American Furniture Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 11.39
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action which I find necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair labor
practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices during the
period between the elections , which conduct has interfered with the holding of a
free election , I shall also recommend setting aside the results of the runoff election
and that another election be conducted . I recommend the disestablishment of the
Independent as a company -dominated organization ; one result of such recommenda-
tion is to remove the Independent from a place on the ballot in the recommended
new election . This would leave only the Machinists on the ballot; in the circum-
stances, therefore , and in order to restore the status quo ante, I further recommend
that employees in such election be given an opportunity to-vote for or against the
Machinists.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has violated Section 8 ( a) (1) and (2) of the Act by dominating
and interfering with the administration of the Independent and by contributing.
support to it.
2. Respondent has otherwise violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by soliciting
dues and members for the Independent, interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and voting intentions, threatening to withhold wage increases
and other advancement unless employees joined the Independent, promising job
advancement if employees did join the Independent , urging employees to quit because
of their union activities , keeping employees under surveillance because of union
activities , and treating unions disparately with respect to use of plant time and
facilities.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
4. During the period after the original election and before the close of the runoff
election Respondent engaged in conduct interfering with the employees' right to a
free election , which conduct affected the results of the runoff election.
5. Respondent did not discriminatorily discharge Wilson and Gary.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
American Furniture Company, Inc. and Truck Drivers, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941 , Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
& Helpers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 33-CA-356. August
23, X957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 1956, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett 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 copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a supporting brief, and a mo-
tion to dismiss.
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 Leedom and Members Murdock and
Rodgers].
118 NLRB No. 156.
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
We adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent timed
and instituted changes in working conditions in order to discourage
union organizational activities and to influence votes, and that the
interrogation of employees concerning their grievances and gripes
preliminary to making such changes was for the unlawful purpose of
interfering with the organizational activities of the employees in con-
nection with such changes and cannot be considered in a vacuum. We
therefore agree with the Trial Examiner that by all of the foregoing
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See our decision
in the companion case of Union Furniture Company, Inc., 118 NLRB
1148.
We believe our dissenting colleague misapplies the Blue Flash
decision to the instant case. That case involved only interrogation of
employees to ascertain whether a union which had made a demand for
recognition actually represented a majority. That decision rejected
the doctrine that interrogation is per se unlawful and found that as
the purpose of the interrogation in that case was legitimate, it was com-
municated to the employees with assurances against reprisal, and the
interrogation occurred in a background free from hostility to unions,
it was not a violation of Section 8 (a) (1). In the instant case, unlike
Blue Flash, the interrogation does not stand alone. It is not only in a
context of other conduct which is an unfair labor practice, but is an
integral part of that unfair labor practice. The Blue Flash rule was
not intended to license or immunize the use of interrogation as an in-
tegral part of an unlawful campaign 2 to defeat a union, simply because
the interrogation, if considered in isolation separate from such a cam-
paign, would not be found independently coercive. We note that in
Serv-Air Aviation, 111 NLRB 689, our dissenting colleague joined in
finding two instances of interrogation of an employee a violation spe-
cifically "because it occurred in context with other unfair labor prac-
tices and appears to be a further act implementing the Respondent's
discriminatory policy," citing Blue Flash.
I The Respondent's motion to dismiss is grounded upon the assertion that the unfair
labor practice issues in this case are now moot because, as a result of the Board election
conducted on November 23, 1956, the Charging Union has been certified as bargaining
representative of the employees. The motion is hereby denied. The unfair labor practices
found herein are entirely independent of the election issues, and the effectuation of the
public policy provided in the Act requires that these practices be appropriately remedied,
as hereinafter described.
2 Even our dissenting colleague concedes that Price had an "unlawful motive" In
conducting the interrogation.
AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC . 1141
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, American Furniture Com-
pany, Inc., El Paso, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Promising or granting wage increases, a'reduced workweek,
improved working conditions or other economic favors to its employees
in order to interfere with their choice of a bargaining representative,
or as an inducement to reject and refrain from activities in support of
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union
941, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its warehouse at El Paso, Texas, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by Respondent for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
8 This , notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
the Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part :
The majority finds, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by having its at-
torney, John Price, question the employees concerning their griev-
ances 3 weeks after the Union filed its representation petition. The
majority so holds because 2 weeks after Price's interrogation of the
employees the Respondent, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), an-
nounced improvements in working conditions designed to defeat the
Union's organizing efforts, and stated at the time that the improve-
ments resulted from the interviews conducted by Price! I do not
agree.
It is well-established under the Blue Flash I rule that the test for
the legality of employee interrogation is not what happens after
the interrogation occurred but whether under all the circumstances the
interrogation when it took place was coercive in nature. Applying
this test, I do not believe that the Board can properly find Price's
interrogation of the employees to be unlawful. At the outset it should
be noted that Price did not question the employees as to their union
sympathies, attitudes, or affiliations but limited his queries to their
"gripes and complaints" concerning terms and conditions of employ-
ment. Thus, the interrogation related to matters in which the em-
ployer was rightfully concerned and as to which he could properly
keep himself informed. It can scarcely be said that an employer is
intruding upon the rights of his. employees when he inquires about
their grievances, for, while union matters may be said to be the
business of the employees, grievances are as much the employer's
business as the employees'. Moreover, in the course of the interroga-
tion no threat of reprisal nor promise of benefit was made or implied,
unless the majority is prepared to hold that whenever an employer
inquires about grievances after a union files a petition, he auto-
matically and necessarily implies that he will improve conditions.
For such a doctrine there is no warrant either in law or in fact, and
41 agree with the majority that under the circumstances of this case the subsequent
change in working conditions violated Section 8 (a) (1).
6 Blue Flash Express , Inc., 109 NLRB 591. The majority appears to hold that, to be
lawful, interrogation must stand alone, namely, there must be no other unfair labor
practices in the case. If so, the majority misconstrues Blue Flash for , in that case, the
Board made it clear that the lawfulness of interrogation does not turn automatically on
the presence or absence of other unfair labor practices but, as stated above, on whether
under all the circumstances interrogation, when it took place, was coercive in nature.
Moreover , the Serv-Air case ( 111 NLRB 689) cited by the majority is inapposite , for the
reason that , unlike here , the unfair labor practices including the adoption and enforce-
ment of a discriminatory policy occurred before or simultaneously with the interrogation
so that the surrounding circumstances imparted a coercive effect to the interrogation when
it took place.
AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 1143
the majority is unable to cite any. Finally, so far as the Board knows,
there was nothing intimidating or coercive about the manner in which
the interrogation took place, for the record is silent as to how Price
,questioned the employees, and does not even disclose whether the
employees were interviewed individually or en masse. Under all the
circumstances it is clear that the interrogation of the employees as
to their grievances was not unlawful. when it occurred.
But, according to the majority, it became unlawful retroactively,
as it were, because 2 weeks later the Respondent unlawfully remedied
the grievances which Price had uncovered by his questioning of the
employees. The majority is thereby adopting, in place of the Blue
Flash, rule, the novel principle that a subsequent unfair labor practice
relates back and makes unlawful interrogation leading thereto even
though that interrogation when it took place was not coercive in nature
and was therefore lawful and protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act.
For this far-reaching principle, which is well-calculated to curtail
further an employer's freedom of speech, the majority can cite no
authority. The Cary Lumber case,' relied upon by the majority, is
clearly not in point. There the Board found a violation of Section 8
(a) (1) where an employer invited the employees to bargain directly
with him soon after a union began to organize, and at the same time
suggested to the employees that concessions and benefits would be
forthcoming if they did so. It is well-settled that an employer may
not bargain or attempt to bargain directly with his employees pending
the disposition of a question concerning representation, but until today
this.Board has not found that an employer violates the Act simply
because he asks his employees what their grievances are after a union
files a representation petition. Indeed in Playwood Plastics, Inc.,
110 NLRB 306, and in Motorola, Inc., 94 NLRB 1163, the Board
declined to make such a finding, even though in the latter case, as
here, there was a subsequent unlawful increase in wages.' Moreover,
unlike in Cary, the employer here did not make any suggestions,
direct or indirect, to the employees that concessions or benefits would
be forthcoming at all and, certainly not, if they would bargain directly
rather than through the Union. In fact, nothing whatsoever was said
to the employees about bargaining or the Union or about concessions
or benefits. Furthermore, whereas in Cary the employer asked the
employees to do what is forbidden by the Act, here the employer asked
the employees for information to which he was unquestionably entitled.
I believe that, if the Board is to follow the Act, it must determine
whether Price's interrogation of the employees restrained or coerced
0 102 NLRB 406.
''It is to be noted that the majority has not chosen to overrule these two cases. Con-
sequently , since these 2 cases and the instant case are plainly inconsistent , it means that
the Board now has 2 contrary lines of cases governing the right of an employer to
question his employees concerning grievances after the union files a representation
petition.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them as of the time they were questioned and that what occurred 2
weeks later can have no bearing on that determination." Otherwise,
the Board puts itself in the untenable position of holding that conduct
which did not coerce employees when it occurred may reach forward
and coerce them later if a subsequent unfair labor practice occurs.
I know of no provision of the Act or principle of law that authorizes
the Board to do so. Accordingly, I would determine the legality of
Price's interrogation of the employees as of the time they were
questioned and, applying the Blue Flash rule, would find the interroga-
tion to be noncoercive in nature and therefore protected by Section 8
(c) of the Act.
8 The subsequent change in working conditions may, as the majority claims, demon-
strate that Price had an unlawful motive in questioning employees about their grievances,
but it is by now well-settled beyond need to cite authority that an employer's motive is
irrelevant in determining whether his conduct restrained or coerced the employees.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding is brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 61 Stat. 136, and stems from a complaint issued by the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board against Respondent, American Furniture
Company, Inc. The complaint, dated August 27, 1956, alleged that Respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge upon which it was based, and notice
of hearing thereon, were duly served upon Respondent.
The complaint alleged that on various dates in July 1956 Respondent had inter-
rogated its employees concerning their complaints, had promised them improved
wages, hours, and working conditions, had shortly thereafter announced certain
'improvements in working conditions, and had instituted these improvements in the
working conditions of its employees in order to interfere with their union activities.
Respondent's duly filed answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at El Paso, Texas, on October 1, 1956, before
the duly designated Trial Examiner.' The parties were represented by counsel who
were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to introduce relevant evidence. At
the close of the hearing, the parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally and
to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions. Oral argument was presented
by the General Counsel and Respondent, and proposed findings of fact and con-
clusions of law have been submitted by Respondent. Proposed findings 1, 2, and 3
are accepted; proposed conclusions 1, 2, and 3 are rejected.
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 RESPONDENT
American Furniture Company, Inc., is a Texas corporation whose principal place
of business is located at El Paso, Texas, where it is engaged in the sale and distribu-
tion at retail of home furnishings. As part of this business operation, it maintains
a warehouse at a different location in the city of El Paso; this warehouse is the
operation of Respondent which is directly involved herein. During the 12-month
period prior to the issuance of the instant complaint, Respondent purchased mer-
I The hearing was consolidated with a hearing in Union Furniture Company, Inc., Case
No. 33-CA-357, involving similar issues and the alleged commission of unfair labor
practices by the same outside agent. The Board has recently held that Respondent and
Union Furniture Company are independent enterprises which do not constitute a single
employer. American Furniture Company, Inc., et at., 116 NLRB 1496. The cases have
been considered separately by the Trial Examiner.
AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 1145
chandise valued in excess of $1,000,000, which was shipped to the aforementioned
warehouse from points outside the State of Texas. During the same period, Respond-
ent sold home furnishings valued in excess of $100,000 which it shipped to points out-
side the State of Texas. I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce and
that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein, as the
Board has recently held. American Furniture Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1496. See
Hogue and Knott Supermarkets, 110 NLRB 543.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership the employees
of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A: Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Introduction; the union organizational campaign
There is no' conflict as to the facts in this case and almost all of them are
stipulated. The sole issue presented is whether certain acts of interrogation and
the ensuing improvement of working conditions by Respondent constitute unlawful
interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act. The employees involved herein were between 52 and 56 in number and
were employed at Respondent's warehouse. It appears that there is no history of
collective bargaining prior to the attempt of the Charging Party to obtain recognition
as the representative of these employees.
According to the uncontroverted testimony of George Webber, an organizer for
the AFL-CIO, he was assigned to Local 941 late in April or early in May 1956 to
assist that union in the organization of the employees of several employers including
the warehouse employees of Respondent; this warehouse group included employees
who worked in the warehouse proper as well as truckdrivers and helpers. Webber
held 4 or 5 organizational meetings for Respondent's employees during the month of
May, although 1 of them may have taken place late in April; he was assisted therein by
various of Respondent's employees. These meetings were all held away from Re-
spondent's premises, and by July 13, 38 of Respondent's warehouse employees had
signed union authorization cards.
On June 18, Local 941 wrote to Respondent and requested recognition; it also,
on the same date, filed a representation petition in Case No. 33-RC-569, seeking
,an election among Respondent's warehouse and driver employees.2 On July 13, a
consolidated representation hearing was held on this petition, as well as on that
relating to Union Furniture Company. A large majority of the 38 card signers
among Respondent's employees had signed cards prior to the filing of the petition
on June 18. There is no evidence of union meetings at Respondent's warehouse,
although there is evidence that Respondent's truckdrivers wore union buttons, at
least while on their trucks.
2. The interviews
As indicated, the representation petition was filed on June 18 and a hearing thereon
was held on July 13. On July 9 and 10, however, certain interviews took place
which are attacked by the complaint. The parties stipulated that on July 9, 1956,
Respondent retained John E. Price, an attorney with offices at Fort Worth, Texas, to
make a "personnel survey" of the warehouse employees of 'Respondent, and that
Price duly conducted these interviews of Respondent's employees,on the premises
of Respondent on July 9 and 10. It is not disclosed whether the employees were
interviewed individually or en masse. It is agreed that Price requested the involved
employees to tell him their complaints and suggestions concerning their work and
working conditions under Respondent and that the employees, pursuant to his
request, did so. The Union and the organizational campaign were not mentioned
by Price.
There is no evidence of any further involvement herein on the part of Price. As
indicated, his appearance on the scene followed by approximately 3 weeks the filing
of the representation petition. The transcript in the representation hearing dis-
2 A parallel petition in Case No. 33-RC-570 for a separate unit of warehouse employees
of Union Furniture Company was filed at the same time. See footnote 1.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
closes that Respondent made no reply to a demand for recognition submitted by
the Union on June 18, contemporaneously with the filing of the representation
petition.3
3. Changes in working conditions
On or about July 21, approximately 8 days after the representation hearing, the
following took place. Two separate speeches were made to the assembled ware-
house employees of Respondent by President J. B. Blaugrund and Comptroller
Elbert Beihl, the latter a supervisory employee. Each announced that certain changes
in working conditions were to be made by Respondent and that these resulted from
the interviews conducted by Price on July 9 and 10.
Thus, Blaugrund announced that the employees would thenceforth work a 51/2-
day week in lieu of the existing 6-day week, with no reduction in pay; that overtime
pay of time and one-half would be paid for all hours worked in excess of 96 every 2
weeks; 4 that the men would thenceforth be paid on an hourly pay basis instead of
a monthly salary; and that the warehouse ventilation would be improved. Blaugrund
then stated that the reduction of the workweek from 6 to 51/2 days was an extension
to the warehouse employees of a policy inaugurated on May 21, 1956, for the store
employees, at which time the latter were given one-half day off each week.
Comptroller Beihl also addressed a meeting of warehouse employees on July 21
and similarly announced the reduction of the workweek from 6 to 51/2 days, explain-
ing, as did Blaugrund, that this was an extension to the warehouse of a policy in-
augurated among store employees on May 21. Beihl also promised the men time
and one-half for hours worked in excess of 96 every 2 weeks, a change from a
monthly salary to an hourly pay basis, and improvement of warehouse ventilation.
Beihl promised the men a raise in pay retroactive to July 15, explaining that in
the changeover from a monthly pay to an hourly pay basis the rates and classifications
had been worked out so that no one would get a cut in gross pay, despite the fact that
the employees would be working less hours under the reduced workweek, and further
that the new rates would actually provide higher gross pay for certain employees in
order to correct existing inequalities. Neither speaker mentioned the Union or the
union organizational campaign.
The promised pay raise and the improved working conditions outlined. above
were instituted immediately. The pay raise was made effective as of July 15 for the
pay period commencing July 15 and ending July 31 and was reflected in the semi-
monthly pay checks received several days subsequent to July 31.
4. Conclusions
In sum, after an organizational campaign by Local 941 had been under way
for some weeks, a representation petition was filed on June 18, 1956. A parallel
demand for recognition was made upon Respondent, but recognition was not forth-
coming, and, on July 13, a hearing was duly held on the representation petition.
Thus, at that stage of events, a Board election was in the offing. Then, but 8 days
after the hearing in the representation petition, 2 key officials of Respondent an-
nounced to the employees the immediate institution of improvements in working
conditions, stating that these changes resulted from the interviews conducted
by Attorney Price on July 9 and 10 in an effort to ascertain, the complaints of the
men over working conditions. These interviews, significantly, took place but 3
weeks after the filing of the representation petition.
These improvements in working conditions included a raise in pay for all em-
ployees, this being accomplished by a reduction in the workweek from 6 to 51/2 days
without loss in pay; either the initiation of a policy of paying time and one-half for
overtime hours in excess of a certain number, viz, 96 every 2 weeks, or a lessening
of the hours worked requirement in order to qualify for overtime pay of time and
one-half; an improvement in warehouse ventilation; and an increase in pay in certain
categories to correct existing inequalities. The new pay scale was installed forth-
with retroactive to July 15.
This, on its face, constitutes a prima facie case in support of the contention of the
General Counsel that these improvements in working conditions were instituted by
Respondent for the purpose of coercing its employees to refrain from engaging in
union activities, and Respondent has not contended that they were made for any
9 The hearing officer in the representation hearing on July 13 announced on the record
that he was assuming Respondent would not recognize the Union until it was duly
certified by the Board ; this statement was not disputed therein.
4 The record does not disclose the nature of the previous overtime plan, if any.
AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 1147
other reason. Indeed, any other theory as to why these improvements in working
conditions were instituted does not present itself, with one minor exception. This
exception was the statement by both President Blaugrund and Comptroller Beihl
that the reduction of the workweek from 6 to 51/z days was an extension to the
warehouse of a policy inaugurated on May 21, 1956, for store employees.
However, the record does not disclose that Respondent had, prior to the advent
of the Union, contemplated such an extension to the warehouse employees of this
reduced workweek. And more significantaly, the extension of store working con-
ditions to the warehouse applied only to the length of the workweek and does not serve
to explain the new overtime policy, the pay raises to correct inequalities, and the im-
provement in warehouse ventilation. These changes, on this record, are in no way
correlated to any policy affecting store employees. Moreover, there is no evidence
that any of these changes had been requested by employees prior to their interviews
by Respondent's agent.
This record thus warrants the conclusion that the installation of all the changes
in working conditions for the warehouse employees was motivated by the organiza-
tional campaign of the Union and, in addition, was timed to achieve maxmium
effect in the period between the representation hearing and the election. This is not
to say that an employer may not improve working conditions for business, competi-
tive or other lawful reasons. It is to say that on a preponderance of the evidence in
this record, Respondent instituted the above-specified changes in working conditions
and timed them in order to discourage union organizational activities and to in-
fluence votes at a crucial point in the union organizational campaign.
This leaves for consideration the interviews conducted in behalf of Respondent
by Attorney Price on July 9 and 10. It is clear that no mention of the Union was
made by Price on these occasions , and that he promised no benefits. However, the
record demonstrates that the employees did inform Price of their complaints about
working conditions and that the information developed through the Price interviews
was a key, if not the only, source of the improvements in working conditions made
by Respondent but 11 and 12 days later. Indeed, both President Blaugrund and
Comptroller Beihl informed the employees on July 21 that the changes they were
then instituting resulted from the information developed by Price in the July 9 and
10 interviews.
Thus, this interrogation of employees by Price did not take place in a vacuum and
may not , in logic, be so considered. It was positively and directly linked by Re-
spondent 's top officials with the benefits subsequently granted to the employees.
The conclusion is therefore warranted that this questioning was prompted by the broad
union organizational campaign and was carried out in an effort by Respondent to
ascertain the reasons for the dissatisfaction of employees with working conditions
which presumably created or fostered their interest in union organization and to
remedy them.
I find that Respondent questioned the employees concerning their grievances and
gripes, ascertained what they were, and promptly proceeded in the period between
the representation hearing and the election , to remedy the complaints advanced by
the employees , for the purpose of unlawfully interfering with the organizational
activities of these employees. I find that Respondent by all of the foregoing, includ-
ing the conduct of its agent , Price, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby
violating Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. N. L. R. B. v. Dallas Concrete Co., 212 F. 2d
98 (C. A. 5); N. L. R. B. v. Cen-Tennial Cotton Gin Co., 193 F. 2d 502 (C. A. 5);
N. L. R. B. v. Pyne Moulding Corp., 226 F. 2d 818 (C. A. 2); N. L. R. B. v. Valley
Broadcasting Co., 189 F. 2d 582 (C. A. 6); N. L. R. B. v. Pacific Moulded Products,
206 F. 2d 409 (C. A. 9) cert. denied 346 U. S. 938; Cary Lumber Co., 102 NLRB
406; and Avildsen Tools and Machines, Inc., 112 NLRB 1021.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Truck Drivers , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union 941,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT promise or grant wage increases , a reduced workweek, im-
proved working conditions , or other economic favors to our employees for the
purpose of interfering with their choice of a bargaining representative or as an
inducement to reject and refrain from activities in support of Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union 941, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFLr-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union 941, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities , except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Union Furniture Company, Inc . and Truckdrivers , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union 941, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 33-CA-357. August
23, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 1956, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett 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
118 NLRB No. 157.