Brunwick Quick Freezer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1495 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

BRUNSWICK QUICK FREEZER , INC 1495
(b) Respondents by engaging in picketing with an object thereof to force or re-
quire J Hilbert, Inc, Sapp to cease doing business with A C West, have engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act
IV
The aforesaid unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations
of J Hilbert Sapp, Inc , have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to burden and obstruct
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
V
The evidence adduced does not establish that the Respondents engaged in
any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), 8 (b) (2),
or 8 (b) (4) (B)
[Recommendations omitted from publication I
Brunswick Quick Freezer, Inc. and Seafarers International
Union of North America, Atlantic & Gulf Districts, AFL-
CIO. Case No 10-CA-2720 February 7, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 5, 1957, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued an In-
termediate Report, and on December 16, 1957, a Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report, in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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 copies of the Inter-
mediate Report and Supplemental Intermediate Report attached here-
to. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint,
and recommended dismissal of those allegations.' Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Supple-
mental Intermediate Report, and briefs in support thereof.
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 Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no piejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the Supplemental Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner in his
Intermediate Report, as supplemented.'
'As no exceptions have been filed to this finding and recommendation, we adopt them
pro forma
2 The finding of the Trial Examiner that President Lewis of the Respondent, in a speech
to more than 80 employees, threatened to close the plant, or to operate with machinery
119 NLICB No 189
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor'
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Brunswick Quick
Freezer, Inc., Brunswick, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Threatening employees with economic reprisals to discourage
their affiliation with or support of Seafarers International Union of
North America, Atlantic & Gulf Districts, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in, or to re-
frain from engaging in, any or all of the activities specified in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized by 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 place of business in Brunswick, Georgia, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 3
Copies of such notice, to be supplied by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's represent-
ative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act different from those found in this Decision and Order,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
which would displace employees , rather than deal with the Union is based upon a resolu-
tion of conflicting testimony . Inasmuch as the clear preponderance of all the relevant
evidence does not show that the Trial Examiner 's resolution was incorrect , we adopt his
credibility resolutions and his findings based thereon . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc.,
91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 302 (C. A. 3). Respondent's contention that Lewis'
threats, if found to have been made, were " isolated in nature ," and do not warrant any
remedial order , is without merit.
3 This notice is to be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a 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 the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
BRUNSWICK QUICK FREEZER, INC. 1497
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The only issues herein are whether
Respondent's [Brunswick Quick Freezer, Inc. herein called Respondent] Presi-
dent Sam L. Lewis made a speech to all employees in which he threatened
to close the plant before he would deal with the union [Seafarers International
Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf Districts, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union] and also threatened to discharge employees and replace them with
machinery because of the Union's organizational activity;
and whether
Respondent's Personnel Manager, Esther L. Midgett, threatened employees
with discharge and other reprisals if they joined or supported the Union.'
Lewis' Speech
The Union's organizational efforts among Respondent's employees began about
September 1, 1956, when 5 or 6 of Respondent's employees attended a union meet-
ing of workers of another concern and asked what could be done to organize Re-
spondent's employees. Cards were given Respondent's employees who attended
this meeting, and these employees got about 40 of these cards signed on September 2
and 3.
During the morning of September 4, 1956, Respondent cut off its machinery and
assembled its white women workers (between 80 and 95 employees) to hear a talk
by Samuel L. Lewis, Respondent's president. At the outset of his talk Lewis in-
formed the employees that he had just received information about the efforts to
organize 2 and that was the subject matter of his talk.
Lewis testified that he told the employees that he was making the talk because
he had just heard about the efforts to organize Respondent's employees, and that he
called attention to the fact that the business had been started many years ago (40
years) by himself and had grown until today it was a million-dollar operation but
it could not continue unless it was conservatively and competitively operated. Lewis
testified further that he told the employees of his benevolence and interest in them
and the community and that with these things in mind he had deferred his retirement
and seen to it that the business was in competent hands and that it should continue
as a growing business but that to do so it would have to be operated on a highly
competitive basis. Lewis further testified that he told the employees that he had
no objection to their joining or not joining the Union but they should take these
things into consideration in deciding whether to join or not join and that there was
a room in the building where they could meet to discuss these matters without
interference from Respondent. Lewis testified he told the employees "we had
breading machines and that they had seen them operate but the intention of these
breading machines was not to let, any of them out of employment, but to expand
the operation of our employment in order that we might continue to keep our
present employment and meet the competition of our competitive operations."
Lewis denied telling the employees that the plant would shut down before it would
operate under a union and denied that he referred to himself as a millionaire. He
testified "the only time that the word million was used in there was used that this op-
eration had become a million dollar operation and could become a useless operation
if not properly operated." Lewis denied that his farm was mentioned.
Employee Juanita Bennett testified that in his talk Lewis said he was a millionaire
and before he would see the plant operate under organized labor he would close
it down permanently; that he was running the plant solely for the benefit of the
community and that before he would see the plant organized he would close it
down and resort to income from his farm, and said that before he would see the
plant organized he would put into operation a breading machine which was available
but not then in operation and thus throw all of the breaders (white women workers)
out of employment.
Employee Henrietta Harrell testified that in his talk Lewis said he was a millionaire
and before he would see the plant operate under organized labor he would close
the plant down permanently and that he was running the plant solely for the benefit
of the community and that he would not see it go into organized labor. Harrell also
testified: that Lewis mentioned his farm and something about machinery, but she
could not recall what he said about those matters.
1 Above quotations are from paragraph 3 of the complaint involved herein.
2 In Lewis' terminology that there was "agitation in the plant."
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Gussie Collins testified that in his talk Lewis said he was not for the
Union and he "just didn't have to run it [the plant] if he didn't want to." Collins
also testified that Lewis mentioned that "it was a millionaire firm or something
like that" but did not give the details of Lewis' remarks about this matter.
Collins also testified that Lewis said the breading machines were there but were
not being used so we would have work and that he was not using them to .put us
out of work. Collins did not remember Lewis' saying anything about the farm.
According to employee Edith Young
Well, he [Lewis] came in the room there and he said he wanted to talk to us.
He said that he understood that us girls, some of us, was trying to put the
union in and that he didn't want us to get behind his back to make an[y] of
the speeches, that he had a room upstairs that we could use for our meetings
and Mrs. Midgett [personnel foreman] could let us off to go up there any
time we wanted to go and he said that he was a millionaire, that he didn't have
to run the plant under union law, that he had machinery that would do the
work but that he run the plant to help us women and he wanted to help us
women and he run the plant to help us.
Young also testified that Lewis said "he had a turkey farm that he could always make
a living at."
Employees Alzada Robinson and Lilly Belle Murray testified that Lewis said
he was a millionaire and that he would close the plant before he would work it
under a union. Murray also testified that Lewis said he had a "breading machine
that would take care of the breading for just a few of the girls." 3
General Manager Edward Drawdy and Personnel Foreman Esther Midgett (Lewis'
sister) corroborated Lewis' version of his talk. According to Drawdy, Lewis told
the employees it was a million dollar corporation and that it had to stay competitive
and, with reference to the breading machines, Lewis said "the machine was capable
of operating and doing as much shrimp as they were doing on the other side [as the
white women workers in the breading department-about 80 employees] but that it
wasn't going to interfere with any of the employees that we now had because he
felt that the trend of business would demand that much more increase business for
us and of course, there would be quite a few people in operating the machine."
Drawdy denied that Lewis said he would replace employees with the breading
machine, and denied that Lewis said he was a millionaire and that he would shut
down the plant before he would operate under a union. Drawdy testified that Lewis
did say the business was competitive and "if we couldn't be competitive with our
prices that we would have to close the plant."
Employee Sadie Hathaway denied that Lewis said "anything about shutting down
the plant if the union came in the plant," and testified that Lewis said he was operating
the plant "for the good of the people and that he wouldn't shut it down." Hathaway
denied that Lewis said "anything about laying anybody off in using the breading
machine." Hathaway testified Lewis said the breading machine was there in antici-
pation of an expansion of business. Hathaway did not recall hearing Lewis "say
anything about he was a millionaire" and did not remember Lewis' mentioning his
farm. Hathaway testified Lewis did not say anything about retiring.
Employee Maude Driggers testified that Lewis did not say anything about shutting
the plant down but did say that he was not using the breading machine because he
was "helping out the poor people . . . letting them work instead of using his
machinery that he had in down there, that he wanted to help the poor people."
Driggers testified that she did not hear Lewis say he was a millionaire but he did
say "he had a million dollar plant."
Employee Mynell Manning testified she did not hear Lewis say anything about
being a millionaire but did hear him say "we had a million dollar firm" and that
Lewis did not say he would close the plant.
Employee Betty Scott testified she did not hear Lewis say anything about shutting
the plant down but that she did hear Lewis say he was operating the plant as a favor
for, and for the benefit of, the employees. Scott testified that Lewis said the breading
machine was on hand for anticipated increase of business and that it would not
cause a decrease in employment. Scott testified that Lewis did mention that he had
an income producing turkey farm.
Employee Jane Aspinwall testified that Lewis did not say anything about closing
the plant and did not threaten to replace employees by using the breading machine.
Aspinwall testified Lewis said the breading machine would not be used "to lay off
any labor or anything."
3 From the entire record herein it appears that his quotation shonld ' read "except for
just a few of the girls."
BRUNSWICK QUICK FREEZER , INC. 1499
Employee Irene Knight testified that she did not hear Lewis say he would close
down the plant before he would operate under the Union but Lewis did say it was
a million dollar concern and the breading machine was being installed in anticipation
of increased business.
Employee Maggie Carter testified that Lewis did not threaten anybody and said
the breading machine would not be used to replace employees and "we would work,
too, with the breading machine."
As noted above , analysis of this record reveals that during his talk Lewis referred,
inter alia , ( 1). to the value and growing and competitive nature of the business (2)
to his plans to retire ( 3) to his income producing turkey farm 4 and (4 ) to a bread-
ing machine which Respondent had ready for, but not in, operation . Also, in general
witnesses called by the General Counsel testified that Lewis threatened , because of the
advent of the Union , to put in operation the breading machine which could replace
a large number of employees and threatened to close down the plant and witnesses
called by the Respondent corroborated Lewis' version of his talk that such threats
were not made. In the final analysis the issue for determination herein is : were the
matters enumerated above referred to in such a manner as to amount to threats
or were they commented upon to convey to the employees that while Lewis would
not be in business too much longer he had made plans to continue his benevolence
and interest in the welfare of Respondent 's employees and that the employees should
take these matters into consideration in determining whether to join the Union,
although they were free to join or not join, without interference from Respondent?
Bearing in mind that the factor which governed the timing of the talk was the advent
of the Union only a few days before the talk, that the purpose of the talk was to
convey to the employees reasons for not joining the Union , and bearing in mind
the appearance of the witnesses as they testified (especially the demeanor and ap-
parent temperament of Lewis, Bennett, Harrell, Young, and Drawdy) and having
analyzed the record herein , the Trial Examiner believes and finds that the content
of Lewis' talk constituted threats of reprisals should the employees join the Union.5
Accordingly , the Trial Examiner finds that Respondent , through Lewis, interfered
with, restrained , and coerced its employees in their free choice of a bargaining
representative , and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, herein called the Act.
Threats by Midgett 6
Regarding statements by Midgett , employee Juanita Bennett testified:
Well, one of the girls at the table said , "Mrs. Midgett , Mr. Lewis said he is
willing to pay competitive prices but Jekylle is paying 85 cents an hour, why are
we only getting 60 cents an hour," and Mrs. Midgett said, "aren 't you satisfied
with what you are getting here?" She said , "If you are not satisfied with what
you are getting here why don 't you go to Jekylle," and this girl said, "I will go
to Jekylle if I can get employment there."
Employee Edith Young , regarding statements by Midgett , testified:
Q. Do you remember what she said?-A. She said she didn't know what
union wages was-production was, but if you worked for the Union that you
would have to make production and she said at that time that we were breading
boxes by the hour, it was round shrimp , and she said she had some of her fastest
breaders and she put them on the hour work that they didn 't do no more than
the slowest breaders which she did tell a story.
4 Lewis admitted owning a half interest in a turkey farm but denied that reference to
this farm was made in his talk on September 4. Employees Juanita Bennett, Henrietta
Harrell . Edith Young, and Betty Scott testified that Lewis did mention this farm. On the
basis of observation of witnesses and analysis of the record herein the Trial Examiner
finds that Lewis did refer to this farm.
5 The finding that Lewis exceeded the permissible in indicating Respondent ' s opposition
to the Union is based upon the composite and correlated evidence rather than upon
definite specific testimony and no finding is made herein as to the precise words used by
Lewis . For instance, the Trial Examiner is not resolving the issue of whether Lewis said
he was a millionaire or said it was it million dollar operation. Regardless of the exact
words used , the Trial Examiner believes and finds that the evidence reveals that Lewis
did indicate that Respondent was a potent organization whose opposition was to be
avoided and did threaten employees with reprisals if they continued to affiliate with or
support the Union.
6 The supervisory status of Midgett was in issue during the hearing. However, in its
well prepared brief , "Respondent now stipulates that Mrs. Midgett is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act."
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Alzada Robinson, regarding statements by Midgett, testified:
she said the union was new to her. She had not heard of it before until
Mr. Lewis had made his speech and she made about the same talk he did only
shorter. She said that if the union went in, the old ladies, the ones that could
not make the production, that they would be laid off and just the best hands, you
know, the fastest employees would be held. That is about all she had to say.
Employee Betty Scott, regarding statements by Midgett, testified:
Q. Did you hear Mrs. Midgett say anything after the meeting was over?-A.
Yes, sir. She said just as near what Mr. Lewis said. Some of them asked her
what he was saying and Mrs. Midgett tried to tell them what he said. Some of
them can't understand him and she quoted about the same as he said.
a a s o a o e
Q. Did Mrs. Midgett say anything about anybody being laid off that couldn't
make production?-A. No, she sure didn't.
Employee Irene Knight denied that Midgett said anything about employees losing
their jobs if they joined the Union and denied hearing Midgett say anything about
anybody being fired if they did not make production.
Midgett testified that immediately after Lewis' talk she attempted to give to some
of the employees a synopsis of what Lewis had said, and with reference to the neces-
sity for "making production,"
I said if they were working by the hour and everyone had to earn or had to be
paid a certain amount.per hour regardless of her production, we might have to
get down there and crowd production.
Midgett testified she told the employees that she had heard that a foreman in a sew-
ing plant, where production workers were paid "a certain amount per hour" for their
labor, sought maximum production by going down the production line "hollering
sew, sew, sew" and that if Respondent had to pay a certain amount regardless of
production she "might have to run down this line [the breading line] and holler bread,
bread, bread."
Counsel for the General Counsel did not engage in oral argument or file a brief
in this matter and his contentions concerning Midgett's remarks are not known by
the Trial Examiner.
Respondent's argument, that Midgett's remarks should be interpreted as a predic-
tion that the Union would demand a minimum hourly rate of pay irrespective of
production and that if Respondent complied with this demand Respondent would
be unable to retain those employees who could not bread sufficient shrimp to cover
the payment of their wages, appears reasonable.
The remarks by Midgett that the employee should find herself another job if dis-
satisfied with her rate of pay, taken in connection with the circumstances in which
it was uttered, was neither a threat nor, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, a viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
In view of the foregoing and upon the basis of the entire record herein, the Trial
Examiner recommends that the allegations of the complaint to the effect that Re-
spondent, through Esther L. Midgett, threatened employees with discharge and other
reprisals if they joined or supported the Union, be dismissed.
Threats Isolated
Respondent contends that even if Lewis did threaten reprisals that this is a case
within the Board's rule that isolated threats of reprisal do not warrant the issuance
of a remedial order. The Trial Examiner hereby rejects this contention. Here Re-
spondent, through its president, made threats of reprisals to a group of between 80
and 95 employees whom Respondent had assembled to hear such threats. Threats
under such circumstances can hardly be viewed as isolated under any rule.
Ultimate Findings and Conclusions
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
(1) The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board's requirements
for the assertion of jurisdiction herein?
In its answer, Respondent admitted that it is a Georgia corporation engaged in
processing seafood, and that during a representative 12-month period ending November 30,
1956, it sold and shipped directly to customers outside the State of Georgia products of a
value in excess of $500,000.
BRUNSWICK QUICK FREEZER , INC. 1501
'(2) Seafarers International Union of North America , Atlantic & Gulf Districts,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
(3) The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent , through its president,
interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(4) The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
(5) The evidence adduced does not establish that Respondent , through its
personnel foreman (Esther Midgett ), engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) 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 Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic reprisals because of their
affiliation with or support of Seafarers International Union of North America,
Atlantic & Gulf Districts , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in, or refrain from engaging
in, union or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
All employees are free to become, remain , or to refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic &
Gulf Districts , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
BRUNSWICK QUICK FREEZER, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Ropresentative ) ( 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.
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT
On April 5, 1957, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the
above-entitled matter. Thereafter, by order dated November 25, 1957, the Board
remanded this matter to the Trial Examiner with directions that the Trial Examiner
prepare and issue "a Supplemental Intermediate Report, such report to contain
findings of fact, together with appropriate conclusions and recommendations, as
required by the Rules and Regulations."
In the original Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner, in a section entitled "Lewis'
speech," outlined the evidence involved. In the original report the Trial Exam-
iner resolved the conflicting evidence and found that Respondent's president, Sam
L. Lewis, made a speech in which he threatened to close the plant before he would
deal with the Union and also threatened to discharge employees and replace them
with machinery because of the Union's organizational activity.' The Trial Exam-
iner noted that "in general witnesses called by the General Counsel testified that
[Lewis made such threats] and witnesses called by the Respondent corroborated
Lewis' version of his talk that such threats were not made." The Trial Examiner
then resolved this conflict in favor of the General Counsel, setting forth the reasons
for such resolution, and made the findings noted above. Nevertheless, the Board
in its order remanding this proceeding states that "no resolution of the conflicts
in the testimony has been made," that "the Intermediate Report is without find-
ings of fact to support the ultimate conclusion of the Trial Examiner," and that,
therefore, the Intermediate Report "does not comply with Section 102.45 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations." Apparently the Board finds fault with that por-
1 Similar findings were also made in the sections of the Report entitled "Threats Iso-
lated" and "Ultimate Findings and Conclusions."
1502 DECISIONS; OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.lion, of footnote 5 of the Intermediate Report which states that "the finding that
Lewis exceeded the permissible in indicating Respondent's opposition to the Union
is based upon the composite and correlated evidence rather than upon definite
.specific testimony. ..." 2
Examination and appraisal of all elements of the evidence taken together, and
not merely segments thereof considered singly and apart, convinces the Trial
Examiner that Lewis made (in substance and effect) the threats attributed to him
by, among others, Juanita Bennett, Henrietta Harrell and Edith Young. The total-
ity of ,the evidence, including the interrelationship of the testimony of witnesses,
together with inherent probabilities, the bearing and delivery of witnesses and the
apparent temperament of witnesses, reveals a mosaic or pattern (see Universal
Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U. S. 474, and Shell Oil Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
196 F. 2d 637, 639 (C. A. 5) in which Lewis threatened to close the plant and
threatened to discharge and replace employees with machinery, rather than deal
with the Union. As indicated in the original Intermediate Report the Trial Exam-
iner's findings that Lewis' speech violated the Act are based upon the record thus
considered (are based upon the entire record rather than isolated segments thereof)
and that is what the Trial Examiner meant by the portion of footnote 5 which the
Board evidently finds faulty. Perhaps the Trial Examiner should have used the
-terms "congeries" or "totality" of the evidence or the record as a whole (see
N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Company, 311 U. S. 584, 588, and N. L. R. B. v. Lunder
.Shoe Corp., 211 F. 2d 284, 288 (C. A. 1), instead of "composite and correlated
evidence." However, the latter terms do not appear to be inept or misleading.
See Canyon Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 128 F. 2d 953, 955 (C. A. 8), and
E. Anthony & Sons, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 163 F. 2d 22 (C. A., D. C.).
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner avoidance of express and direct statements
.impugning the veracity of witnesses is consistent with the aims of the Act and such
statements should not be made, except when required. In the instant matter the
Trial Examiner believes such statements not required. However, apparently the
Board believes otherwise and desires such statements. Accordingly, the Trial
Examiner now states that he considers the testimony attributing to Lewis the
threats involved herein more reliable than the testimony that Lewis did not make
such threats. The reasons or basis for such resolutions are stated in the original
In Report, namely, personal demeanor, conduct and attitude of wit-
nesses, careful evaluation and weighing of evidence, and inherent probability.
As supplemented by the information contained herein, the Intermediate Report
issued on April 5, 1957, is hereby reissued.
2 Footnote 5 in its entirety reads as follows : The finding that Lewis exceeded the
permissible in indicating Respondent's opposition to the Union is based upon the composite
and correlated evidence rather than upon definite specific testimony and no finding is made
herein as to the precise words used by Lewis. For instance, the Trial Examiner is not
resolving the issue of whether Lewis said he was a millionaire or said it was a million
dollar operation. Regardless of the exact words used, the Trial Examiner believes and
finds that the evidence reveals that Lewis did indicate that Respondent was a potent
organization whose opposition was to be avoided and did threaten employees with re-
prisals if they continued to affiliate with or support the Union.
Hook Drugs, Inc. and Local No. 725, Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1230.
February 7,1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision of the Board, issued March 28, 1957,1 a
second election was conducted on April 23 and 24, 1957, resulting in a
vote of 178 for, and 124 against, the Petitioner. On May 1 the Em-
1117 NLRB 846.
119 NLRB No. 193.