeting
place at Pedigo 's motel , and the homes and activities of the Aliens and McKinney."
It is not necessary separately to make findings on each of the incidents in the testi-
mony. For the various reasons indicated, I conclude on the collective evidence in
the record as a whole that Respondent unlawfully engaged in surveillance in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as alleged.20
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I will recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. By engaging in surveillance of employees' union meetings and activities, and
those of Union Agent Pedigo, thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. 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 omitted from publication.]
as As well as Rodgers' demeanor on the stand.
18 E.g., Tru-Line Metal Products Company, et al., 138 NLRB 964.
20 Id., New England Die Casting Company, supra ; Dal-Tex Optical Co., supra.
Weyerhaeuser Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local 22, Petitioner . Case No. 21-RC-8091. June 17,
1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On February 8, 1963, the Regional Director for the Twenty-first
Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-
entitled proceeding. Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor,'
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
I Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union, District Council No . 2, International
Printing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as
the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of a prior certi-
fication and a current collective -bargaining agreement with the Employer.
142 NLRB No. 127.