Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2001

335 N.L.R.B. 941 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. 941
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. and Automotive Chauf-
feurs, Parts and Garage Employees, Teamsters
Local Union 926 a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Case 6–CA–30899
August 27, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND TRUESDALE
On July 5, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Paul
Bogas issued the attached decision. The General Coun-
sel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Re-
spondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent provided
only lawful, ministerial aid to employee DelBusse in
drafting the decertification petition. DelBusse was a new
transferee to the Respondent’s Bethel Park store. He had
not previously belonged to a union and was under pres-
sure to pay dues to the Charging Party Union. He initi-
ated contact with the Respondent and asked “if there was
any way that [he] could get out of being in the union.”
DelBusse made this inquiry in a context free of coer-
cion.1 He added that he “was never in a union before”
and “figured [he]’d just keep it like that.” There is no
evidence that the Respondent induced or influenced
DelBusse’s opposition to the Union or his desire to “get
out” of the Union. Further, there is no conclusive evi-
dence that the Respondent induced DelBusse to post the
petition.2 Thus, the General Counsel failed to satisfy his
burden to show that the Respondent unlawfully
“[d]irected and assisted employees in the preparation and
execution of an anti-Union petition,” as alleged in the
complaint.

1 This is so, notwithstanding the Respondent’s unlawful interroga-
tion of Jason Sparte. That interrogation took place in July or August
1999, at least a month before DelBusse began working at the Bethel
Park store. There is no evidence that DelBusse was aware of the inter-
rogation when he inquired about getting out of the Union.
2 Our colleague recognizes that DelBusse could not remember
whether Petros told him to post the petition. Petros, on the other hand,
testified without contradiction that she did not give DelBusse any in-
structions regarding what to do with his petition. Crediting Petros, the
judge did not find that Petros instructed DelBusse to post the petition.
The General Counsel has not excepted to the judge’s credibility resolu-
tion or his failure to find that Petros induced the posting of the petition.
Our dissenting colleague notes that DelBusse said only
that he wanted to “get out of the Union.” She says that
DelBusse thereby indicated only a desire to be a non-
member or a desire to be free of paying dues. Accord-
ingly, she argues, Respondent went beyond the request
when it construed the request as being a request to be
unrepresented by the Union.
We disagree. The judge, after hearing DelBusse tes-
tify, found that DelBusse meant that he wanted to be a
nonmember and to be unrepresented. The judge’s find-
ing is reasonable. Although experienced labor lawyers
may know about the General Motors3 right to be a non-
member and the right to file a UD petition, it is unrealis-
tic to expect that DelBusse would know of these rights.
Similarly, it would be unreasonable to suppose that Del-
Busse wanted to be represented by the Union. Thus,
Respondent reasonably understood that DelBusse wanted
to be unrepresented by the Union. Respondent’s actions
in response were consistent with that understanding and
were therefore lawful.
Contrary to our dissenting colleague, and in agreement
with the judge, we find that a fair interpretation of Del-
Busse’s request was that he wished to continue in the
status that he enjoyed before his transfer to the Bethel
Park location, that is, without a union as his representa-
tive and without being obligated to pay dues or agency
fees. Thus, we agree with the judge that DelBusse’s re-
quest, although perhaps inartfully worded, can only logi-
cally have meant that he wanted to avoid both member-
ship in the Union and representation by the Union. Ac-
cordingly, it was not unlawful for the Respondent to re-
spond to DelBusse’s request for assistance by giving him
written language to give effect to his wishes.
While acknowledging that the Respondent had no af-
firmative duty to inform DelBusse regarding his obliga-
tions toward the Union and the range of options available
to provide relief from those obligations, our dissenting
colleague faults the Respondent for not doing so. It is
not surprising that the Respondent did not so inform
DelBusse. In light of the Respondent’s reasonable un-
derstanding that DelBusse did not want to be represented
by the Union, the Respondent would not have seen the
need to discuss any other options. In any case, the has
never held that an employer has a duty to provide this
kind of advice.4
3 NLRB v. General Motors, 373 U.S. 734 (1963).
4 See Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260, 262 (1997) (union duty to
explain union membership requirements is based on the duty of fair
representation; employers, having no such duty, are not obligated to
explain to employees the precise extent of union-security obligation),
affd. sub nom. Cecil v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 1311 (6th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied 529 U.S. 1066 (2000).
335 NLRB No. 75
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 942
Further, and contrary to our dissenting colleague, we
do not agree that the circumstances of DelBusse’s trans-
fer to Bethel Park somehow undermined his free choice
regarding his decision to refrain from supporting the Un-
ion. There is no evidence that DelBusse’s transfer was
conditioned on his sentiments regarding the Union, or
that the Respondent ever discussed its views of the Un-
ion with DelBusse. DelBusse testified that his choice to
get out of the Union was based on his own experience
and on his research regarding the level of satisfaction
with the Union among the Bethel Park employees. Del-
Busse’s clear and unambiguous testimony does not sup-
port a finding that his choice was influenced by anyone’s
preferences except his own, or that his initiation of the
decertification petition was other than voluntary.
The judge properly relied on Ernst Home Centers, 308
NLRB 848 (1992), to dismiss the allegation. The dissent
seeks to distinguish Ernst on the ground that the em-
ployee there came up with the idea of a written petition.
We recognize that, in the instant case, the Respondent
suggested a written petition. However, Respondent was
simply responding to DelBusse’s query which, as rea-
sonably understood, was about decertifying the union.
Respondent had some experience with this matter (at
another location) and thus responded to the question.
Our colleague relies on Pic Way Shoe Mart, 308
NLRB 84 (1992). The case is clearly different. In that
case, the respondent arranged for the employees to meet
with a labor relations consultant (selected by respon-
dent), and sent the petitions to the consultant. The con-
sultant then filed the RD petition.
Accordingly, we find that the petition was untainted by
the Respondent’s ministerial involvement in its drafting,
and that the Respondent’s reliance on that petition to
withdraw recognition from the Union was lawful.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.

MEMBER LIEBMAN, dissenting in part.
Contrary to the judge and to my colleagues, I believe
that the Respondent’s involvement with the employee
petition disavowing support for the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the Respondent’s with-
drawal of recognition from the Union, in reliance on the
tainted petition, violated Section 8(a)(5).
Background
The facts here are straightforward: After learning that
he was required to pay union dues, and deciding that he
did not wish to become a union member, newly trans-
ferred employee Richard DelBusse approached Bethel
Park Store Manager Steve Hinkle and asked, “[I]f there
was any way that I could get out of being in the Union.”
Hinkle responded that DelBusse would have to speak to
Renee Petros, the Respondent’s assistant district man-
ager, and put his request in writing. Hinkle then spoke to
Petros by phone about DelBusse’s inquiry.
The next day, Petros came to the store to discuss the
issue with DelBusse. DelBusse was not at work, but he
was called to the store to meet Petros. After telling him
that she had spoken to Hinkle, Petros asked DelBusse “if
he wanted to be in the Union.” DelBusse answered that
he “was never in a union before” and “figured [he would]
just keep it like that.” Petros told him that he would have
to put his request in writing. After DelBusse asked her
what he had to write, Petros gave him a piece of paper,
attempted to dictate language, and (when that effort
failed) immediately provided him with an employee peti-
tion from another store, which Petros had brought with
her. DelBusse copied out that petition and wrote: “We
the undersigned no longer wish to be represented by [the
Union] for the purpose of collective bargaining.” Petros
next instructed DelBusse to write “TO: Keith Sullivan”
(i.e., the Respondent’s District Manager) at the bottom of
the petition. After doing that, DelBusse signed and dated
the paper. Perhaps at the direction of Petros (the record
is not conclusive), DelBusse then posted the petition on
the Respondent’s bulletin board, where it was signed by
another employee, Dennis Kiester.1 (Together, DelBusse
and Kiester constituted half of the bargaining unit.) Soon
after, Petros retrieved the petition. Citing the petition and
“other objective evidence indicating loss of majority

1 On direct examination by counsel for the General Counsel, Del-
Busse was asked whether Petros told him to put the petition on the
bulletin board. DelBusse testified in response “I think she did. I can’t
really remember.” Tr. 47. On cross-examination by counsel for the
Respondent, DelBusse was asked what Petros specifically told him
“about how to get out of the union.” DelBusse testified in response
“She told me I had to fill out a paper, I don’t know what you’d call it,
but fill out a paper, sign my name, and hang it up.” Tr. 54 (emphasis
added). Petros was not asked during her testimony specifically whether
she told DelBusse to put or “hang” the petition on the bulletin board.
Rather, she was only asked generally whether she told DelBusse what
to do with the petition after he signed it. She testified in response that
she did not. Tr. 136. The judge did not discuss this conflict in testi-
mony between DelBusse and Petros, but found only that DelBusse
placed the petition on the bulletin board. The majority views the judge
as having credited Petros. I do not read his decision as making this
credibility resolution. But there are no exceptions to the judge’s failure
expressly to resolve the testimonial conflict about how DelBusse came
to post the petition.
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. 943
support,’’ the Respondent withdrew recognition from the
Union.
Relying principally on the Board’s decisions in Ernst
Homes Centers, 308 NLRB 848 (1992), and Eastern
States Optical Co., 275 NLRB 372 (1985), the judge
found that the Respondent provided no more than
“ministerial aid” to DelBusse, that the “aid occurred in a
context free of coercion,” and that the “preparation,
circulation, and signing of the petition constituted the
free and uncoerced acts of DelBusse and Kiester.” Thus,
the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1). Because,
in the judge’s view, the petition was untainted by any
unfair labor practice committed by the Respondent
(including its involvement with the petition), the Re-
spondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by withdrawing
recognition from the Union.

Analysis
The judge correctly identified the well-established le-
gal principles that apply to the Respondent’s involve-
ment with the employee petition in this case. But the
judge erred in applying those principles to the facts here.
As the Board stated in Eastern States Optical, supra:

[I]t is unlawful for an employer to initiate a decertifica-
tion petition, solicit signatures for the petition, or lend
more than minimal support and approval to the secur-
ing of signatures and the filing of the petition. In addi-
tion, while an employer does not violate the Act by ren-
dering what has been termed “ministerial aid,” its
actions must occur in a “situational context free of co-
ercive conduct.” In short, the essential inquiry is
whether “the preparation, circulation, and signing of the
petition constituted the free and uncoerced act of the
employees concerned.”

275 NLRB at 372 (footnotes and citations omitted). See,
e.g., Vic Koenig Chevrolet, 321 NLRB 1255, 1259 (1996),
enf. denied 126 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying Eastern
States Optical test).2 The record clearly demonstrates that
the Respondent interfered with employee free choice and
went far beyond rendering “ministerial aid.” It is no exag-
geration to say that the petition was the employer’s petition
and not that of any employee.
To begin, DelBusse never initiated a petition designed
to oust the Union and never claimed to be speaking on
behalf of any other employee. What he did, rather, was
ask how he could avoid joining the Union, an inquiry trig-
gered by his obligation to pay union dues under the union-
security clause in the collective-bargaining agreement.

2 For a critical survey of the Board’s decisions in this area, see Cath-
erine Meeker, Defining “Ministerial Aid”: Union Decertification under
the National Labor Relations Act, 66 U. Chicago L. Rev. 999 (1999).
Eliminating the Union was certainly one means to that
end—and clearly the means that the Respondent preferred.
But it was not the only means. DelBusse had no obliga-
tion to become a union member, apart from complying
with his financial obligation. Communications Workers v.
Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). And his financial obligation
could have been eliminated, if he had successfully pursued
his rights under Section 9(e) of Act, which permits em-
ployees to seek Board-conducted elections to rescind un-
ion-security clauses. Alternatively, he might have sought
to persuade the Union not to enforce or seek the mainte-
nance of the union-security clause here.
While the Respondent had no affirmative duty to in-
form DelBusse of those options, it could have done so.
Not surprisingly, however, it did not. Nor did the Re-
spondent tell DelBusse either that it could not materially
assist his efforts or that he should contact the Board for
guidance on his legal rights—telling omissions that dis-
tinguish this case from at least some other decisions in
which the Board approved an employer’s involvement
with a decertification petition.3 Rather, the Respondent
seized the opportunity that DelBusse’s inquiry presented,
carefully channeling his desire to avoid union member-
ship into a petition designed to oust the Union altogether.
The judge observed that “[t]o DelBusse . . . the simple
statement that he wished to ‘get out of the Union’ almost
certainly meant both getting out of becoming a member
of the union and getting out of being represented by the
Union.” In contrast to the judge, I find no basis for such
certainty. DelBusse asked Hinkle if there was any way
that he could get out of being in the Union, and DelBusse
told Petros that he did not want to be in the Union be-
cause he had never been in a union before and he wanted
to “just keep it that way.” Petros confirms this in her
testimony: “[H]e said that he was interested in not join-
ing the Union.” DelBusse’s wishes, it seems to me, were
clearly shaped by the Respondent.4
Regardless, it was the Respondent that raised the need
for a written document. And it was the Respondent that
literally dictated the language of the petition (after pro-
viding the paper, as well). All of this, of course, fol-
3 See Ernst Home Centers, supra, 308 NLRB at 848; Eastern States
Optical Co., supra, 275 NLRB at 371. Advising an employee of the
employer’s limited permissible role and referring him to the Board
arguably mitigates the coercive tendency of the employer’s involve-
ment, although the latter step could also be viewed as facilitating the
filing of a petition.
4 The record does not show that DelBusse ever told Hinkle or Petros
that he wanted to “get out of the Union.” Indeed, Petros further testified
that her entire conversation with DelBusse consisted of her telling him
that Hinkle had told her that DelBusse did not want to be in the Union,
DelBusse agreeing with that, and Petros telling DelBusse that he would
have to put his request in writing.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 944
lowed the special visit to the store of a high-ranking offi-
cial of the Respondent, Petros, for the express purpose of
meeting with DelBusse—who himself had to be called to
the store to meet with Petros.5 Under these inherently
coercive circumstances, it was inevitable that DelBusse
would follow the approach determined by the Respon-
dent, as opposed to making his own free choice among
the options available to him under the Act.6
The level of affirmative employer involvement here
cannot fairly be called “ministerial aid.” But for the Re-
spondent’s actions, there would have been no employee
petition. The evidence is overwhelming that the Re-
spondent seized upon DelBusse’s simple question about
whether there was any way that he could avoid being in
the Union. From that single note, the Respondent or-
chestrated the instant petition to oust the Union—and did
it in 1 day.
I am puzzled by my colleagues’ characterization of the
Respondent’s initiative as mere ministerial aid to Del-
Busse in drafting a decertification petition. DelBusse
never asked for help in drafting a decertification petition,
or any other petition. He simply asked if there was a way
that he could get out of being in the Union. I am equally
puzzled by my colleagues’ view that Petros could rea-
sonably construe DelBusse’s statement that he wanted to
avoid being in a union as a declaration that he wanted to
oust the Union altogether, just a few weeks after he ar-
rived at the Bethel Park facility.
The contrast between this case and other decisions in
which the Board has found no more than “ministerial
aid” is sharp. In Ernst Home Centers, supra, for exam-
ple, an employee initiated a conversation with the store
manager “in which she asked ‘what wordage’ she should
use on an employee petition.” 308 NLRB at 851. It was
the employee (and not the employer) who came up with
the idea of a written petition and who only then asked for
language.7 Here DelBusse had not initiated any type of

5 In finding that Petros unlawfully interrogated another employee
(Sparte), the judge properly relied on the fact that Petros was a high-
level supervisor who out-ranked Hinkle, DelBusse’s immediate super-
visor, and thus could reasonably be expected to intimidate an employee.
6 Moreover, DelBusse’s freedom to resist Petros’ step-by-step in-
structions in the creation of the petition might well have been affected
by his personal circumstances: he was at the Bethel Park store because
he had been offered the choice between transfer there or discharge. It
seems unlikely, then, that within a few weeks after starting work at the
Bethel Park facility to avoid being discharged, DelBusse would have
resisted Petros’ instructions to create the petition.
My colleagues choose to take a more benign view of the circum-
stances. In any case, the record solidly establishes that DelBusse’s
actual creation of the petition to get rid of the Union was based on
Petros’ explicit and coercive instructions.
7 As the judge recognized, Eastern States Optical, supra, and Washing-
ton Street Foundry, supra, present the same facts. See Eastern States
Optical, 275 NLRB at 371 (“[I]t is clear that [the employee] initiated the
writing, much less a petition. It was the Respondent that
told him that a writing was necessary and that helpfully
supplied him with language, which it had ready at hand.
The Board’s decisions simply do not stand for the propo-
sition that an employer may not only supply petition lan-
guage on request, but also may solicit the request in the
first place.
The Board, meanwhile, has not hesitated to find a vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) where employers engaged in
conduct that was arguably less coercive, and provided
aid arguably closer to “ministerial,” than the Respondent
did here. In Pic Way Shoe Mart, 308 NLRB 84 (1992),
for example, an employee expressed “interest in getting
rid of the Union and . . . sought advice about how to do
so.” Id. at 84. The employer told the employee that it
could not be involved, but had a labor relations consult-
ant call her. The employer ultimately accepted employee
petitions and forwarded them to the consultant, who filed
a decertification petition with the Board. The Respon-
dent here engaged in the same type of effort to facilitate a
petition—indeed, it did the work itself, rather than sum-
moning a third party. Of course, in Pic Way Shoe Mart,
the employee’s desire to get rid of the union—as op-
posed to getting herself out of the union and her dues
obligation—was formulated before the employer became
involved.
In sum, the evidence here demonstrates that the Re-
spondent interfered with employee free choice in connec-
tion with the petition involved here. Because the petition
was both tainted by this unfair labor practice and integral
to the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition from the
Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5). See,
e.g., Vic Koenig Chevrolet, supra, 321 NLRB at 1258–
1260; Hearst Corp., 281 NLRB 764, 764–765 (1986).

Barton Myers, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Brian West Easley, Esq. and Dennis R. Homerin Esq. (Jones,
Day, Reavis & Pogue), of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respon-
dent.
Charles M. Byrne, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BOGAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on May 4, 2000. The charge
was filed by the Automotive Chauffeurs, Parts and Garage
Employees, Teamsters Local Union 926 a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO (the Union), on Septem-

call and informed [employer counsel] that the employees were seeking to
decertify the Union and that [the employee] had some questions concern-
ing the petition’s wording”); Washington Street Foundry, 268 NLRB at
338 (employee whose “first task was to draft the language of a petition”
sought aid of employer’s labor relations consultant).
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. 945
ber 29, 1999, and amended on November 29, 1999, and January
28, 2000.1 On January 31, 2000, the Regional Director issued
a complaint against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (the Respon-
dent) alleging that the Respondent violated the Act by directing
and assisting employees in the preparation and execution of an
antiunion petition, and by withdrawing recognition from the
Union. The complaint also alleges that the Respondent inter-
rogated employees regarding their support for the Union, told
employees that they would not receive a wage increase if the
Union remained their bargaining representative, and promised
employees that they would receive benefits if the Union was
removed as their bargaining representative. The Respondent
filed an answer denying the material allegations of the com-
plaint and asserting affirmative defenses, including that the
Union did not have majority support among employees in the
bargaining unit.
Posthearing briefs were submitted by the General Counsel
and the Respondent. On the entire record, including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering
the briefs, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a corporation with places of business
throughout the United States, including a facility in Bethel
Park, Pennsylvania. It sells automotive tires and provides re-
lated services. During the 12-month period ending on August
31, 1999, the Respondent had gross revenues in excess of
$500,000. During the same period the Respondent’s facilities
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania purchased and received
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Respondent admits,
and I find, that it was, at all material times, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material
to the complaint the Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent sells automotive tires and provides various
automotive services at retail stores nationwide, including one in
Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. For approximately 17 years, a bar-
gaining unit of general service employees, technicians, and tire
installers at the Bethel Park store was represented by the Union.
During the period when the alleged unfair labor practices took
place, there were three to four employees in this bargaining unit.
The last collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the
Union and the Respondent expired in May 1995, but by agree-
ment of the parties the terms of the CBA were extended indefi-
nitely. Under the terms of the extension agreement, either party
could terminate it with 48 hours’ notice. The Union and the
Respondent had nine bargaining sessions over the course of a
10–11–month period, including a number utilizing a Federal
mediator, but these sessions failed to produce a successor CBA.

1 All dates are 1999 unless otherwise indicated.
The last in this series of sessions took play in May 1996 and no
further sessions were held for over 3 years. Neither party con-
tacted the other to attempt to resume negotiations during the 3-
year period. According to Charles Byrnes, the Union’s secre-
tary/treasurer and principal officer, the Union was largely satis-
fied with the status quo and did not press for further negotia-
tions because the Respondent’s proposals involved changes in
the language of the CBA that the Union believed were against
the interests of its members.
Although negotiations for a successor agreement had broken
off, the Union continued to represent the members in other
ways. The Union processed three grievances—including one
that went to arbitration, and another one in which arbitration
was initiated, but the grievance was withdrawn. In another
instance, Byrnes wrote a letter opposing the Respondent’s ef-
fort to have employees sign releases that would permit the Re-
spondent to use cameras and audio equipment for surveillance
purposes. The surveillance program was never implemented.
Byrnes and his predecessor, Jerry Lee, visited the store on vari-
ous occasions during this period, and union dues continued to
be collected.
In July 1999, the Respondent informed the Union, by letter,
that it was invoking the provision in the extension agreement
allowing it to terminate the contract with 48 hours notice. Ac-
cording to the letter, this was being done because of the Un-
ion’s “unexplained failure to negotiate for over three years.”
General Counsel’s, Exhibit 8. Three days later, Byrnes re-
sponded that the Union was willing to continue negotiations.
There were communications between the parties, but an actual
negotiating session was not held until September 16, 1999.
B. Incident Involving Jason Sparte
In July or August 1999, Jason Sparte, an employee of the Be-
thel Park store and a member of the Union, gave the Respon-
dent notice that he was resigning. The Respondent’s assistant
district manager, Renee Petros, approached Sparte at the store
about his decision. Sparte explained to Petros that he was
resigning because of his dissatisfaction with his wage, which
was $6 per hour. Petros asked Sparte what his position was
regarding the Union and what he would do if there were a vote
regarding union representation.2 Sparte indicated that he did
2 Petros denied that she asked Sparte about his position regarding the
Union, and about how he would vote regarding union representation.
However, I have credited Sparte’s contrary testimony that Petros did
ask him about these matters. Although Sparte had lapses of memory
regarding other aspects of the meeting with Petros, he testified in a
direct and clear matter about Petros’ questions regarding the Union.
Based on his demeanor, I found him a very credible witness regarding
this aspect of the meeting with Petros. In addition, Sparte has nothing
personally at stake in the outcome of this case, and testified credibly
that he does not care what happens to the Union. My credibility find-
ings with respect to Sparte are made independently of Sparte’s status as
a current employee of the Respondent at the time of his testimony. I
nevertheless note that these findings are consistent with the Board’s
view that the testimony of a current employee that is adverse to his
employer is “given at considerable risk of economic reprisal, including
loss of employment . . . and for this reason not likely to be false.”
Shop-Rite Supermarket, 231 NLRB 500, 505 fn. 22 (1977); see also
Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995), enfd. 83 F.3d 419 (5th Cir.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 946
not know how he would vote and that he was only interested in
how the matter affected him personally. Petros told Sparte that
the Respondent was pleased with his work and interested in his
staying with the Company. She asked Sparte whether he would
change his mind about resigning if she increased his wage to $8
per hour, and Sparte replied that he would stay under those
circumstances. Then, Petros told Sparte that she would give
him the raise if it were up to her, but that the raise might not be
possible under the CBA, and that the Union might negotiate a
contract under which Sparte’s wage would stay the same.
Sparte asked whether he would get the raise if the Union was
voted out, and Petros answered that if the Union was voted out
there would be no obstacle to him getting the raise. Petros told
Sparte that she would try to give him the raise if that was possi-
ble under the contract with the Union. Subsequently, Sparte
received a pay raise to $8 an hour effective September 1, 1999.
Sparte never talked to the Union about his conversation with
Petros and testified that he was only “concerned about [himself]
and did not care one way or the other what happened to the
Union.” Sparte testified that he had mentioned the conversa-
tion with Petros to one of the other employees, but that he could
not remember who that employee was.
C. Richard DelBusse and the Petition to Decertify the Union
Richard DelBusse is employed by the Respondent as a techni-
cian and his duties include wheel alignments, diagnostic evalua-
tions, inspections, and brake servicing. In September 1999, the
Respondent transferred DelBusse to the Bethel Park store from
the Bridgeville location. DelBusse had been having attendance
problems at the Bridgeville store, and the Respondent gave him a
choice between accepting a transfer to the Bethel Park location
and being discharged. He chose the transfer and began work at
the Bethel Park store at a wage of $12 per hour.
The day before DelBusse started work at the Bethel Park
store, Steve Hinkle, the store manager, informed DelBusse that
there was a union at the store and that DelBusse would have to
join. The store that DelBusse was transferring from did not
have a union, and DelBusse had never been a union member.
Soon after he started work at the Bethel Park store, DelBusse
was approached by Charlie Hiem, a coworker and acting union
representative, about beginning to pay union dues. DelBusse
declined to supply Hiem with the information he needed to
begin collecting the dues. After talking to other employees at
the Bethel Park store, DelBusse concluded that joining the Un-
ion was not in his interests. In particular, DelBusse talked to
Dennis Kiester, who told DelBusse that there had not been a
contract in a long time and that he was not happy with the Un-
ion. Then DelBusse approached Hinkle and asked if there was
some way to get out of being in the Union. Hinkle responded
that DelBusse would have to talk to Petros and put his request
in writing.

1996). I found Petros a less credible witness than Sparte regarding this
matter based on her demeanor. She often gave the impression that she
was searching for an answer that would assist the Respondent. More-
over, as the manager who is alleged to have committed the unlawful
acts regarding Sparte, she has a personal stake in the outcome of this
case.
Hinkle spoke to Petros by phone regarding DelBusse’s re-
quest, and the next day Petros came to the Bethel Park location
to discuss this with DelBusse. DelBusse, who was not at work,
was called to the store to meet with Petros. After DelBusse
arrived, Petros told him that she had talked to Hinkle, and asked
DelBusse if he wanted to be in the Union. DelBusse answered
that he “was never in a union before” and “figured [he]’d just
keep it like that.” Petros told him that he would have to put his
request in writing. DelBusse asked her what he had to write,
and Petros gave him a piece of paper and attempted to dictate
language, but DelBusse had difficulty writing the information
down. Eventually, Petros gave DelBusse a copy of a petition
from another store. Using that as a guide, DelBusse wrote:
“We the undersigned no longer wish to be represented By
Automotive Chauffeurs, Parts & Garage Employees Local Un-
ion 926, Affiliate of the International Brotherhood of teamsters
For the Purpose of Collective Bargaining.” (GC Exh. 17.)
DelBusse signed the petition, recorded the date as September
21, 1999, and then placed it on the bulletin board. He did not
directly approach any other employees to sign the petition.
Later that same day, Dennis Kiester saw the petition and signed
it. Kiester stated that the decision to vote out the Union “was a
long time coming.” Shortly thereafter, the petition was re-
trieved by Petros who transmitted it to Keith Sullivan, the Re-
spondent’s district manager.
A few days earlier, on September 16, 1999, the Respondent
and the Union had engaged in a negotiating session with a Fed-
eral mediator, the first such session since May of 1995. The
parties did not meet face-to-face, but rather passed information
back and forth through the mediator. The Union, represented
by Byrnes, made a proposal during that session, and Byrnes’
understanding at the close of the meeting was that the Respon-
dent would prepare either a response or its own proposal, and
that the Federal mediator would arrange another session. In-
stead, the Union received a letter from the Respondent, dated
September 23, 1999, which stated that the Respondent was
withdrawing recognition from the Union based on a petition
signed by a majority of bargaining unit employees, and “other
objective evidence indicating loss of majority support.’’ The
Union objected to the withdrawal of recognition in a letter,
dated September 18, 1999, to the Respondent.
D. The Complaint Allegations
The complaint in this case alleges that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act) by interrogating employees concerning their support for
the Union, threatening employees that they would not receive a
wage increase if the Union remained their collective-bargaining
representative, promising employees wage increases if the Un-
ion was removed as their collective-bargaining representative,
and directing and assisting employees in the preparation of an
antiunion petition. The complaint further alleges that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing
to continue to recognize and bargain with the Union and by
withdrawing recognition from the Union.
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. 947
III. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A. Interrogation
The General Counsel alleges that Petros interrogated Sparte
and DelBusse in violation of Section 8(a)(1) when she asked
them about their sentiments regarding the Union. An interroga-
tion is unlawful if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, it
reasonably tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Matthews Readymix,
Inc., 324 NLRB 1005 (1997), enfd. in part 165 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir.
1999); Emery Worldwide, 309 NLRB 185, 187 (1993); Liquitane
Corp., 298 NLRB 292, 292–293 (1990). Relevant factors in-
clude, whether the interrogated employee is an open or active
union supporter, the background of the interrogation, the nature
of the information sought, the identity of the questioner, and the
place and method of the interrogation. Stoody Co., 320 NLRB
18, 18–19 (1995); Rossmore House Hotel, 269 NLRB 1176
(1984), enfd. 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
Given the totality of the circumstances, I find that the inter-
rogation of Sparte was coercive and violative of the Act. This
interrogation took place in the context of a discussion about
whether the Respondent would give Sparte a pay raise to entice
him to remain with the Respondent. Petros’ questioning about
Sparte’s sentiments regarding the Union and about his inten-
tions with respect to any vote on union representation have no
place and no legitimate purpose in such a discussion. Al-
though it was not “spelled out,” the questioning in that context
suggests that the Respondent’s willingness to increase Sparte’s
wage and its desire to convince him to stay were somehow
dependant on whether Sparte was likely to support the Union.
I find that this was coercive.
The identities of the parties to the conversation also suggest
that the interrogation was coercive. Petros was a high-level
supervisor, superior in rank to Sparte’s immediate supervisor,
Hinkle. As an assistant district manager Petros, had responsi-
bility not just for the Bethel Park location, but for 32 stores in
the Pittsburgh area. It is reasonable to expect that Sparte would
be intimidated by questioning during a one-on-one conversation
with Petros. Indeed, the Board has viewed the fact that an in-
terrogator is a high-level supervisor as one factor supporting a
conclusion that questioning was coercive. See, e.g., Stoody,
supra. In addition, Sparte, although a member of the Union,
was not an active supporter, and indeed, testified that he was
only concerned about himself and did not care what happened
to the Union. In Rossmore House, 269 NLRB at 1178, the
Board held that the employer’s questions about union sympa-
thies were not coercive where, inter alia, the person being ques-
tioned had openly declared his sympathies regarding the union.
Conversely, where, as here, the person being questioned had
not voluntarily made his position regarding the Union known to
the employer, the questioning is more likely to be coercive.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the con-
text of the interrogation and the identities of the parties in-
volved, I find that Petros’ questioning of Sparte reasonably
tended to restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed by
the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
The General Counsel also argues that Petros’ questioning of
DelBusse was unlawful. Based on the totality of the circum-
stances, and particularly the context of the questioning, I reject
that contention. Prior to when Petros met with DelBusse, Del-
Busse had already told Hinkle that he did not want to be in the
Union and asked Hinkle for help getting out of the Union.
Hinkle communicated this information to Petros who met with
DelBusse for the specific purpose of responding to DelBusse’s
inquiry about how he could avoid being in the Union. In that
context, it makes perfect sense that Petros would initiate the
meeting by confirming what Hinkle told her—i.e., that Del-
Busse did not want to be in the Union. Moreover, since Del-
Busse had already voluntarily informed the Respondent that he
did not wish to be in the Union, Petros’ questioning did not
force him to disclose anything he wished to withhold. Based
on the circumstances, Petros’ questioning of DelBusse did not
restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act,
and therefore I conclude that it was not a violation of Section
8(a)(1).
B. Promises and Threats
The General Counsel alleges that Petros violated Section
8(a)(1) when “she directly promised [Sparte] a $2.00 per hour
wage increase if the Union were voted out” and “impliedly
threatened that so long as the Union remained as collective-
bargaining representative seeking a contract, she might not be
able to grant him the otherwise promised wage increase.” Gen-
eral Counsel’s Brief at 8. The Respondent counters that Petros
specifically told Sparte that she could not “promise” him a
raise, and that she said she would try to given him the raise
even while the Union remained as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative. In addition, the Respondent points out that Sparte
received the $2 raise on September 1, 1999—3 weeks prior to
when the Respondent withdrew recognition from the Union and
without the Respondent ever asking Sparte to sign a petition or
take any other antiunion action.
During their conversation, Petros essentially told Sparte that
while the pay raise was a possibility with the Union present, it
would be a certainty if the Union were eliminated. This com-
munication was made in the context of a meeting during which,
as discussed above, Petros unlawfully interrogated Sparte about
his position regarding the Union and continued union represen-
tation. I conclude that Petros’ statements to Sparte were an
unlawful promise of a benefit in violation of Section 8(a)(1). I
do not find convincing the Respondent’s argument that Petros
explicitly told Sparte that she could not “promise” him the
raise, and therefore that her statements to him could not be
construed as a promise of benefit. That argument is overly
facile. One reason Petros’ statements to Sparte are violative of
Section 8(a)(1) is precisely because she did not make an un-
conditional promise of a pay raise, but rather told him that the
likelihood of the pay raise was conditioned on the elimination
of the Union as bargaining representative. The fact that Petros
did not ask Sparte to take a specific antiunion action, also does
not relieve her statements of their unlawful character. It is
enough that she linked the pay raise to elimination of the Un-
ion—especially since Sparte was one of only three or four unit
members and therefore would have a significant say in any
decisions regarding the Union’s fate. See, e.g., Feldkamp En-
terprises, 323 NLRB 1193 (1997) (Board affirms administra-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 948
tive law judge’s conclusion that employer violated act by tell-
ing employee that employer might grant him a pay raise, but
could not do so until the union organizing campaign was over);
Frank Leta Honda, 321 NLRB 482 (1996) (Board affirms ad-
ministrative law judge's conclusion that employer violated the
Act when it told employees that they could get wage increases
if they decertified the union).
Similarly, I find that Petros threatened Sparte in violation of
8(a)(1). Petros told Sparte that that “if the [U]nion was in, they
might negotiate a contract where [the] wage would stay the
same for [Sparte’s] position” (Tr. 69), and that “[u]nder the
contract . . . [it] might not be possible” to give him a raise (Tr.
84). Although Petros did not foreclose the possibility that
Sparte would get a raise if the Union remained in place, her
statements indicated that the pay raise Sparte wanted would be
put at risk by the continued existence of the Union, and, impli-
edly, by any action or inaction by Sparte that helped perpetuate
the Union.
C. The Petition
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent improperly
encouraged DelBusse to start the petition, and that this taints
the petition and renders it unusable as a basis for withdrawal of
recognition from the Union. The Board has held that an em-
ployer is permitted to provide ministerial aid to an employee
who has decided of his or her own volition to file a decertifica-
tion petition, but violates the Act by actively soliciting, encour-
aging, promoting, or providing assistance in the initiation, sign-
ing or filing of such a petition. Ernst Home Centers, 308
NLRB 848 (1992); Central Washington Hospital, 279 NLRB
60, 64 (1986), affd. 815 F.2d 1493 (9th Cir. 1987); Eastern
States Optical Co., 275 NLRB 371 (1985); Washington Street
Foundry, 268 NLRB 338, 339 (1983). The ministerial aid
must occur in a “situational context free of coercive conduct.”
Eastern States, 275 NLRB at 372. The “essential inquiry is
whether ‘the preparation[,] circulation, and signing of the peti-
tion constituted the free and uncoerced act of the employees
concerned.’” Id.
In this case, I conclude that the aid occurred in a context free
of coercion and that the preparation, circulation, and signing of
the petition constituted the free and uncoerced acts of DelBusse
and Kiester. The facts present here are similar to those that the
Board held did not give rise to a violation in Ernst Home Cen-
ters, 308 NLRB 848. In Ernst Home Centers a new employee,
whom the union had recently informed of her obligations under
a union-security agreement, approached the employer and
asked how she could avoid joining the union. Later during the
same conversation the employee asked the employer for some
“verbiage,” for a petition and the employer provided language
for a decertification petition. The Board rejected the General
Counsel’s argument that this evidence demonstrated that the
decertification petition would never have been filed but for the
employer’s suggestion that the employee file one. In the
Board’s view, the evidence “merely prove[d] that the [em-
ployer] replied to [the new employee’s] request for petition
language,” and that such “conduct, without more, does not
constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1).” 308 NLRB at 848.
Similarly, DelBusse was a new employee with the Bethel Park
store who had recently been approached by a union representa-
tive about paying union dues, and who then went to the em-
ployer of his own volition to ask how he could avoid being in
the Union. Like the employee in Ernst Home, DelBusse asked
the employer to provide him with language related to his re-
quest, and like Ernst Home the Respondent provided the lan-
guage. See also Eastern States, 275 NLRB 371 (Respondent
acted unwisely but not unlawfully when on two occasions it
provided an employee with assistance regarding a decertifica-
tion petition, but in each instance the employee had initiated the
contact); Washington Street Foundry, 268 NLRB at 339 (em-
ployer did not unlawfully aid petition where the employer pro-
vided language for the petition at the request of an employee,
but did not instigate the petition).
True, the situation in this case differs from that in Ernst
Home insofar as DelBusse did not explicitly request language
for a petition, but rather asked to get out of the Union. There-
fore, it can be argued that while DelBusse approached the Re-
spondent of his own volition to ask for help getting out of the
Union, the employer still unlawfully initiated the petition. Un-
der all the circumstances present here, I conclude that this is
neither a meaningful distinction nor one that warrants reaching
a different result here than in Ernst Home. The evidence shows
that after DelBusse had been approached to pay union dues, he
asked Hinkle if he could get out of the Union and still work at
the store, and subsequently told Petros that he “was never in a
union before” and “figured [he]’d just keep it like that.” A fair
interpretation of DelBusse’s request was that he wished to con-
tinue operating as he had before his transfer to the Bethel Park
location—i.e., without a union acting as his representative and
without paying any part of his salary to the Union. To Del-
Busse, who was not familiar with the intricacies of union mem-
bership and collective bargaining, the simple statement that he
wished to “get out of the Union,” almost certainly meant both
getting out of becoming a member of the Union and getting out
of being represented by the Union. Certainly, the General
Counsel has pointed to nothing in the record to suggest that
DelBusse wished to be represented by the Union, or to pay dues
to defray bargaining costs or otherwise support the collective-
bargaining aspect of the Union’s activities. Nor has the Gen-
eral Counsel argued that something less than a petition such as
the one the Respondent provided to DelBusse would have ac-
complished the ends of releasing DelBusse from union repre-
sentation and relieving him of the obligation to make agency
fee payments to the Union for bargaining functions. I con-
clude that the petition here was initiated by DelBusse of his
own volition, not by the Respondent. The aid given by the
Respondent was merely ministerial, and, in my view, not only
did not interfere with DelBusse’s freedom to choose whether or
not to be involved with the union, but assisted DelBusse in the
exercise of that very freedom. To insist that DelBusse say “de-
certification petition” or use some other term of art before the
information he was seeking could be revealed to him would
have been to keep him in the dark unnecessarily and to interfere
with the exercise of his freedom to choose.3

3 The General Counsel has not argued, nor do I believe it could rea-
sonably argue, that the Act imposed a duty on the Respondent to ask
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. 949
The General Counsel argues that “any sponsorship or in-
volvement by an Employer in the promotion of a decertification
style petition taints the petition,” and cites Paramount Poultry,
294 NLRB 867, 877 (1989), and American Linen Supply Co.,
297 NLRB 137 (1989). The Respondent’s actions here might
well create a taint if indeed “any involvement” was the proper
standard. As discussed above, however, the Board has held that
only involvement that is more than “ministerial” is improper.
The cases cited by the General Counsel do not call that standard
into question or show that the Respondent’s actions here should
be considered more than ministerial. In Paramount Poultry, the
Board affirmed the administrative law judge's reasoning for find-
ing that an antiunion petition was unlawfully tainted by employer
involvement. However, the administrative law judge specifically
stated in that case that the employer’s response to an employee
“inquiry as to the mechanics of getting rid of the Union [wa]s
not, in and of itself, an encroachment upon employees’ rights.”
294 NLRB at 877–878. Rather, a violation was established only
because the employer’s response was “coupled with” ”the prom-
ise to get employees $1 an hour more if the petition [wa]s suc-
cessful.” Id. In this case, the Respondent did not promise Del-
Busse or Kiester anything to encourage them to initiate and sign
the petition and therefore, under the reasoning of Paramount
Poultry, the Respondent did not violate the Act by responding to
DelBusse’s inquiry. The Board’s decision in American Linen
likewise does not support finding a violation. In that case, the
employer’s office and personnel manager had personally solic-
ited an employee to withdraw from the Union and the employer
had furnished withdrawal forms and provided notaries, secretar-
ies, and equipment during working hours to help in the decertifi-
cation effort. Under those circumstances a finding of violation
was certainly appropriate. However, in the instant case the Re-
spondent did not solicit DelBusse; rather DelBusse of his own
volition approached the Respondent to ask about getting out the
Union. Moreover, the Respondent did not provide the more ac-
tive, and ongoing, types of assistance that were decisive in
American Linen. Based on the circumstances present here, and in
light of the prior decisions of the Board, I find that the Respon-
dent did not unlawfully solicit, encourage, promote or assist Del-
Busse or Kiester in the initiation, circulation, or signing of the
petition.
D. Withdrawal of Recognition
On September 21, DelBusse and Kiester signed a petition,
which stated that they did not wish to be represented by the
Union. Since they were two of only four persons in the bar-
gaining unit at the time, this was objective evidence that there
was no longer a majority of unit employees who wanted to be
represented. Where the applicable CBA has expired, an em-
ployer can rely on such a petition to stop bargaining with the
union and withdraw recognition since the petition provides an
objective basis for reasonable doubt of the Union’s majority
status. Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781, 786–

questions to plumb DelBusse’s intentions further or instruct him re-
garding the range of possible options. Indeed, as discussed above, in
the General Counsel’s view even the brief discussion that Petros had
with DelBusse to confirm what DelBusse had previously told Hinkle
constituted an unlawful interrogation in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1).
787 (1996); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 331 NLRB 205
(2000); Lee Lumber & Bldg. Material Corp., 322 NLRB 175
(1996), affd. in part, revd. in part 117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir.
1997). However, “an employer cannot rely on any expression
of disaffection by its employees which is attributable to its own
unfair labor practices directed at undermining support for the
Union.” Wire Products Mfg., Corp., 326 NLRB 625, 627
(1998), enfd. 210 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2000).
The General Counsel’s argument that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act is based primarily on the premise that
the decertification-style petition was tainted by unlawful Respon-
dent involvement and therefore cannot justify refusal to bargain
or withdrawal of recognition. As found above, the Respondent’s
involvement in the decertification petition was ministerial and not
unlawful. Thus the General Counsel’s argument based on the
Respondent’s involvement in the petition fails.
The General Counsel also briefly argues that the petition was
tainted by the Respondent’s interrogation of, and promises to
Jason Sparte. As discussed above, I have concluded that the
Respondent did commit unfair labor practices by interrogating
Sparte about his position with respect to the Union and by tell-
ing him that he could have a pay raise if the Union was re-
moved as bargaining representative. However, “[n]ot every
unfair labor practice will taint evidence of a union’s subsequent
loss of majority support.” Lee Lumber & Building Material
Corp., 322 NLRB at 177. Rather “there must be specific proof
of a causal relationship between the unfair labor practice and
the ensuing events indicating a loss of support. “ Id.4
The evidence here does not show a causal relationship be-
tween the unfair labor practices involving Sparte and the anti-
union petition. To begin by stating the obvious, Sparte was not
one of the signers of the petition. In fact, according to his own
testimony, Sparte did not even see the petition. This makes it
extremely unlikely that the expression of disaffection in the peti-
tion can be attributed to Petros’ unlawful statements to Sparte.
In addition, the Respondent’s unlawful actions affecting
Sparte would not tend to cause DelBusse’s or Kiester’s disaf-
fection. The unfair labor practices involving Sparte were not
severe or pervasive, or otherwise of a type that one would ex-
pect to have a detrimental or lasting effect on the Union or unit
members generally. The interrogation and statements regarding
a pay raise that were the basis of the violations were not far
reaching and were not made in a public setting or to multiple
employees. Indeed, both DelBusse and Kiester testified that no
one had ever told them that they would get a wage increase if
the Union was voted out, or would not get a wage increase if
the Union remained. (Tr. 59–60 and 99.) Assuming that Sparte
informed either DelBusse or Kiester about Petros’ promise to
4 The Board considers several factors in determining whether a
causal relationship exists: (1) the length or time between the unfair
labor practice and the withdrawal of recognition; (2) the nature of the
violation, including the possibility of a detrimental or lasting effect on
employees; (3) the tendency of the violation to cause employee disaf-
fection; and (4) the effect of the unlawful conduct on employees’ mo-
rale, organization, activities, and membership in the Union. Lee Lum-
ber & Building Material Corp., 322 NLRB at 177 fn. 16.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 950
him regarding a wage increase,5 there is no reason to believe
that DelBusse or Kiester would have assumed the same promise
applied to them. Moreover, Sparte actually received the wage
increase several weeks before the petition was initiated, and
this showed that it was not necessary for employees to remove
the Union in order to receive raises.
Furthermore, it is clear that there were other reasons for the
employees becoming disaffected with the Union. Kiester testi-
fied that the employees’ decision to reject the Union was a
“long time coming,” (Tr. 98), and he told DelBusse he was
unhappy with the Union because there was “no union represen-
tative and they hadn’t had a contract in a long time.” (Tr. 48.)
Indeed, the Union had not negotiated a new contract since the
prior CBA expired in May 1995, and a period of almost 3 years
had passed without any negotiations towards a new contract.
The General Counsel presented no evidence to suggest that
DelBusse’s or Kiester’s poor morale or disaffection regarding
the Union was caused by Petros’ statements to Sparte, rather
than by the failure of the bargaining process. Under the cir-
cumstances here, I find that the Respondent’s unfair labor prac-
tices regarding Sparte did not influence, and did not have a
significant tendency to influence, the actions of DelBusse and
Kiester with respect to the petition. Therefore, I conclude that
the unfair labor practices involving Sparte did not taint the
antiunion petition.
For the reasons discussed above, I find that, as of September
21, 1999, the Respondent reasonably doubted the union’s con-
tinued majority status based on objective considerations. In
addition, as previously noted, the contract between the Union
and the Respondent had previously expired. Therefore, the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) or (5) of the Act by
refusing to bargain with the Union and withdrawing recognition
from the Union as of September 23, 1999. Bridge-
stone/Firestone, Inc., supra. I will recommend that the com-
plaint allegation involving unlawful failure to bargain and
withdrawal of recognition be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by interrogating Jason Sparte about his position regarding the
Union, promising Sparte that he would receive a raise if the
Union was removed as collective-bargaining representative,
and threatening Sparte with the possibility that he would not be
able to receive a raise if the Union remained as collective-
bargaining representative. Further, I find that these violations
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.

5 The General Counsel need not show actual employee knowledge of
the unfair labor practices in order to establish that those practices
tainted the employee’s expression of disaffection. The question is
whether the unlawful actions would have a foreseeable tendency to
cause the weakening of employee support for the Union. Wire Prod-
ucts Mfg. Corp., supra at fn.13; Hearst Corp., 281 NLRB 764, 765
(1986), affd. 837 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1988).
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I will
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended Order.6
ORDER
The Respondent, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Bethel Park,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by
coercively interrogating any employee about union support or
union activities.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by
promising, or impliedly promising, any employee that he or she
will receive a pay raise, or other job benefit, if a labor organiza-
tion is eliminated or excluded as the employees’ collective-
bargaining representative.
(c) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by
threatening, or impliedly threatening, any employee that he or
she will not receive a pay raise, or other job benefit, if a labor
organization is not eliminated or excluded as the employees’
collective-bargaining representative.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of aUnited States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant To A
Judgement of the United States Court Of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.”
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. 951
all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since July of 1999.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.

WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union
support or activities.
WE WILL NOT promise, or impliedly promise, that you will
receive a pay raise, or other job benefit, if a labor organization
is eliminated or excluded as your collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE WILL NOT threaten, or impliedly threaten, that you will
not receive a pay raise, or other job benefit, unless a labor or-
ganization is eliminated or excluded as your collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.