Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 871 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 871
Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc.; Fenton Theatres, Inc.; M
& E Land Company , Inc.;, Pine Drive-In Theatres,
Inc.; and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc. and
Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO
Cedar Hill Theatres, Inc.; Fenton Theatres, Inc.; M
& E Land Company, Inc.; Pine Drive-In Theatres,
Inc.; and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc. and
Local 511, International Alliance of 'Theatrical
Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases 12-CA-3663 and
12-RC-2546
December 13, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On September 11, 1967, Trial Examiner Arthur
Christopher, Jr., issued his Decision in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found
merit in the Union's objections to the election and
recommended that the election be set aside.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a
limited exception.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, with the modifications noted
herein.
1. In addition to the jurisdictional facts found by
the Trial Examiner, the record discloses that 5 per-
cent of the gross proceeds of Respondent's busi-
ness, or in excess of $25,000 per year, is paid to
Fran Mack, Inc., a North Carolina corporation
located in Charlotte, North Carolina, for various
services rendered. Like the Trial Examiner, we
conclude that Respondent is and has been, at all
material times, engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. Respondent urges that the employees relied
on certain promises made by Union Representative
Tidwell when they signed authorization cards for
the Union. Although some of the employees
testified that they relied on statements made by Tid-
well to the effect that they would receive Interna-
tional cards and extra work, that the union initiation
fee would be waived, and that a reasonable mourn-
ing period would be observed before the Union
would contact the Employer, the Trial Examiner
credited Tidwell's version of these alleged state-
ments . According to Tidwell , no promises were
made with regard to obtaining International cards,
and while the other subjects may have been
discussed, the discussion occurred at the meeting at
Tidwell's home on August 1, 1966. Since all the
employees with the exception of David Earl Hill
had signed authorization cards prior to this meeting,
and since a clear preponderance of all the evidence
does not convince us that the Trial Examiner's
credibility resolution is incorrect, we sustain the
Trial Examiner's finding that there was no fraud,
deceit, misrepresentation, or coercion involved in
the signing of the authorization cards.
3. At one point in his Decision, the Trial Ex-
aminer inadvertently referred to the authorization
cards as "seeking a Board election." We note, how-
ever, that the cards and application for membership
were, on their face, solely authorizations for collec-
tive-bargaining purposes. Respondent offered no
evidence to show they were in any way represented
to be cards seeking a Board election. We find they
were effective for the purposes of establishing the
Union's majority.
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding
that Respondent's unfair labor practices fostered
and inspired the preparation and signing of the em-
ployees' letter requesting withdrawal from the
Union. In view of this finding, and in keeping with
established Board precedent,' we conclude that the
withdrawals are without effect,2 and that the Union
continued to have a majority on August 15, 1966,
the date of its formal demand for recognition. Thus,
for the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner, we
' Werstein 's Uniform Shirt Company, 157 NLRB 856; Sullivan Sur-
plus Sales , Inc., 152 NLRB 132.
' Respondent urges that the interrogation of Jones came subsequent to
his signing the letter of withdrawal. Although there is some confusion as
to the sequence of events , in view of the pervasive coercive conduct of the
Respondent and the small size of the unit, the signing of the letter of
withdrawal must be persumed to be the result of Respondent 's unlawful
conduct. Werstein 's Uniform Shirt Company, supra. In any event, Jones'
revocation is not material since the validity of his authorization card is not
necessary for a majority
168 NLRB No. 116
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by refusing to bargain with the Union.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Cedar
Hills Theatres, Inc.; Fenton Theatres, Inc.; M & E
Land Company, Inc.; Pine Drive-In Theatres, Inc.;
and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete the word "unilateral" in paragraph 1(a)
with regard to the reference to the raises.
2. Delete paragraph 1(b) and substitute the fol-
lowing:
"(b) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, by threatening such employees with discharge
or other economic reprisals or by threatening the
closing of its theatres."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for cer-
tification of representative filed in Case
12-RC-2546 be, and it hereby is, dismissed, and
that all prior proceedings held thereunder be, and
they hereby are, vacated.
3 Even if we were to give technical effect to the withdrawals, it is clear
that the Union represented a majority prior to Respondent's unfair labor
practices . In these circumstances , in order not to permit Respondent to
benefit from its unlawful conduct, and because a fair election has been
rendered impossible, we would deem a bargaining order under Sec. 8(a)(1)
appropriate . Northwest Engineering Company, 158 NLRB 624, enfd.
376 F.2d 770 (C.A.D.C.), Bannon Mills , Inc., 146 NLRB 611; D H.
Holmes Company Ltd v. N.L.R.B., 179 F.2d 876 (C.A. 5).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER , JR., Trial Examiner : Upon the
basis of a charge filed on October 5, 1966 , by Local 511,
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to either as
the Petitioner, the Charging Party, or the Union, the com-
plaint in Case 12-CA-3663 was issued on November 10,
1966 . By supplemental decision and order issued on the
same date , the Regional Director for Region 12 con-
solidated a hearing on objections to the election filed by
the Union in Case 12-RC-2546 , with the hearing on the
aforesaid complaint.
The complaint alleges that Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc.,
et al., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent or the
Employer, violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act. In its answer , Respondent denies
that it committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, the hearing was held in
Jacksonville , Florida, on December 20, 21, 22, and 23,
1966. At the hearing, the General Counsel and the
Respondent-Employer were represented by counsel; an
appearance was also entered on behalf of the Union.
Briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the
Respondent-Employer within the time designated
therefor. Upon the entire record,' my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent-
Employer, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT-EMPLOYER
Respondent, Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc., Fenton
Theatres, Inc., M & E Land Company, Inc., Pine Drive-
In Theatres, Inc., and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc.,
are, and have been at all times material herein, corpora-
tions engaged in the operation of motion picture theatres
in the Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida, area. In this
respect, the Respondent maintains a common, centralized
office located at Charlotte, North Carolina, where H. B.
Meiselman, the president of each of the individual firms,
maintains his office, together with an office maintained in
one of the Jacksonville, Florida, theatres for its Metro-
politan Jacksonville operations.
The stock of all five corporations is held either by H. B.
Meiselman, Michael H. Meiselman, his son, who serves
as vice president in each corporate enterprise, a second
son, named E. S. Meiselman, the late Mrs. H. B. Meisel-
man, who died a few months prior to the hearing,2 and a
man named Jaffee, who was married to the deceased
daughter of H. B. Meiselman. At all times material
herein, the theatres and related firms have been operated
as a single, integrated enterprise with common manage-
ment, common ownership, common offices, and central-
ized administrative control, and with H. B. Meiselman
and his two sons establishing the labor relations and other
policies of each corporate enterprise.
During the 12-month period ending July 1966, the com-
bined gross volume of business of the aforementioned
theatres in Jacksonville was in excess of $500,000, and
during the same period, these theatres paid in excess of
$225,000 for film rentals to Jacksonville, Florida, branch
offices of firms maintaining their principal offices outside
the State of Florida.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the aforemen-
tioned corporate enterprises constitute a single employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. I further
find that the Respondent-Employer is, and has been at all
times material herein, engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will
On February 28, 1967, counsel for the General Counsel and on
March 1, 1967, counsel for Respondent, respectively, filed motions to
correct the transcript of record in certain respects, and, on March 9, 1967,
counsel for Respondent filed an amendment to its motion to correct the
aforesaid transcript of record. On March 1, 1967, and March 9, 1967,
counsel for Respondent and counsel for the General Counsel , respective-
ly, filed oppositions , in certain respects , to the other party's motion to cor-
rect the transcript. Having duly considered the matter , the motions are
hereby granted only insofar as the corrections appear on Appendix A
[omitted from publication], and in all other respects are denied
3 The record does not reveal whether Mrs . Meiselman 's interest has
been disposed of by probate court, or otherwise.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 873
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.3
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent-Employer admits, and I find, that
Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
Local 511, the Union, or the Petitioner, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principal issue in this proceeding is whether the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
through its alleged unlawful refusal to bargain with the
Union. In this connection the General Counsel asserts
that when the Union filed its petition on July 29, 1966,
and subsequently made its demand for recognition on Au-
gust 15, 1966, the Respondent engaged in alleged illegal
conduct during the period between those dates. The
General Counsel argues that through such "unlawful and
widespread conduct in interrogating, threatening and
coercing its employees" and granting wage increases,
upon learning that a petition had been filed, Respondent's
activities allegedly had the casual relationship that
resulted in a subsequent letter of revocation of union
authorizations and designations submitted by the em-
ployees in the unit found to be appropriate by the Acting
Regional Director. The General Counsel also urges that
the issue of inappropriateness of unit raised by the
Respondent is lacking in merit, asserting that the alleged
revocations of designations on the part of the employees
were coerced revocations inspired by the Respondent's
unlawful acts, and reflects that the Respondent's refusal
to bargain is predicated upon bad faith.
The General Counsel further alleges that the Respond-
ent engaged in substantial violations of Section 8(a)(1)
by interfering with the employees in their organizational
activities.
The Respondent asserts that no violation of the Act oc-
curred on its part, urging that the withdrawal of authoriza-
tions and applications for membership on the part of the
employees who had signed union cards occurred because
the employees were disappointed because of promises the
Union had made to them, and could or did not keep as set
forth in detail below.
B. The Organizational Campaign
Willis Leroy Hill, who had been employed by the
Respondent for approximately 4 years, credibly testified
that his first contact with the Union occurred during the
summer of 1966, when he visited Douglas D. Tidwell,
local representative of the Union, to ascertain the facts
about joining the Union. Prior to his talk with Tidwell,
Willis Leroy Hill had spoken to Winfrey Turner, also an
employee of the Respondent, who told Hill that Tidwell
would like to see him about the matter.
Tidwell, the business representative of Local 511,
stated that the first contact he had had with employees of
the Respondent occurred during a conversation between
him and an employee named Kenneth Reeves, in the
early summer of 1966, when Reeves told Tidwell that
most of the Respondent's employees were dissatisfied
with their jobs. Following that conversation they
discussed the matter again on a later date and Reeves still
had the same point of view, implying, according to Tid-
well, that he would like some assistance. Tidwell stated
that he would be happy to assist him. He also told Reeves
to find out how the other projectionists felt about the
matter and ascertain whether Tidwell could likewise help
them. Arrangements were made for subsequent meetings
with projectionist employees of the Respondent named
Louis Tiliakos, Turner, Reeves, and a friend of Tiliakos
named McCall, at the latter's home. At that time, accord-
ing to Tidwell, cards were signed by those employees
who were present. Tidwell testified that in addition to
signing cards seeking a Board election, a number of em-
ployees likewise signed applications for membership in
the Union. He held the aforesaid cards until they were
turned over to the office of the General Counsel. Accord-
ing to Tidwell, at the meeting held at McCall's home, em-
ployees Turner and Reeves signed cards and also signed
applications for membership that same day which was
July 2, 1966. Tidwell stated that he had received an appli-
cation from Turner as well as two cards. On the, same
date, employee-projectionist Joe Grubbs signed an
authorization card while in the projection booth at the
Blanding Drive-In Theatre, where he was employed by
the Respondent.
Later Kenneth Reeves told Tidwell that he would like
for Tidwell to accompany him and Turner to see Willis
Leroy Hill, and they in turn went to Hill's house where
Reeves stated' that he would talk to Hill.4 Tidwell ex-
plained to both employees that if they were really
dissatisfied with their wages, hours, and other working
conditions and desired the Union to represent them, that
they should join the Union. He also credibly testified that
they were not required to be members of the Union to
hold or acquire jobs, that they could sign if they desired,
which they in fact did, Hill being the first to sign and
Turner thereafter. Tidwell testified that he explained to
them that one of the documents was an application for
membership which had to be endorsed by three members,
and that Tidwell was scheduled to go to the International
convention of the Union and he would take the applica-
tions with him at which time he would seek the advice and
counsel of the International officers and, upon his return,
file with the National Labor Relations Board the
authorization cards in support of a petition seeking a
representation election. In this connection, the em-
ployees appeared to be worried about their jobs, accord-
3 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88; and Combined
Century Theatres, Inc., 120 NLRB 1379.
At the representation case hearing the Employer contested the jurisdic-
tion of the Board. However, it did not file a request for review of the Deci-
sion and Direction of Election of the Acting Regional Director, in which
she asserted jurisdiction. Apart from the foregoing, however, as the trans-
cript of the record in the representation proceeding was introduced in the
instant record as an exhibit by the General Counsel, at the instance of the
Respondent-Employer herein, my findings hereinabove relating to ju-
risdiction are based upon the entire record in this proceeding , including
the representation case transcript.
4 At that time Reeves had no knowledge that Hill had already signed a
union authorization card
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing to Tidwell, so he gave them a pledge that he would
keep the whole affair secret.
Upon his return from the International convention,
Tidwell credibly testified that he went to the Board's
Subregional Office, presented the cards, and obtained a
petition seeking an election. After filing the petition with
the Board on July 29, 1966, he drove to a service station
operated by McCall where he saw Louis Tiliakos, and in-
formed him that he had filed a petition supported by the
cards. At that time he was informed of the passing of Mrs.
H. B. Meiselman, the late wife of the president of the
Respondent. Tidwell stated that Kenneth Reeves was not
present at the service station.
The record reveals that seven employees in the unit,
which at that time constituted approximately seven pro-
jectionists, signed cards authorizing the Union to
represent them and to "negotiate, bargain collectively,
and discuss grievances with my employer as my sole and
exclusive bargaining agent and I do hereby confirm same
in all respects." In addition to the seven who signed union
authorization cards and turned the same over to Business
Agent Tidwell, applications for membership,5 which were
witnessed by Tidwell along with other employees in the
unit on various dates as indicated hereinafter, were made
by all the employees including David Earl Hill, who, at
that time had not signed an authorization card.
The first, an application for membership, was signed by
Louis M. Tiliakos on June 22, 1966, and Kenneth C.
Reeves signed both an application for membership and an
authorization card on July 2, 1966, along with Winfrey L.
Turner, who signed a card on that date. The record also
shows that Joe E. Grubbs likewise signed both an appli-
cation for membership and a union authorization card on
July 2, 1966. Winfrey L. Turner signed an application for
membership in the Union on July 7, 1966, after having
signed an initial union authorization card on July 2, 1966,
and a second card on July 7, 1966. Willis Leroy Hill
signed both an application for membership and a union
authorization card on July 7, 1966. Gilbert J. Pomar
signed a union authorization card on July 8, 1966. David
Earl Hill, the brother of Willis Leroy Hill, signed an appli-
cation for membership on August 1, 1966. All the union
authorization cards and applications for membership con-
tain the same language. In this connection, the Respond-
ent does not raise any serious objection as to the authen-
ticity of the authorization cards or the applications for
membership. But as indicated hereinabove and set forth
in detail below, its principal defense is that, because of
various reasons of employee dissatisfaction, the Union
lost whatever majority it might have had prior to its de-
mand for recognition.
C. Events Occurring After the Filing of the
Representation Petition
1. The testimony of (Douglas D. Tidwell
The representation petition, seeking an election in a
unit composed of all the Respondent's motion picture
5 The application for membership form stated that it was an application
of Local Union No. 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and
Canada. It further stated that the individual applicant was making applica-
tion for membership in that local and "I have authorized , designated and
chosen said labor organization to negotiate, bargain collectively, present
and discuss grievances with my employer... and I do hereby confirm the
projectionists in its Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan
area theatres, was filed with the Board by Tidwell on July
29, 1966. On August 15, 1966, Tidwell wrote H. B.
Meiselman at the Respondent's local office, stating that
he had received signed requests from the projectionists
employed in his Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area
theatres, requesting recognition on their behalf, with
respect to bargaining collectively, and presenting and
discussing grievances in their behalf with the Respond-
ent. He also stated that the signed requests had been
duly filed with the Board and asked for the fixing of a
definite date within the following 10 days for the purpose
of contractual negotiations as to wages, hours, and other
working conditions. In the meantime, by letter post-
marked August 12, 1966, and addressed to Business
Agent Tidwell and signed by Willis Leroy Hill, Winfrey
L. Turner, Ronald L. Jones, David E. Hill, and Joe E.
Grubbs, the aforementioned individuals stated as follows:
We have found out that we do not have to be a
member of the Union to keep our jobs and we have
changed our minds.
So please send us our cards back right away. We
do not wont [sic] the union to represent us.
On August 15, 1966, the same date Tidwell had made
his formal demand for recognition of the Respondent,
Tidwell addressed a letter to W. L. Turner at his Jackson-
ville address, which read as follows:
In reply to you [sic] letter received August 13,
1966, I am sure that you are and have been fully
aware that under Florida law a person does not have
to belong to a labor union to acquire or hold a job.
This is evident as you have been working in Florida
for over three years without having to be a member
of any labor union.
The authorization cards which you and the other pro-
jectionists working for Meiselman Theatres volun-
tarily signed designating the I.A.T.S.E. & M.P.M.O.
of U.S. and C. as bargaining agent have been duly
filed with the National Labor Relations Board. This
was done for your protection.
Further action in this respect will be governed by the
law, rules, and procedures of the National Labor
Relations Board and no doubt each of the signers will
be contacted by the National Labor Relations Board.
The letter was signed by Douglas D. Tidwell as business
agent of Local 511 of the Union.
On August 25, 1966, the Respondent, through its attor-
ney, declined to recognize the Union, relying principally
upon the aforementioned letter of withdrawal. With
respect to the several meetings that Tidwell held with the
employees of the Respondent, discussion occurred con-
cerning the fact that H. B. Meiselman's wife was very ill
and "probably would not last." According to a number of
employees who testified, Tidwell agreed that he would
wait until a substantial period of mourning had passed. In
this connection, Mrs. Meiselman died sometime during
the latter part of July, and Tidwell processed the cards in
same in all respects." It further stated that if elected to membership, the
individual applicant would abide by the constitution, bylaws, etc., of Local
No. 511 and that he affirmed that certain matters, including information
concerning the individual applicant and his employment, to be true. Each
application for membership was witnessed by Tidwell, as aforementioned,
along with other employees within the unit.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 875
support of his petition seeking a representation election
as indicated hereinabove about August 3, 1966.
Several of the employees were dissatisfied about the fil-
ing of the petition on this date because they believed that
a sufficient period of mourning had not elapsed. One wit-
ness, Willis Leroy Hill, testified contrary to Tidwell's
testimony set forth hereinabove that Tidwell said that he
was going to the ". . . National Convention and we are
going to get you boys the National card . I am not going to
get you the Local card - I'm going to get you the National
card." In this respect, several witnesses , including Ken-
neth Reeves, desired to obtain International cards so that
they could obtain employment in other cities throughout
the nation. Where Tidwell's version of his statements
concerning the obtaining of the cards and other matters
that were discussed at the union meetings conflicts with
that of the witnesses who testified to the contrary, as did
Willis Leroy Hills I credit Tidwell 's version where such
conflicts occur as he impressed me as being a more trust-
worthy witness.
2. The testimony of Willis Leroy Hill
Willis Leroy Hill testified that H. B. Meiselman came
to see him at his home the morning after the union meet-
ing at which most of the employees had signed union
authorization cards. He further testified that Meiselman
had never visited his home before. On the occasion of his
visit Meiselman asked Leroy Hill why he wanted to join
the Union. He corrected a prior statement that he had
made indicating that the projectionists wanted to join the
Union by stating that it was to be understood that he said
the employees "were" interested in joining the Union,
emphasizing that he had changed his mind about the
Union after he had left the meeting at Tidwell's house. In
this connection Leroy Hill testified that H. B. Meiselman
had asked him if all of the projectionists were interested
in joining the Union and he told Meiselman that they
were. Thereupon Meiselman asked Hill what was wrong,
stating "you want to join the Union," or something to that
effect. On the occasion of that visit Meiselman was ac-
companied by his son Mike Meiselman and by a man
named Mussleh, one of the local theatre managers. Ac-
cording to Hill he told H. B. Meiselman about some of the
complaints of the projectionists. He told Meiselman that
Tiliakos had complained about his long working hours,
and Winfrey Turner had certain hardships. According to
Hill, Tidwell had promised Turner he could get him a job
during the daylight hours working downtown. Insofar as
Kenneth Reeves was concerned, the latter wanted an in-
ternational card. He could not state anything concerning
the complaints of Ronnie Jones or Joe Grubbs.
Willis Leroy Hill testified that H. B. Meiselman later
stated that he could not negotiate with these people
because of previous problems he had with them in other
cities, referring to Local 511, the Charging Party herein.
Meiselman added that he would visit the other employees
and do all he could to adjust the matters so that "every-
one will be happy." Hill thereupon told Meiselman that
the projectionists had talked about having a separate local
because there was some problem about the International
union accepting the employees . Thereafter , Meiselman
stated that that would be a different matter. According to
Hill, no discussion of a raise occurred at that time but
Meiselman had promised Hill a raise the last time he was
in Jacksonville , which was about 6 months before the
conversation Hill described hereinabove . Hill stated that
Meiselman gave him the raise the following week. He
added that Meiselman told him that it was Hill's right to
join the Union or do anything he wanted to do, that he
would have a job with Meiselman as long as he wanted a
job.
With respect to the letter of withdrawal signed by Willis
Leroy Hill, together with several other employees, Hill
testified as to the first sentence contained therein that
they had learned that they did not have to be a member of
the Union to keep their jobs, but that no representative of
the Union ever told them that they had to be a member to
keep their jobs and that no one had ever threatened him
concerning his job.
Leroy Hill further testified that he was "shocked"
when Meiselman came to Jacksonville a,few days later.
According to Hill , it was evident that the Union had put
"pressure" on Meiselman immediately and that was one
of the matters that the witness wanted to avoid as he
desired that a "period of mourning" should elapse before
any demands or claims of representation were made upon
the Meiselmans . He also stated that he had signed the
letter of withdrawal because he wanted his authorization
card back , stating that he had not paid any initiation fee
nor had he signed any pledge to the Union , nor had the
Union accepted him as a member.7 He stated that
Winfrey Turner had called him the night after the meeting
and that some time later Turner stated that he likewise
had changed his mind. According to Hill , they discussed
all the items that he had mentioned before concerning the
Union and they generally agreed about the reasons for
not wanting the Union. He added that he had not received
his card back and would like his card returned as well as
his application for membership in the Union.
On cross-examination , Willis Leroy Hill testified that
no attempt had been made to organize a separate local for
the employees of the Respondent . He further testified
that he would join another local but not a separate local of
the Union involved in this proceeding , and it must be
represented by the International union. He added he was
not referring to a "company union."
Willis Leroy Hill, testifying for the Respondent, in ap-
parent contradiction of his prior testimony, stated that he
had talked to Tiliakos about the organization of a separate
local but this conversation occurred 2 or 3 weeks after the
election at the Respondent 's theatres.
According to Willis Leroy Hill, Manager Mussleh,
while using the telephone at the theatre where the witness
was employed , discovered that someone was listening in
on his conversation and thereafter told Hill that all the
telephones were going to be taken out of the projection
booths. Later Hill discussed the matter with H. B.
Meiselman and stated to Meiselman that it would be very
6 Willis Leroy Hill testified that he had signed a union authorization
card and also at one of the union meetings that he attended , his brother,
David Hill, and employee Turner were present. He testified his brother,
David Hill, signed a union authorization card at that particular union
meeting. He later changed his testimony , stating that he saw his brother
sign an application for membership and observed it being witnessed, but
he did not see him sign a union card.
7 As shown hereinabove , Hill's testimony in this repect is incorrect as
he had signed an application for membership in which he had pledged to
join the Union . He further testified that he had told Meiselman around
August 3 or 4, 1966, that both he and his brother David Hill had changed
their minds about the Union.
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
difficult at the drive-in theatres in emergencies to be
without a telephone during the late hours after the con-
cession stand , which had a telephone , had closed. Hill
corroborated prior testimony that Kenneth Reeves han-
dled the Company's truck very poorly. As Hill did not im-
press me as being a reliable witness , I have credited his
testimony only where it has been substantially cor-
roborated.
3. The testimony of David Earl Hill
David Earl Hill testified that he signed a union
authorization card on August 2, 1966, at the meeting held
at Tidwell 's home and that both he and his brother un-
derstood that they would receive their International cards
that night; his brother told him that they would receive
such cards. After the meeting ended, he and his brother
discussed the question of the Union and according to him
he thought most of the operators , or projectionists, were
"a little disillusioned" because they expected to get their
International cards that night and there was some doubt
as to whether Local 511 of the Union would "vote" the
Respondent 's operators into that local. According to
David Hill, he had no recollection of any conversation
concerning the negotiation of a contract at that meeting."
According to David Hill, after the meeting, he told his
brother that he did not think it was fair for him to join the
Union as he had just started to work for the Respondent
the day before and that he intended to give the question
of joining the Union more consideration . He stated that
at that time he believed he decided to forget the Union
and added , " I know I had." He later stated that he told
the other operators that he was not interested in the
Union. However, apart from the letter which apparently
was circulated by Winfrey Turner, David Hill did not in-
dicate to the Union that he wanted to withdraw his appli-
cation for membership . He never received his card back
as a result of that request and he did not make any sub-
sequent request.
In connection with his alleged misunderstandings of the
Union's promises or the intention of the Union, David
Hill further testified that his brother, Willis Leroy Hill,
had told him that the initiation fee of $300 would be
waived for new members and that at the latter meeting In-
ternational Representative Sullivan of the Union said that
such could not be done . At that same meeting the discus-
sion occurred concerning not contacting the Meiselmans
about the matter of union representation until after a
reasonable period of mourning for the late Mrs. H. B.
Meiselman had passed. He testified, substantially sup-
porting his brother's version, with respect to the wording
of the Turner letter that no union representative ever told
him he would have to be a member of the Union in order
to keep his job. He also stated that he remembered no
discussion specifically relating to negotiations. He also
testified that he had no conversations or discussions con-
cerning the Union with either of the Meiselmans prior to
August 2, stating that he had been hired by Meiselman
about 10 days prior to August 1, and went on the Respond-
ent's payroll on August 1, 1966 . He corroborated the
testimony of his brother that H. B. Meiselman visited his
brother's home on or about August 3, 1966, but he did
not hear their conversation concerning the Union. At that
8 As stated hereinabove , I credit the testimony of Tidwell where it con-
flicts with that of David E. Hill and his brother with respect to the accura-
time he did not tell Meiselman that he was interested in
the organization of a separate local of the Union and he
did not know what his brother said concerning the matter
as he did not overhear the conversations. However,
David Hill testified that his feelings and those of his
brother were the same insofar as the local was concerned.
In this connection, David Hill 's later testimony was in
direct contradiction. On recross-examination, he stated
that at the meeting between his brother and H. B. Meisel-
man, his brother talked about the Union and that he
talked about it with Meiselman when the witness brought
the matter up himself. On further redirect examination,
David Hill stated that he did not talk to Meiselman about
the Union on August 3. Because of the foregoing obvious
inconsistencies in the testimony of David Hill, I do not
credit his testimony where it conflicts with that of Union
Business Agent Tidwell or that of other employees whose
testimony is discussed hereinafter.
4. Testimony of Winfrey L. Turner
Winfrey L. Turner testified, corroborating Tidwell's
testimony to some extent, stating that he contacted Tid-
well at the instance of Louis Tiliakos, who had called him.
At that time he told Tidwell that he was not interested in
the Union. However, he admitted that at the meeting at
McCall's house, in the presence of Tiliakos and Tidwell,
he signed a union card in the early summer of 1966. He
stated that Tidwell told him he could not do very much
for him individually, but Tidwell could obtain some extra
work for Turner, which sounded "pretty good to me." He
also stated that Tidwell.said he was taking the cards to the
International convention and he would return with Inter-
national cards for the employees of the Respondent in-
terested in joining the Union. Turner also stated that Tid-
well indicated that he could get the $300 initiation fee
waived and that the members could probably pay "a cou-
ple of dollars a time." He further testified that at McCall's
house all the projectionist -operators were present and
signed cards, so he determined that he would not be in-
jured if he likewise signed , but that he was neither for nor
against the Union at that time. He indicated that he sub-
sequently signed a second card at Willis Leroy Hill's
home. He did not tell Hill at that time that he had already
signed a card. Turner admitted that Tidwell stated that he
wanted all the employees to join at one time and that he
would bargain in their behalf and as indicated before, he
offered Turner extra work and would get him an Interna-
tional card and promised to waive the $300. Turner stated
that he did not actually care whether he was represented
by Local 511 or not.
Upon Tidwell's return from the International conven-
tion , Turner received a notice along with the other em-
ployees to attend a meeting at Tidwell's home. The only
operator who did not attend was Grubbs. At that time all
had signed cards, except David Hill, who signed that
same night and also signed an application for membership
in the Union. He corroborated prior testimony that the
employees did not want anything done until a period of
mourning for Mrs. Meiselman had passed , but learned
later that a petition had already been filed and Meiselman
had been notified by letter of the signing of the cards.
cy of the discussion that occurred at the several meetings called by Tid-
well at the instance of the Respondent 's employees.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 877
Winfrey L. Turner further testified that the next time
he had a conversation concerning the Union was when H.
B. Meiselman came to the theatre where he worked the
night of August 3. Meiselman told him that he had
received a letter advising him that his employees had
made applications for union membership . Meiselman also
told Turner that he had seen Hill, presumably referring to
Willis Leroy Hill. Thereafter, Meiselman asked Turner
why they had joined the Union. Turner told Meiselman
that most of the employees had signed up and "the rest
just followed." He also told Meiselman that the Union
stated that it could help the projectionists, adding that
most of the "indoor houses" had been signed up and the
remainder followed. According to Turner, Meiselman did
not remain very long and also mentioned there might be
an election and that the employees could vote any way
they wanted to and that regardless of how they voted they
would still have jobs, but that no one had to join the
Union to keep his job. He also stated that he wished the
men had come and talked to him first as he probably
could have helped them as much as the Union and added
that they could have organized a union of their own. In
other words, according to Turner, Meiselman said that he
could do as much for them as the Union could. Although
no discussion relating to pay raises occurred at that time,
Turner testified that he received a $10 raise reflected as
a travel allowance about a week later. Prior to that time
he had discussed the matter of a raise with Meiselman
about 2 or 3 months earlier.
Turner stated that he had prepared the letter of
withdrawal but he had not shown it to either of the
Meiselmans before he passed it around to the men for
their signature. However, he indicated that the letter was
prepared sometime after August 8, 1966. After signing it,
he made copies because he thought that each operator
might want a copy. He also furnished Meiselman a copy
about August 10 or 11, 1966. As did the prior witnesses,
Turner testified that no one "came out and told me we
had to be a member of the Union to keep our jobs." He
explained the latter testimony by stating that he un-
derstood that if most of the employees voted "pro-union"
there would be a union contract which would be
negotiated by Tidwell.
On cross-examination, Turner reiterated his prior
testimony that he had heard that if a majority voted for
the Union, all would have to belong to the Union, but
could not recall who had made such a statement. The
"biggest" reason prompting Turner's signing the union
card was Tidwell's statement to him that he could obtain
Turner extra work if he desired it. He further testified
that Grubbs told him that he had signed a union
authorization card because he had been told that he
would have to obtain a card in order to work if all the em-
ployees voted "union."
According to Turner, at the meeting at Tidwell's house
on August 1, no discussion occurred about the obtaining
of International union cards. Nothing was mentioned by
International Representative Sullivan about the matter at
that time. At the meeting on July 7, at "Leroy's" house,
Tidwell told the employees he would take the cards with
him to the International convention and return with Inter-
national cards for the employees. At the August 1 meet-
ing, Tidwell did not have the cards, nor did he hear any-
one mention the cards, nor did he ask about them.
Turner testified that before he wrote the letter of
withdrawal he had learned that several theatres had
closed and that Business Agent Tidwell would have a dif-
ficult time finding him a job as he had had difficulty find-
ing jobs for the union members. According to Turner, the
$300 initiation fee was discussed at the meeting on Au-
gust 2. Tidwell, at that time, stated that they probably
could waive the $300 fee, but International Representa-
tive Sullivan disagreed with Tidwell.
According to Turner, he began to change his mind
about the Union some time before Tidwell's return from
the convention. At the time he signed his card, he asked
Tidwell if he could obtain its return if he changed his.
mind, and Tidwell told him that he could, providing he
requested the card's return and Tidwell would return the
card to him. Present at that meeting, in addition to Turner
were Jack McCall, Louis Tiliakos, Kenneth Reeves, and
Tidwell. The witness stated he believed all present heard
the statement made by Tidwell.
Turner further testified that he decided against the
Union because, first, Tidwell could not obtain him the
extra work, second, Tidwell had indicated that he would
not be able to waive the $300 initiation fee, and, third, be
was afraid that he might be transferred out of the projec-
tion booth and "union men" might be brought in.
Turner also testified that after he obtained the raise
Meiselman told him that he would be "more responsible"
for the cleanup and that he was giving him the extra
money so that the janitor would report to him.
On redirect examination, Turner had considerable dif-
ficulty recalling the exact day when he was told about the
raise in pay. He then stated that it might have been the
same day he had discussed the Union. He was uncertain
whether he discussed the extra work or the responsibili-
ties concerning the janitorial staff at the same time that he
talked about the raise.
According to Turner, Grubbs told him that he did not
care about the Union and they had "twisted his arm" and
made him join, but did not indicate who had done so. He
further added that one of the reasons he had signed the
union authorization card was because of his desire to ob-
tain an International card but in Tidwell's home there was
no discussion of it because he would have remembered it
if there had been such discussion. He stated that the
matter of the $300 initiation fee was first raised at Mc-
Call's home on July 2, and it was not until the August
meeting at Tidwell's home that any doubt arose as to
whether the $300 initiation fee could be waived.
Turner added that he was employed by H. B. Meisel-
man at the time that Meiselman had prior "difficulty"
with the Charging Party herein, i.e., Local 511. He stated
that he brought up this old incident in connection with his
distrust of the Union and he felt that perhaps the Union
had a "grudge against them," apparently referring to the
Meiselmans. He admitted, however, that he did not think
about the matter of their having a "grudge" at the time he
signed the first card on July 2, nor the time he signed the
second card on July 7, and that he did not commence to
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
think about it before Meiselman spoke to him concerning
a separate local.9
On recross-examination, Winfrey Turner testified that
in his conversation with Business Agent Tidwell, before
the latter left for the International convention, he asked
him about union work as he did not know about such
work because he had not been a union man and he wanted
to ascertain whether having a union card would interfere
with his day work. Tidwell, according to Turner, replied
that the only thing he was interested in was the "booth"
(the projection booth), not the men. Turner stated at that
point he began to think about whether Tidwell was more
interested in the booth than the employees. According to
Turner, the reason Tidwell wrote the letter to Meiselman
was because he did not return with the International
cards and that the $300 could not be waived, and there
was some discussion that some of the members of Local
511 would not want the Respondent's employees to be
admitted as members and they would have to vote on it.
Turner stated that if there were any disagreement and the
local union members did not want the Respondent's em-
ployees, the latter should form another local, and he did
not want to go along with the original idea of joining Local
511. In connection with the foregoing testimony, Turner
also stated that he did not think the other local theatre
closings had anything to do with the sending of the letter
by Tidwell. He again reiterated that it was his opinion
that some of the local men might need work as badly as
other operators and he was afraid that some might take
the jobs of the Respondent's employees.
Winfrey L. Turner, when called as a witness by the
Respondent, testified that he told Michael Meiselman
that Kenneth Reeves was not taking proper care of the
truck, pointing out that Reeves principally used the truck
most of the time.
Turner testified that Michael Meiselman, when he
came into Turner's projection booth one night and
handed him a ballot with voting instructions, 4 days be-
fore the election, stated, "You know how I feel, it is a free
country and you can vote anyway you please," according
to Turner, that was all that Mike Meiselman said about
the election to him.
Turner further testified that he heard that management
was going to remove the telephones from the booth some-
time in July or it might have been in August, but his best
recollection was July.
He testified that he had a conversation with H. B.
Meiselman around August 3, and the latter ended his
conversation by saying, "There may be an election and of
course you know you can vote anyway you wish and you
know you still got a job as long as you want anyway you
vote." Turner stated that H. B. Meiselman did not say at
that time that he would not "deal with the Union." Turner
testified as a witness for the Respondent, that he first
learned about the International union cards at the meeting
at McCall's house, stating that Business Agent Tidwell
said he would take the applications to the International
convention, present them, and return with International
cards for the employees but did not mention anything
about an election. Turner did not recall any reference to
bargaining or any statement about the cards being used to
obtain bargaining rights. When viewed in the light of Tid-
well's and Tiliakos', credited testimony, I find that
Turner's testimony concerning the obtaining of Interna-
tional cards not worthy of belief.
5. The testimony of Louis M. Tiliakos
Louis Tiliakos testified that after a talk with his friend,
McCall, he decided to do something about the matter of
the Union and he talked to Tidwell, but did not sign a card
at their first meeting. Tiliakos corroborated prior
testimony discussed hereinabove that his application for
union membership was dated June 22, 1966, and he
signed his union authorization card the same day.
Thereafter, he discussed working problems with Tidwell.
The only meeting he attended thereafter was his visit to
Tidwell's home during the latter part of the summer. At
that time Union International Representative Sullivan
was present, in addition to Tidwell, a man named Pomar,
and all Respondent's employees, except Grubbs, were
there. The matter of the Union's seeking bargaining rights
was discussed" and they also talked about the mourning
period occasioned by the death of H. B. Meiselman's
wife, corroborating other witnesses, and it was suggested
that it an appropriate period should elaspe before the
Union was discussed with Meiselman. Tidwell thereupon
stated that he would ascertain when the mourning period
would end.
He further testified that Meiselman came to see him
while he was on the job and that visit occurred after the
meeting at Tidwell's house, and prior to the election.
Meiselman told him that he had received a letter advising
him that the Union was seeking bargaining rights. Meisel-
man also asked Tiliakos whether he was happy with his
job. Meiselman told Tiliakos that he had trouble with the
Union in prior years and that he would not have a
unionized theatre in Jacksonville. He further stated that
he would close every theatre there rather than have them
unionized and repeated his statement several times. He
also told Tiliakos that in the event of his death, he would
see to it (presumably by testamentary provisions in his
will) that his sons likewise would not have a union theatre
in Jacksonville. I t Meiselman denied making such threats,
which I do not credit.
In the same conversation with Meiselman, Tiliakos
testified that Meiselman stated that Willis Leroy Hill had
9 Turner's difficulty in identifying the exact time that he thought about
withdrawing from the Union is shown by the following testimony:
Q. Isn't it a fact that you started thinking about that as soon as Mr.
Meiselman suggested to you a separate local union.
A. No, I have thought about it well I'll tell you what I thought
about it. I'd like to explain to you if you want to know.
Q. I want an answer to my question first. It's very simple yes or
no.
A. I cannot answer it yes or no. It would involve other things. It
just wouldn't be right to answer it yes or no because you got to find
out what I am thinking.
Q. Did it come on August 3.?
A. No.
10 It should be noted that certain testimony of Tiliakos, particularly that
relating to the matter of the discussion at the Tidwell meeting concerning
bargaining rights for the Union, contradicts the testimony of Turner in this
regard and corroborates the testimony of Union Business Agent Tidwell.
11 Tiliakos testified that the Union "difficulties" that Meiselman had
experienced in prior years, occurred when he was employed by Meisel-
man. At that time there was no working agreement with the Union at the
Town and Country Theatre and Meiselman "threw them out" and hired
Jack McCall as the projectionist at that theatre. When the latter could not
take care of his regular business , apparently referring to his service sta-
tion, Tiliakos took over the job.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 879
told him he thought that Tiliakos would be satisfied with
his job if his hours were different. Tiliakos told Meisel-
man that the question of hours was part of the matter and
salary was likewise a part of the problem. He stated that
he had discussed salary with Meiselman several months
before and Meiselman told him that he would see what he
could do at the end of the summer. Upon Tiliakos' men-
tioning the salary raise on this occasion, Tiliakos testified
that Meiselman said he was surprised that Tiliakos had
not received an increase in pay, and that Meiselman
would see to it that it would be retroactive and would be
paid as part of "traveling expenses." Tiliakos credibly
testified that he did obtain an increase of $10 subsequent
to that and it appeared on the next pay period.
Meiselman further told Tiliakos that he would give him
the $300 required for the initiation fee to join the Union
and that if he-were not satisfied he could always come
back to Meiselman and he would have a job, but Meisel-
man did not mention anything about Tiliakos leaving his
employment. The witness was uncertain as to which con-
versation this matter was mentioned, as he had two con-
versations with Meiselman, the second occurring the day
after the first. At one point Meiselman stated that he
wanted Tiliakos to go into the office on Saturday and at
that time Tiliakos had finished his work and told Meisel-
man that he would resign, but he did not in fact resign. On
the same Saturday, Theatre Manager C. H. Deaver asked
Tiliakos for the key to the projection booth. Tiliakos
further testified that he always had kept a key to the pro-
jection booth, as did the janitor, and he turned his key
over to the janitor as he was not scheduled to work the
next day. The foregoing incident occurred on the Satur-
day following the two conversations between Tiliakos
and H. B. Meiselman. As stated below, Deaver testified
that it occurred on a different day. I credit Tiliakos' ver-
sion.
Tiliakos testified that he reported for work on Sunday,
although he assumed that it was his day off, and had no
knowledge whether another projectionist would be there.
Upon his arrival he was told that Kenneth Reeves would
be there but learned that Grubbs had been assigned as the
projectionist at the theatre instead. Both Meiselmans
were present, together with a man named Tipton. Tiliakos
stated that H. B. Meiselman appeared to be very excited,
threw up his hands, and said that he knew that Louie
(Tiliakos) would not let them down. Tiliakos reported for
work the next day, Monday, at which time he was given
a duplicate key which he was permitted to keep.
Tiliakos also credibly testified that Winfrey L. Turner
had shown him the letter of withdrawal and Tiliakos told
Turner that he had never heard of such a letter whereu-
pon Turner replied that he had received "a little
assistance" in drafting the letter.
Later Tiliakos had a conversation with Willis Leroy
Hill, who stated that the projectionists could organize
another union and it would save them initiation fees and
union dues; Hill also mentioned that all the operators had
obtained raises. Tiliakos testified that, within his
knowledge, each operator had received a $10 raise. Hill
told him that the operators would then obtain comparable
wages and the same working conditions as the members
of the established local in Jacksonville. Tiliakos stated
that no union representative ever told him that he would
have to be a member of the Union in order to retain his
job.
Concerning the question of wages, Tiliakos stated that
part of his dissatisfaction was attributable to wages as he
received only one raise during a period of 3 years. H. B.
Meiselman told him that he would see about another raise
for him. Tiliakos stated that he compared notes with the
other theatre operators with respect to their salaries and
working conditions, and ascertained that there had been
no discussion of salaries because each projectionist
thought that he was the highest paid man working for the
Respondent. He further stated that he told H. B. Meisel-
man that he had tried to obtain a better job and asked him
if he would consider increasing his salary and if he
received no pay increase he would have to make different-
arrangements. Shortly thereafter, he obtained the in-
crease in salary.
Tiliakos testified that Michael Meiselman had shown
him a sample Board ballot and told him how to mark it -
either "yes" or "no," and also stated if he wanted to vote
against the Union to vote "no." He instructed him not to
sign the ballot because that would void it. Mike Meisel-
man further stated that it was a "free country" and he
could vote any way he desired, and there would be no
hard feelings about it, adding that the Meiselmans had
trouble with the Union in the past, and the Union did not
keep its word. He specifically stated that a man of Greek
ancestry had said that the Union put him in a Negro
theatre in Jacksonville, and that the Local Union had
animosity towards people of the Jewish faith, Greek na-
tionality, and Negroes. Tiliakos, who apparently is of
Greek ancestry, told Mike Meiselman that the foregoing
was no concern of his as he merely wanted better working
conditions. Thereafter, the two shook hands, and Mike
Meiselman told him, "You are entitled to vote either way
you want to," whereupon Tiliakos replied, "Well I hope
so."
Tiliakos testified that the employees, while at Tidwell's
home, discussed the question of waiting until a sufficient
mourning period had passed before Meiselman was con-
tacted. He stated he did not know the Union had already
filed a petition seeking an election with the Board and he
only learned about a petition being filed when Meiselman
came to see him. In this respect, Tiliakos' testimony con-
tradicts that of Winfrey L. Turner. He also added that he
did not recall any discussion at Tidwell's house concern-
ing the organization of a new local. He stated there was
discussion about the obtaining of International cards, but
nothing was said about possible difficulty of the em-
ployees obtaining admission into Local 511. However,
there was talk about the $300 initiation fee. His un-
derstanding of the discussion was that the employees
would be able to pay the initiation fee on an installment
basis. He further stated that he did not ask Meiselman to
loan him $300 but Meiselman volunteered to give him
$300 to join the Union after he had mentioned to Meisel-
man that the initiation fee was $300. Tiliakos stated that
he told his fellow employees that it would be better for all
if they "stuck together," i.e., if the majority voted for the
Union it would be better for all the employees to vote for
the Union.
As Louis Tiliakos impressed me as being a very frank
and straightforward witness and did not appear to be eva-
sive in any manner with respect to his answers to
questions on both direct and cross-examination, I credit
his testimony wherever it conflicts with that, of Turner
and the Meiselmans discussed hereinafter.
6. The testimony of Joe E. Grubbs
Joe E. Grubbs testified that he was employed by the
Respondent during the summer of 1966 and his first con-
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tact with the Union occurred when Kenneth Reeves
delivered him some film and he discussed the Union with
Reeves. Thereafter, Grubbs went to Business Agent Tid-
well's place of business and talked to him. He signed both
a union authorization card as well as an application for
membership on July 2, 1966. He corroborated the
testimony of the other witnesses discussed hereinabove,
with respect to Tidwell taking the cards to the Interna-
tional convention in order to learn whether the employees
involved could obtain International cards. Tidwell also
stated that the authorization cards would be filed with the
Board. Tidwell assured Grubbs and the other employees
that the Board would protect their jobs in the event that
they lost them and he would see that the Union took care
of Respondent's employees by giving them part-time
work until they could be assigned full-time jobs as mem-
bers of the Union. Grubbs added that he also discussed
working hours with Tidwell.
While on the job, Grubbs testified that Michael Meisel-
man visited his booth and instructed him to go downstairs
to see H. B. Meiselman. One of the Meiselmans said to
Grubbs that he "guessed he knew" why the Meiselmans
were there and Grubbs replied that he "supposed" that he
did. They told him about the Union and stated that H. B.
Meiselman recently had lost his wife and daughter and
they did not know why the Union picked that particular
time to make demands upon the Respondent. One of the
Meiselmans asked Grubbs why he had joined the Union.
He told them that he joined because he was worried about
his job, stating that he was "scared" to sign and "scared"
not to sign. One of the Meiselmans also asked Grubbs
why the Union was trying to help the employees.
Thereafter, they remarked that the Union was doing
those things because they wanted a better place for union
members to work and that the Union would probably take
them out to some smaller theatres. H. B. Meiselman
further stated that he would like to treat the operators
well and could not understand why the operators had
turned against him, and that before he would see a union
come in, he would close all his theatres. Thereafter, the
Meiselmans asked Grubbs if he would take over the job
of Kenneth Reeves. According to Grubbs, the Meisel-
mans wanted him to take over Reeves' job as a relief
operator in order that Reeves would no longer be in con-
tact with the other operators and that he would receive a
$10 increase in salary for the relief job. Grubbs had not
asked about a raise before that time, nor had he been
promised one. Grubbs received the raise later. They
asked Grubbs if he intended to "go along" with the Union
or with H. B. Meiselman. He told them that he would go
along with H. B. Meisehnan. Thereafter, the Meiselmans
asked Grubbs who had contacted him, and he told them
Kenneth Reeves had done so. Thereupon, Michael
Meiselman remarked "that's what I thought."
On that occasion the Meiselmans also mentioned that
other theatres would be opened soon and there would be
many opportunities for advancement and, in effect, they
would fill such positions from Respondent's employees.
H. B. Meiselman stated that if Grubbs thought he could
do better with the Union, he should try the union
theatres; if he did not like them he could return to the
Meiselmans. Grubbs replied that he was satisfied with the
job he had. Grubbs' first conversation with H. B. Meisel-
man occurred on August 3, 1966, or a day or two later.
Both Meiselmans denied making any threats to Grubbs
or offering him future opportunities for promotion. I
credit Grubbs' testimony where it conflicts with theirs.
Grubbs testified that Winfrey L. Turner came to him
and showed him the letter of withdrawal of designations,
stating that he thought that the letter was a good idea and
that Meiselman thought it was a good idea also, ap-
parently referring to H. B. Meiselman. Grubbs noted that
everyone had signed the document except Kenneth
Reeves and Louis Tiliakos. Grubbs signed the letter at
that time.
Thereafter, one of the Meiselmans asked Grubbs if the
other operators had tried to talk to him about the Union.
He mentioned that Turner had made a short statement
and Hill, likewise, had made a short statement and then
Meiselman said, "Good. Let me know if you hear
anything else." One of the Meiselmans further mentioned
that Kenneth Reeves and Louis Tiliakos still had not
signed the letter of withdrawal and that the letter had
been mailed. The witness was not certain which Meisel-
man made the statement. The conversation in question
took place approximately a week after he signed the
letter.
Grubbs further testified that on the dates material
herein, telephones were installed in the projection booths
of all the theatres with the exception of the Town and
Country Theatre. The latter theatre formerly had a
telephone in the manager's office and a telephone plug in
the projection booth. The telephones were removed from
the Royal Palm and the Cedar Hills, and tape was used to
plug up the telephone jack in the booth in the Town and
Country Theatre. The projectionist assigned to the Town
and Country Theatre at that time was Kenneth Reeves.
The man who worked in the Cedar Hills Theatre was
Louis Tiliakos. The employee assigned to the Royal Palm
Theatre was Ronnie Jones. Grubbs testified he did not
know who removed the telephone but that the manager of
the Royal Palm Theatre told him that he was instructed
to remove the telephone there. All three of the aforemen-
tioned theatres are indoor theatres. As did several of the
other witnesses, he testified that no union representative
ever told him that he would have to be a member of the
Union to keep his job, and that he never discussed the
Union with Winfrey L. Turner.
On cross-examination, Grubbs testified that Michael
Meiselman told him at the time he posted the notice of
election that the witness was entitled to vote either way
he desired and that he would not hold it against him re-
gardless of how he voted.
Grubbs admitted that sometime in August he had
discussed the problem of obtaining operators with Muss-
Ieh, an official of the Respondent, who stated that the
Respondent had experienced difficulty in obtaining
operators because of the Union. At that time Grubbs told
Mussleh he could obtain some ex-Navy operators for
them. 1 2
Although Grubbs' testimony reveals several minor in-
consistencies concerning H. B. Meiselman's knowledge
of the "Turner" letter of withdrawal, his initial testimony
stating that Turner implied that Meiselman knew about
the letter and his latter testimony stating that Meiselman
had actual knowledge of the letter, I do not view the dis-
crepancy to be of such magnitude to discredit Grubbs'
testimony.
12 At the tune of the hearing, Grubbs was no longer working for the was employed by another theatre on a job obtained for him by Business
Respondent, having been discharged on October 13, 1966. Thereafter, he Agent Tidwell.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 881
7. The testimony of Ronald Lee Jones
Ronald Lee (Ronnie) Jones testified that he was em-
ployed at the Royal Palm Theatre sometime in July 1966,
when he was contacted by Kenneth Reeves, who asked
him if he wanted to join the Union. Thereupon, Jones
replied that he would like to talk to Union Business Agent
Tidwell. Jones later saw Tidwell while in the company of
Reeves. At that time he signed a union authorization
card, as well as an application for membership in the
Union. Jones stated that he had "a little help" in execut-
ing the card. As he could not read very well, Tidwell read
its contents to him, and he understood the words that Tid-
well read. Jones personally placed the date on the card
and signed it.
Thereafter, he attended a union meeting at Tidwell's
house where all operators employed by the Respondent
were present, except Grubbs. At that time, as testified to
by other witnesses, David Hill likewise signed a union
card. According to Jones, at that meeting Turner inquired
whether there would be any "bumping." Tidwell stated
that there would not be. Some operators also asked
whether Meiselman would receive a letter concerning the
Union, stating that they did not want to "disturb him"
during his period of mourning . Jones could not recall all
of the discussion that occurred at Tidwell's home, but he
remembered the conversation about obtaining union
cards, Turner's statement that he wanted extra work, and
Business Agent Tidwell's comment that he could get
Turner all the extra work he needed. He had no recollec-
tion of any talk about the organization of a separate local.
According to Jones, some time later his theatre ex-
perienced difficulty with the air-conditioning unit and the
Meiselmans came to ascertain the repair work needed.
Michael Meiselman remarked to Jones that he had heard
Jones was quitting the Respondent. Jones asked where
did he obtain such information. Michael Meiselman
responded, "I heard you were joining the Union. You
know we don't have any union projectionists in Jackson-
ville booths." Jones replied that he had such knowledge.
Michael Meiselman later explained the alleged prior dif-
ficulty Respondent had with the Union discussed
hereinabove, and added that they "threw" the Union out.
H. B. Meiselman, at the same time, remarked, "I heard
that you joined the Union. You're new in the Company
and you probably got on the wrong track and that you got
mixed up and wouldn't know what you were doing, and
[was] mislead. [sic] ... If you want to join the Union
we'll give you the $300 and you go ahead and join it but
you wouldn't be in this booth no more." Jones stated that
he replied if things improved he would not join the Union.
He said he needed more money and had asked for a raise.
Michael Meiselman at that time said that he would talk to
him about it later, but, according to Jones, he apparently
forgot the matter, as nothing further was said concerning
the raise for about several months. At that time Michael
Meiselman told Jones that he should not speak to Ken-
neth Reeves anymore, stating that they had assigned him
to the Town and Country Theatre in order to keep him
out of circulation. Thereupon, Michael Meiselman asked
Jones how he had gotten in contact with the Union and
Jones said that Reeves had mentioned it and he had gone
to see Business Agent Tidwell.
On the same occasion, H. B. Meiselman stated that he
would not have the Union in his Jacksonville booths as
well as at the Royal Palm Theatre13 as long as he lived
and he did not think his sons would have it after he passed
away. Ronnie Jones further testified that the Meiselmans
stated that they would see that matters were improved,
and that they had not been paying much attention to their
business enterprise because of the illness of Mrs. H. B.
Meiselman. According to Jones, he had not seen H. B.
Meiselman for several years before the conversation
described hereinabove, which occurred about 3 weeks
after the meeting at Tidwell's home.
Jones testified that Turner brought him the letter of
withdrawal of designations which he signed. At that time
Turner explained to him that "bumping" occurred in the
Union; i.e., a person with higher union seniority could
bump one with less seniority and obtain the job of the
latter during job cutbacks. He added that the Respond-
ent's operators would not get good jobs and would ob-
tain jobs paying only $65 per week.14 Turner stated that
they would also be assigned to Negro theatres . Because
of Jones' inability to read very well, Turner read the letter
to him , and Jones signed the letter . Jones corroborated
the testimony of other employees discussed hereinabove
that he had never been told he would be required to be a
member of the Union in order to keep his job. Kenneth
Reeves was present at the time Turner brought the
withdrawal letter to Jones. He signed the withdrawal
letter after his conversation with H. B. Meiselman.
Jones testified that he had very frequent contact with
Kenneth Reeves as well as Louis Tiliakos during the
union organizational campaign . Most of the time it con-
sisted of physical contact during meetings on the street,
but also called each man once or twice a week on the
telephone.
Ronald Jones testified after his recollection was
refreshed on redirect examination by reading his affidavit
submitted to a Board agent that H. B. Meiselman made
the statement concerning the $300 initiation fee. This
conversation occurred following the discussion relating
to the air-conditioning problem at the theatre where he
was assigned.
Ronald Jones, after having his recollection further
refreshed, further testified that when Michael Meiselman
brought the notices of election for posting, he raised the
question of Jones' remaining in the projection booth. He
stated that he was afraid to mention this fact before and
not until the date of the hearing did it occur to him that
Michael Meiselman wanted him to do him a favor.15
Although Ronald Jones had considerable difficulty, as
shown above , in his recollection of some past events, I
nevertheless have credited his testimony in those in-
stances in which it has been substantially corroborated by
1$ The Royal Palm is located within the Jacksonville metropolitan area
at one of the Jacksonville beaches.
14 Jones had been receiving about $80 per week , but his pay was
reduced about $ 20 in September , which he attributed to fewer working
hours because students had returned to school . At the end of 1966 he was
paid about $60, whereas at the end of the preceding year (1965) he was
paid about $55.
15 Jones testified:
Q. Wasn't the favor that he asked of you to accompany him down
to the notary public and have you notarize a statement you had given
him about Louie threatening you?
A. That was - well it was - yes it was after the - He asked me to
do him a favor.
Q. That was right after that wasn't [it]?
A. Right.
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the testimony of other credible witnesses, and where it
conflicts with the testimony of the Meiselmans.
8. The testimony of Kenneth C. Reeves
Reeves, who works at the Town and Country Theatre,
credibly testified he first contacted the Union during the
summer of 1966, when he and Tiliakos met Tidwell.
Other employees of the Respondent were present and
posed questions, which, according to Reeves, "scared
most of us." Reeves could not fix the exact time of this
meeting.
Reeves, corroborating prior testimony, said that the
next meeting with the Union was about July 2, when the
employees met at McCall's house. In addition to Busi-
ness Agent Tidwell, Tiliakos, Turner, Reeves, and a
friend of Tiliakos, named David Gordon, were present.
At that time Kenneth Reeves signed a union authoriza-
tion card as well as an application for membership in the
Union. Douglas D. Tidwell corroborated the testimony
of Reeves that his first contact with Respondent's em-
ployees concerning the Union was with Reeves early in
the summer of 1966, when Reeves told Tidwell that most
of Respondent's employees were dissatisified with their
working conditions.
After making application to join the Union, Reeves
testified that he talked to Ronald Jones and Turner about
the matter but did not recall talking to Willis Leroy Hill.
Reeves attended the union meeting at Tidwell's re-
sidence, and corroborated prior testimony that the em-
ployees discussed the Union and some of their problems
while there. Tidwell stated that he had filed a petition
seeking Board certification and as soon as that matter was
concluded the employees would obtain bargaining rights,
and he would bargain with Meiselman. He stated that the
union applications would be filed and accepted. It was at
that point that the question concerning the late Mrs. H. B.
Meiselman was raised. Thereupon, Tidwell stated that he
would not approach Meiselman until after a reasonable
period of mourning had passed, but he nevertheless
would file the petition seeking certification.
Reeves further testified that the following Monday
after the Tidwell meeting, Meiselman came to the projec-
tion booth where he was employed and brought up the
question of the Union, stating that he understood that
Reeves wanted to be "union." He also said he wanted to
ascertain Reeves' feelings about the Union, but Reeves
did not have to give his answer at that time but could talk
to him later. According to Reeves, this was all that trans-
pired during his conversation with Meiselman. No other
person was present. On the same day Reeves was as-
signed to the Town and Country Theatre.
Reeves had a further conversation with H. B. Meisel-
man concerning the Union about a week or two later
when he went to one of the theatres to see him. At that
time Meiselman stated that he thought unions were good
but he was not going to have one in Jacksonville. He
stated further that he might consider the question of the
Union after certain union officials "changed power." He
did not tell Reeves what he had against those officials.
However, he did say that if the Union were voted in he
'S It should be noted that the statement made by Meiselman concerning
the closing of three of the theatres did not directly apply to Reeves as
Meiselman indicated that he planned to close the outdoor theatres and
Reeves was employed in an indoor theatre. In this connection , Reeves
would close all the theatres with the exception of two; the
Cedar Hills and the Town and Country.'s Meiselman
further told Reeves that if he wanted to become a member
of the Union he would lend him $300 and give him a 6-
month leave of absence from his job and he could "try"
the Union but not at his theatres. At the end of the 6-
month period he could return to the Respondent. Reeves
further testified that he told Meiselman that he would pay
the money back to him. During the same conversation
Meiselman told Reeves that he did not believe that he
would earn more money, but he might work a few less
hours. Reeves could not state who brought up the union
question but he might have brought it up himself.
Kenneth Reeves further testified that about a week
after his talk with H. B. Meiselman, Michael Meiselman
came to see him and stated that he thought the Union was
using Reeves as a tool and was "making a fool out of
him." He also accused Reeves of not informing the
Respondent that he had been "messing about with the
Union." Reeves admitted that he had been involved in
prior union activity around the first of the year when the
employees first started talking about a union. In this con-
nection, although Reeves was asked to sign the letter of
withdrawal prepared by Turner, he refused to do so. He
asked Turner who had conceived the idea of the letter of
withdrawal but Turner did not answer him. Reeves, as did
the other witnesses, stated no union representative nor
any employee told him he was required to be a member of
the Union in order to keep his job, nor did he tell any em-
ployee that such a requirement existed, including Grubbs.
With respect to the telephone located in the projection
booth at the Town and Country Theatre, it had been in-
stalled about a year at the initial direction of a man named
Irwin, apparently a member of management. He told the
employees they could use it, if they needed it. After
Reeves' transfer to the Town and Country, the telephone
was removed about 2 or 3 weeks later. Management ex-
plained that it was removed because it was an "illegal
phone"; i.e., a private instrument, not owned by the Bell
Telephone Company.
Reeves stated that each time he talked to Meiselman he
mentioned his personal feeling about the Union. Meisel-
man told him that he thought he was honest and admired
his convictions, and also said that if he wanted to vote for
the Union, he would have a job with the Respondent as
long as he desired, regardless of how he voted. In this
respect, Reeves' testimony seems to be somewhat in con-
flict with his prior testimony.
Reeves further stated that he asked for a raise before he
received the last raise mentioned hereinafter. At that time
he talked to a member of management named Mussleh,
who told him that he would see what he could do about it.
That conversation occurred about 8 or 9 months prior to
the hearing. He said since that time he had asked for
another raise but he could not recall how long after his
earlier request was made, he made his more recent one.
In this respect, Reeves' testimony likewise seems to be
somewhat in contradiction to his earlier testimony.
He further stated that in his conversation with Meisel-
man, he told the latter that he wanted to obtain an Inter-
national card in order to obtain work in the larger cities.
seems to have contradicted his prior testimony when he answered that it
probably was not a direct threat to him, as he did not feel that his job was
insecure. Nevertheless, as shown below, he did later ask about the securi-
ty of his job with the Respondent.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC.
Reeves was uncertain as to how the conversation con-
cerning the $300 initiation fee with Meiselman arose,
when he was asked whether it arose in connection with
his desire to obtain a International union card and work
in other cities.
Reeves admitted that Respondent sent him a letter
dated November 15, 1965, referring to complaints re-
lated to the necessity for the installation of a second
motor in Respondent's truck used by Reeves. He also ad-
mitted that after the original motor installation and after
receipt of the letter another motor was installed. Follow-
ing the November 15 letter and after that occurrence, he
was relieved from his job. He admitted that he had
received his last raise about a week after his conversation
with Meiselman in which Reeves stated that he was in
favor of the Union. He further testified in connection
with the foregoing that between the time he talked to H.
B. Meiselman and the last time he had a conversation
with Michael Meiselman in the projection booth about a
week later, he told one of the two Meiselmans that he
"was going to stay with the Company," and his remark
occurred before he was given a raise."' He corroborated
the testimony of prior witnesses that when Michael
Meiselman brought the notice of election, he instructed
him how to vote and that he could vote either way he
desired and there would not be any hard feelings re-
gardless of how he voted. He testified that he voted as he
pleased.
Reeves stated that Gooch, apparently a part of
management, told him that he was to report 30 minutes
before projection time and he should not arrive early at
the theatre and talk with the other operators or the jani-
tors. Upon being asked why, Gooch replied "because
Mike [Meiselman] wants it that way."
9. The testimony of Gilbert Pomar
Gilbert Pomar was employed at the Five Points
Theatre, a theatre apparently not a part of Respondent's
chain, and was a member of Local 511, the Chalrging
Party and Petitioner in this proceeding. He testified that
he knew Turner and talked with him prior to the election,
at the time he and a man named Starling went to see him
at the drive-in theatre where he was employed to ascer-
tain how he felt about the Union. Turner told Pomar that
he thought he "would stay with H. B. Meiselman" and
that he would obtain a $10 raise and added that Meisel-
man had said that he would take care of him. Turner said
that he was making more money on his job than the union
members were making on theirs. Pomar told Turner that
if he worked as many hours on another job he probably
would make more money than he was making at the
Respondent's theatre. Turner replied that he liked his
work. Pomar's recollection was that the conversation
with Turner occurred about a week before the election.
D. Subsequent Events
On September 12, 1966, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 12 directed an election in the aforementioned unit of
"Reeves subsequently received a raise of $10 a week , which he had
not specifically sought, nor had been promised, prior thereto . According
to Reeves , no reason was given for the raise that he received , months after
the other employees got theirs
18 The tally of ballots served upon the parties upon conclusion of the
election revealed that there were approximately seven eligible voters (one
883
projectionists, or motion picture machine operators, em-
ployed in the Respondent's Metropolitan Jacksonville
area theatres, which was held on -September 27, 1966.
The Union was the only labor organization that appeared
on the ballot. The Union lost the election by a tie vote of
three for, and three against, the Petitioner,"' and, as more
fully set forth in section IV below, on October 4, 1966,
filed timely objections to the election.
E. The Testimony of Respondent's Officials
1. The testimony of Leland M. Branch
Leland M. Branch, the manager of the Royal Palm
Theatre, testified that Ronald Jones worked under him.
Branch stated that the telephone in his office at the Royal
Palm contained a telephone jack, located in the projection
booth. On several occasions, Branch's telephone had
been removed from his office to the projection booth. Ac-
cording to Branch, no telephone had ever been installed
in that booth since he had been the theatre manager,
although the telephone jack was still in the projection
booth.
Branch stated that about August 15, the air-condition-
ing unit gave trouble, relief operator Grubbs traced the
trouble and discovered that it was in the projection booth
and that the relief operator on duty apparently had pulled
the wrong switch. According to Branch, the Meiselmans
visited the theatre to examine the air-conditioning unit
about August 17. On their way out they greeted the
operator but did not remain longer than a minute or two,
and Branch was standing within 6 or 8 feet of them. On
that occasion, they asked Jones if the air-conditioning
was functioning properly. Jones laughed, stating that it
was, and told them what the trouble was. According to
Branch, that was the only visit the Meiselmans made to
that theatre together, within his recollection.
Ronald Jones repeatedly told Branch that he was going
to ask for a raise, and if he did not obtain it, he would
leave the Company. He made such a statement frequently
during the last few weeks preceding the election, accord-
ing to Branch.
According to Branch, Ronald Jones' salary was from
$67.50 to $80 a week and that he made $80 a week when
he worked 7 days a week. He did not know the frequency
Jones worked the full, 7-day week. I do not credit
Branch's testimony where it conflicts with the prior
credited testimony of Jones.
2. The testimony of C. H. Deaver
C. H. Deaver, the manager of the Town and Country
Theatre, who, since October 13, 1966, has managed the
latter theatre and, prior to that, managed the Cedar Hills
Theatre, testified that Tiliakos was the projectionist at
Cedar Hills while Deaver was there. Deaver stated he
asked Tiliakos to let him have his key as Deaver had for-
gotten his own. Tiliakos told Deaver that he did not have
a key. Thereafter, Deaver obtained keys and had them
duplicated and gave one to Michael Meiselman, who
of the eligible voters failed to vote in the election because, according to
this voter, he overslept and arrived at the polling place after the polls had
closed) There were no void ballots and, as shown above , three ballots
were cast for the Petitioner and three against the Petitioner, with a total of
six valid votes counted . There were no challenged ballots
336-845 0 - 70 - 57
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
needed one in order to check on relief operator Joe
Grubbs.
According to Deaver, during the summer, several com-
plaints were lodged against Louis Tiliakos for not paying
attention to his work. The principal complaints concerned
the opening night of a leading picture entitled "The Blue
Max." Michael Meiselman was very concerned about
Tiliakos' failure to effect necessary film "changeovers,"
because of the leading character of the film. Michael
Meiselman took no action at that time in the matter
because of the serious illness of his mother and thereafter
left town and remained in North Carolina until the death
of his mother, returning the first week in August.
Deaver, making further reference to personal calls
made to Tiliakos over the telephone, stated that on occa-
sions Deaver answered the telephone, and transferred the
calls (mostly from women) to Tiliakos. (In this connec-
tion, counsel for Respondent argues that that was the
reason why the telephone was removed from the booth
because Tiliakos was missing some of the "changeovers"
of film because he was spending excessive time on the
telephone.) At that time there was one telephone located
in the Cedar Hills Theatre box office, one in the
manager's office, and one in the projection booth. Deaver
also testified that Meiselman instructed him, during the
month of August, to remove the telephone from the
booth. It was removed immediately thereafter and he in-
structed each of the cashiers that if he received incoming
telephone calls he should politely inform the caller that
the caller could not be connected with Tiliakos but he
would receive a message for Tiliakos. He informed
Tiliakos the next day of this fact. On cross-examination,
Deaver testified that while he was assigned to the Cedar
Hills Theatre, Tiliakos was the regular projectionist and
the relief projectionists were first Kenneth Reeves and
later Joe Grubbs.
3. The testimony of Michael H. Meiselman
Michael H. Meiselman testified that he left Jackson-
ville during the period from January 1966 until his mother
died on July 24, 1966, visiting Jacksonville only for very
brief periods until approximately August 3.
He corroborated prior testimony that the Respondent
had experienced a great deal of difficulty with the opera-
tion of a truck which at that time was driven by Kenneth
Reeves, who, according to Meiselman, used it about 90
percent of the time.
He also testified that the Respondent had experienced
difficulty keeping operators at the Royal Palm Theatre,
stating that when "good men" were assigned there, they
"turned bad." All those employees, according to Meisel-
man, were in close contact with Kenneth Reeves.
During the spring of the year, Michael Meiselman
stated that he visited the Royal Palm Theatre, at which
time Reeves asked him how the construction was
proceeding at the new University Drive-In Theatre, then
being built for the Respondent. Michael Meiselman told
Reeves that it was going along fine but their costs were
running higher, whereupon Reeves, according to Meisel-
man, asked Meiselman if he knew the reason for that.
Meiselman replied that he did not. Reeves responded that
is "because you're Jewish" and the construction compa-
nies were going to charge you "5 percent extra." I `discern
nothing in Reeves' reply to reflect an anti-Jewish feeling
against the Meiselmans and thereby invalidate his
testimony, where detrimental to Respondent's case.
Michael Meiselman corroborated the testimony of
Theatre Manager C. H. Deaver with respect to the show-
ing of "The Blue Max," stating that he attended the
movie twice, and on both occasions Tiliakos, the opera-
tor, missed the changeovers.
Michael Meiselman corroborated prior testimony that
he, his father, and Theatre Manager Mussleh visited the
two Hills, Leroy and David, at the former's home.
Thereafter, they drove to the Cedar Hills Theatre where
his father went upstairs to the projection booth, and
Michael remained downstairs with Mussleh. When he
returned to the downstairs area, according to Michael
Meiselman, his father gave the appearance of being very
happy. His father immediately asked him whether he
knew that Louis Tiliakos had not received the raise that
had been authorized for him. According to Michael, his
father appeared happy because Tiliakos said that he was
not interested in joining the Union. Thereafter, after
dinner, the two drove to the Midway Drive-In Theatre
where his father talked to Winfrey Turner while Michael
talked to Mussleh. He did not overhear the conversation
between his father and Turner. Later, his father told him
that Turner had stated that he had already changed his
mind and was not interested in the Union. They later
visited Joe Grubbs, a relatively new relief operator, and
after Michael Meiselman introduced his father, H. B.
Meiselman, Grubbs told the latter "I know what you
want to know about." Continuing, Grubbs stated that he
wanted the Meiselmans to know that he was, not in-
terested in any union , that he thought first about his fami-
ly. Michael Meiselman testified that he was curious about
the meaning of Grubbs' comment. Grubbs later added,
"They came to me and they said that I was the last person
that they had contacted about the Union; that they all had
signed; that if I didn't sign, I wouldn't have a job." At that
point Michael told him that he could work for Respond-
ent as long as he desired. H. B. Meiselman merely
listened to the conversation. Grubbs told Michael Meisel-
man that he waited a period of 24 hours before signing his
card because he was "scared to sign as well as scared not
to sign."
Michael Meiselman further testified that he asked Joe
Grubbs to visit the Cedar Hills Theatre on Saturday for
the purpose of familiarizing himself with the machines;
i.e., timing machines. Joe Grubbs stated that he would
rather not go to the theatre on Saturday because "I have
a very bad temper and I' m going - that Louie [Tiliakos]
will say something to me and I'll get in a fight with him."
Whereupon, Michael stated that he would demonstrate
the operation of the machines to Grubbs on Sunday, and
that was the reason he needed the key to the projection
booth, which was delivered to the Town and Country
Theatre box office on Saturday. He stated that he knew
his father accompanied him to the Town and Country
Theatre on Sunday where his father spoke to Kenneth
Reeves but he did not overhear the conversation.
Michael Meiselman denied telling Joe Grubbs that the
Union would transfer operators employed by the Meisel-
mans to Negro theatres so that the Union could have
their own men assigned into the Meiselman theatre
booths. He added that his father did not speak to Joe
Grubbs at all concerning the Union.
Michael Meiselman further testified that he told Joe
Grubbs when he took on the job as the relief operator,
that he would be compensated for the extra time and
would be paid $10 extra. When Kenneth Reeves was
transferred to the Town and Country Theatre, he was
also given a raise of $10. Reeves worked 6 days a week
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 885
before he took the Town and Country job. The new relief
operator was required to work 6 days a week at the new
University Drive-In Theatre, which had been recently
opened.
Michael Meiselman denied telling Joe Grubbs, when he
talked to him about the job as relief operator, that he
should not talk to the other operators, nor did he ask him
who had contacted him about the Union, nor did he tell
him that Respondent was going to build more theatres,
and more promotions would be available. Michael
Meiselman denied that his father made any such similar
statements. On the Sunday in question, Michael Meisel-
man and his father visited the Cedar Hills Theatre and
when his father saw Louis Tiliakos present there, said, "I
thought he would be there" or something to that effect.
Michael Meiselman testified he saw his father and Ken-
neth Reeves talking at the University Drive-In Theatre
on Friday, August 12, but did not overhear the conversa-
tion.
On the same day, Michael Meiselman testified he saw
Winfrey Turner at the University Drive-In Theatre. His
father later told him that Turner had given him a letter to
put in the file; i.e., the letter of withdrawal signed by cer-
tain employees of the Respondent.
Michael Meiselman corroborated prior testimony that
when he visited the Royal Palm Theatre to check the
functioning of the air-conditioning unit, he stopped to talk
to the projectionist and the projection booth was 4 feet
from the theatre manager's office. Both doors were left
open and the office manager stood at one door while
Meiselman stood at the projection door. At that time he
asked Ronald Jones how the air-conditioning was func-
tioning and Jones stated that it was fine, but Grubbs had
turned the main switch off. Michael Meiselman told Jones
that the Respondent had received a letter from the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and according to Michael,
Jones replied, "Yeah, well, they came down and they said
just sign this and everything will be all right." According
to the witness, he did not talk any further with Jones
because of his alleged mental deficiency.
Michael Meiselman testified he talked to Theatre
Manager Deaver in late August 1966, and told him that
he would appreciate Deaver's calling the telephone com-
pany and having it remove the telephone at the Cedar
Hills Theatre. He took this action because he wanted to
prevent Louis Tiliakos from using the telephone as it
resulted in his neglecting his work. According to Michael
Meiselman, Kenneth Reeves called him about the end of
August stating he wanted to talk to Michael. Reeves told
him "Mike,, I have been thinking awful serious and I have
decided that I'm not going in the Union." Meiselman
replied, "That's fine Kenneth, whatever you do is all right
with me." Reeves wanted Meiselman to come and talk to
him immediately and as soon as Michael Meiselman had
an opportunity, he did so. He saw Reeves at the booth at
which time he stated that he had changed his mind after
having had', a talk with H. B. Meiselman for 3 hours at the
University' Drive-In, and a later discussion with his wife
who caused him to change his mind about the Union.
Michael Meiselman stated he had a conversation with
Joe Grubbs in September. Grubbs said Michael was a
"fool" for keeping Kenneth Reeves, because Kenneth
disliked him, he was antagonistic to him because of
economic and religious reasons. 19 Continuing his
testimony, Michael Meiselman testified that upon his
receipt of the notices of election about 5 days before the
election, he distributed them to the individual operators
and told each man, "This is a notice of an election to be
held for the Union or against the Union," stating the date
and time, and advised them that if they were in favor of
the Union, to vote "yes," and if they did not favor the
Union, to vote "no," but not to sign the ballot as such
conduct would render it void. Thereafter, he said, "What-
ever way you vote its your own free choice, its a free
country. You know how I feel about the Union but what-
ever way you vote nothing will be held against you and its
your own free decision."
About a day after the election, according to Michael
Meiselman, Kenneth Reeves called him and wanted to
see him, later inquiring whether Reeves was doing his job.
Michael Meiselman testified that he was surprised at
Reeves' inquiry, and asked him how long had he been
working for the Respondent, and later questioned him,
"Have I ever said anything to lead you to imply that you
were not welcome here?" Reeves replied, "No sir."
Whereupon, Michael Meiselman told Reeves that he
could remain with Respondent as long as he desired.20
In this connection, Michael Meiselman testified that
Kenneth Reeves told him he wanted a union card because
he wanted to leave Jacksonville and if he had such a card
he could work anywhere.
With respect to the election, Michael Meiselman stated
he went to the theatre at the beach where he saw Ronald
Jones who sought to borrow $50 from Michael for a
downpayment on a beach apartment. Michael Meiselman
later discussed the matter with his attorney who told him
that it was all right to lend Jones $50, but to make certain
that he did not say or imply that Jones had to vote for, or
against, the Union. He thereafter loaned Jones the money
and told him, "Ronny, I'd appreciate it if an election
comes up again that you would consider voting no."
About 15 minutes later, Michael Meiselman asked Jones
if he would notarize a statement he had signed the day be-
fore, relating to an alleged threat by Louis Tiliakos
against Jones because Jones did not vote for the Union.
Michael Meiselman stated that he taped up the
telephone jack at the Town and Country Theatre for
several reasons; first, because he believed someone was
eavesdropping on conversations he had on the other
telephone in the office; second, because he was worried
about exposed wires and wanted them covered.
On cross-examination, Michael Meiselman testified
that the Cedar Hills Theatre had Italian-made projectors
and the projectionists were required to be very attentive
to them because of the mechanism involved. Meiselman
testified that an operator could not miss a changeover
because of something that the operator was properly per-
forming within the scope of his duty, if he were paying at-
tention.
According to Michael Meiselman, Kenneth Reeves
worked only 5 days a week, although he was obligated to
the Respondent to work 6 days, but was never available
on the sixth day.
Michael Meiselman testified that he never had any con-
versation with Winfrey Turner concerning any letter be-
fore his father gave him the letter. He was present at the
"This evidence was admitted solely as to the issue concerning the 20 It should be noted that Reeves obviously was prompted by fear of
credibility of statements made by Grubbs and not for proving the truthful- reprisal concerning his job, to make such an inquiry of Michael Meisel-
ness of such statements. man
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time his father had a conversation with Turner on August
3, but he was not within hearing distance of the two, and
that his father later told him about the conversation and
about the letter that Turner had given him. I do not credit
the testimony of Michael Meiselman where it is in con-
flict with that of Kenneth Reeves, Louis Tiliakos, and
other witnesses who testified for the Union.
4. The testimony of H. B. Meiselman
H. B. Meiselman, the president of the individual cor-
porations involved herein, testified that he saw Winfrey
Turner on August 3. The latter told Meiselman that he
was going to withdraw from the Union but did not men-
tion the letter to him. According to Meiselman, August 3
was the first time he had actual knowledge of any union
activities. He stated that shortly after his arrival in
Jacksonville, he went to see Turner, who was not at the
place where he anticipated finding him. Thereafter, he
went to the Fox Drive-In Theatre to see Willis Leroy
Hill, who likewise was not at work. Later he went to
Hill's home and talked with him there while his brother,
David, was at the house.
Willis Leroy Hill introduced Meiselman to his brother,
who was a relatively new employee and thereafter talked
to Meiselman, while only those two men were present.
Meiselman told Hill that he had received a letter from the
Board. Willis Leroy Hill replied that he knew that Meisel-
man would receive such a letter, but did not know that it
had been sent to him at that time. Meiselman stated that
he asked Willis Leroy Hill if he were unhappy about his
working conditions and Hill replied "no." He also asked
Hill if he had signed a union card and Hill replied that he
had. Meiselman thereafter asked Willis Leroy Hill why
he signed if he were not unhappy and Hill told him that all
the indoor theatre employees had "signed up" and he
likewise signed. Hill stated that when he signed the union
card and turned it over to Tidwell, he signed it with the
reservation that in the event he was unhappy with the
Union, i.e., Local 511, he would be able to obtain the
return of his card. He told Meiselman that both he and his
brother had changed their minds and were attempting to
obtain the return of their union authorization cards.
Meiselman told Hill that he would prefer that Hill not be
a member of Local 511 and that the local had "pulled an
illegal strike" on Meiselman without giving, him any
notice. Meiselman testified that he told Hill that he had
union theatres operating in other cities and he had gotten
along very happily with the unions in those cities.
H. B. Meiselman testified he also told Willis Leroy Hill
that even if he signed the union card, that he and his
brother could work for the Meiselmans as long as they
wished, and if they wanted to be members of the Union,
they were welcome to do so. Willis Leroy Hill told
Meiselman, according to his testimony, that there had
been some questions about whether they would be ad-
mitted to membership in Local 511 or whether they might
form a new local. Meiselman told them if they formed a
new local he would be very glad to "give my theatres to
that local."
Thereafter, Meiselman stated that he visited Louis
Tiliakos and told Tiliakos about the letter from the Board,
and asked him whether he was unhappy with his job.
Tiliakos stated that he had been looking for a better job
for 2 years and could not find one. He also reminded
Meiselman that he had promised him a raise about 3 or 4
months earlier. Meiselman testified that he was as-
tonished at Tiliakos' last remark because he had in-
structed his bookkeeper to give Tiliakos a raise. Meisel-
man apologized for the failure of his bookkeeper to do so,
and told Tiliakos that he would give him the raise retroac-
tively to the time that it was promised. Tiliakos replied
that he did not have to make it retroactive, whereupon H.
B. Meiselman told Louis Tiliakos that he would obtain a
$10 raise on his next paycheck.
H. B. Meiselman further testified that he asked
Tiliakos that inasmuch as he was not unhappy on his job
"why did you start this union business?" Meiselman ex-
plained that he did not actually know that Tiliakos had
started the union organizational drive but he had just
received a letter from the Board and he knew that people
had to ask for union representation in order for the Board
to act. (Emphasis supplied.) Tiliakos told H. B. Meisel-
man that he wanted to obtain a union card and, for some
reason, some Meiselman employees had the impression
that if they had union cards they could obtain jobs in any
localities. H. B. Meiselman thereupon asked Tiliakos
whether, in view of his giving Tiliakos a $10 raise, he still
was "unhappy" with his employment. Tiliakos replied
"no" and stated, "I'm staying with you." Tiliakos added
that he would need $300 to join the Union. Meiselman
told Tiliakos that he would be glad to lend the money to
him and Tiliakos could pay Meiselman back in any
manner he desired. There was no mention of Tiliakos'
resignation or his being asked to resign, according to H.
B. Meiselman.
H. B. Meiselman denied making any statement to any
employee that he had fixed it so (apparently referring to
his will) that his sons would never have a union theatre in
the Jacksonville area.
Meiselman added that Tiliakos had been employed by
the Meiselman Enterprises for 5-1/2 years and that the
raise that he received had nothing to do with a travel al-
lowance. He stated that when each firm gave a travel al-
lowance, it usually was reflected on a separate check. He
denied telling Tiliakos that the $10 raise was for the pur-
pose of a travel allowance.
H. B. Meiselman stated his son Michael might have
told him that he wanted to hire Grubbs as a relief operator
in order to pick up the films. When the appointment
between Michael and Grubbs was made on a Sunday,
Tiliakos came into the theatre and Meiselman said, "Oh,
I knew he'd show up." He explained that he knew Louis
Tiliakos was in a bind and did not know who the relief
operator would be, and Tiliakos was not going to let any
time pass without checking to see what was going on. In
other words, according to H. B. Meiselman, Tiliakos de-
cided he wanted to know whether the Respondent had
brought in a new man or if it had just changed jobs.
Later that same evening, H. B. Meiselman visited
Turner and told Turner about his receipt of the letter from
the Board. Turner told Meiselman not to worry about the
matter as he had changed his mind and added that he
wanted to write a letter to obtain the return of his union
card. H. B. Meiselman stated that he did not know how to
write the letter, nor to whom the letter should be ad-
dressed, and told Turner not to worry about the Union as
he was assured of holding a job.
H. B. Meiselman corroborated the testimony of
Michael Meiselman as to the conversation between
Grubbs and Michael. He recalled hearing the statement
about Grubbs being "scared to sign or not sign for the
Union."
H. B. Meiselman denied telling his employees that they
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC.
were building a new theatre and there would be opportu-
nities for promotions.
He also denied that he told Turner, before Turner
brought him the withdrawal letter that he thought the
letter was a good idea, stating that when Turner brought
him the letter he told Turner he had no knowledge
whether it would be effective or not.
H. B. Meiselman testified that he saw Kenneth Reeves
a,n August 5, and likewise told him about Respondent's
receipt of a letter from the Board. Reeves said that he was
going "union," whereupon Meiselman replied that he
respected Reeves' convictions. He also said that Reeves
mentioned something about a $300 fee and Meiselman
told him that if he needed $300 Meiselman would be glad
to lend it to him, and he could pay him back whenever he
could. Reeves also mentioned to Meiselman something
about an International union card as he wanted the card
in order to join the Union, and had been promised such a
card because it would enable him to move into a larger
theatre. Meiselman testified that Reeves said "and if I
carry an International card I can work any place." Ac-
cording to Meiselman, that was all that was involved in
the first conversation he had with Reeves about the
Union.
He stated that his offer was not conditioned upon
Reeves' leaving his employment if he obtained an Inter-
national card. Meiselman said he did not want to pay
Reeves off. If he had any desire to get rid of him he would
merely give him 2 weeks' pay and he did not have to lend
him any money.
The second conversation with Reeves was held at the
University Drive-In Theatre where the two talked not 3
hours concerning the Union as testified by Reeves but
only about 5 or 10 minutes. Meiselman stated that he
gave Reeves a raise when he was assigned to the Town
and Country Theatre. At that time he worked a 6-day job,
instead of the previous 5-day workweek. Kenneth Reeves
actually had a 6-day-per-week job prior to the University
Drive-In but he never could be found on the sixth day ac-
cording to the Meiselmans.
He stated that Turner obtained a raise of $10 because
he took on extra, added responsibility of making certain
that the janitors cleaned up the theatre.
Leroy Hill was given a $10 raise because H. B. Meisel-
man wanted to hold him responsible for the field and the
speakers, stating that he took that authority away from
Mussleh. Thereafter, Mussleh left his employment
because he did not want to lose that responsibility.
H. B. Meiselman stated that he hired David Hill on the
recommendation of his brother, Willis Leroy Hill, on July
15 or 16, and later gave him a $10 raise. Grubbs obtained
a $10 raise because he was required to relieve on a 6-day
basis instead of the customary 5 that Kenneth Reeves
worked when he served as a relief operator. H. B. Meisel-
man stated that Turner obtained a $10 increase in "travel
allowance" to buy gas. After a few weeks, Turner said he
could not make it with $10 and Meiselman gave him $4
more. Altogether he obtained a $4 increase in travel al-
lowance and a $10 increase in salary because he hnd to
look after the janitor. In summary , H. B. Meiselman said
he gave these raises as part of a general wage increase at
the time because he had neglected his employees for quite
some time since January 7, and he wanted to equalize
salaries. H. B. Meiselman overheard the conversation
between his son and Ronald Jones, who told Michael
Meiselman that "they came up here and they asked me to
sign a card."
887
On cross-examination, H. B. Meiselman stated the first
time he learned about the Turner letter of withdrawal,
was after he finished speaking to Turner on the night
mentioned hereinabove. Turner said that he was going to
write a letter to obtain the return of his card. On redirect
examination, Meiselman stated he believed that Turner
had said something about writing a letter and getting his
card back. In this connection Winfrey L. Turner, when he
testified on redirect examination , stated he did not say
when he showed the letter to the projectionists, that the
"old man" had seen it, and thought it was a good idea, or
that he had any assistance in preparing the letter. As in-
dicated heretofore, I do not credit Turner's version of this
incident. Nor do I find H. B. Meiselman's version to be
truthful. Moreover, I do not credit H. B. Meiselman's
testimony where it is in conflict with that of Tiliakos,
Reeves, and Grubbs.
F. The Respondent's Defenses
The Respondent defends its refusal to bargain prin-
cipally on the ground that while H. B. Meiselman and his
son, Michael Meiselman, were out of the Jacksonville
area for a long period of time, their business was
neglected due to the illness of their wife and mother,
respectively. During that period, and principally during
the months of June, July, and'August, the Union allegedly
persuaded all seven operators employed in the Re-
spondent's Jacksonville area theatres to sign written
authorizations for the Union to represent them and ob-
tained such authorizations by promising to obtain Local
and/or International union cards for them and promising
to waive a $300 initiation fee as to three of the employees.
Respondent further alleges that the Union promised not
to contact the Meiselmans concerning the question of
representation until after a reasonable period of mourning
had elapsed, and in addition, promised one employee,
desirous of obtaining such work, extra work.
The Respondent further asserts that three of its em-
ployees became very disillusioned at a union meeting on
August 1, when they did not obtain the International
cards allegedly promised to them and when they learned,
for the first time, that they would have to pay an initiation
fee of $300 and they probably would not be able to obtain
membership in the Local Union and, according to
Respondent's brief, "When they learned, in short, that
there wasn't anything the Union could do for them except
take their dues and initiation fees and make a lot of
promises they couldn't keep." In this connection, the
Respondent argues that the authorization card of Ken-
neth Reeves should not be counted because he joined
only for the purpose of obtaining an International card
and likewise the authorization cards of the two Hill
brothers, and that of Winfrey Turner, likewise should not
be counted . By the elimination of the aforementioned
cards, the Respondent argues that the Union obtained
only three valid cards out of the seven employees who
signed authorization cards, and as the card signed by
Ronald Jones was not identified, the Union actually could
count only two cards in support of its demand for recogni-
tion. It urges, in this connection, that the employees'
failure to obtain the allegedly promised International
union cards, in and of itself, is sufficient to destroy the
validity of authorization cards obtained from employees
who expected to receive such International cards.
The Respondent further urges that the aforementioned
three employees who allegedly changed their minds im-
mediately after the August 1 union meeting, along with
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two other employees, Grubbs and Jones, signed and cir-
culated a letter asking for the return of their cards. It also
urges that one of the other two employees who signed,
Grubbs, allegedly was threatened and coerced, and upon
immediately being reassured as to his job thereafter,
signed the letter of withdrawal. The Respondent thus
contends that out of the seven alleged valid cards sub-
mitted in support of the Union's demand for recognition,
a majority of the aforesaid cards were freely and validly
withdrawn by the employees before the demand for
recognition.
With respect to the Respondent's defense concerning
the allegations of violations of Section 8(a)(1) and the ob-
jections to the election, discussed hereinafter, Respond-
ent; asserts that this proceeding actually portrays an old
man who, after spending 7 months watching his wife
slowly pass away and being helpless to prevent it, upon
his arrival in town, where the theatres concerned were
located, 7 days later "to pick up the pieces of the busi-
ness" where he left off 7 months earlier, discovered the
union petition seeking an election. Respondent further as-
serts that while his attention was diverted by his wife's ill-
ness "his old arch enemy [the Union]" was making de-
mands upon him in the same manner that they had done
6 years earlier when he lost his daughter and "sneaked in
behind his back" and took advantage of his absence to or-
ganize his employees and "stir them up against him." In
this connection, the Respondent defends that H. B.
Meiselman, the "old man" -referred to hereinabove,
thereupon set out to talk to his employees in order to
ascertain what had happened, asked them what was
wrong, and urges that Meiselman, because he was very
upset and distraught, probably implied "too far" and said
some things to his employees under the "distress of the
moment" that he should not have said. It argues that
despite the action of the principal management official in
this regard, he and his son nevertheless reassured the em-
ployees they could join the Union or not if they desired,
and they would always have a job notwithstanding.
In the course of H. B. Meiselman's interviews with his
employees, he found that many of their "dissatisfactions"
were justifiable, including a situation wherein a raise that
Meiselman had instructed should be given to Tiliakos had
not been given that employee. Additional reasons urged
and supported by the testimony of both Meiselmans were
that the father and son management team had neglected
their business for such a long period because of the illness
of Mrs. Meiselman, they made a general review of all
wages and problems in the area, giving everyone the
raises that were long overdue and made other normal
business adjustments, such as changing responsibility
from maintenance in the drive-ins, changing relief opera-
tors to obtain an employee who would take better care of
the company truck and not irritate the other operators by
annoying them, tinkering with their equipment, and not
conversing with them while they were at work in the
theatres. In this connection, according to the Respond-
ent's defense, they removed the telephone out of one
booth where the operator had been missing changeovers
and had made other errors because of frequent telephone
calls he received from his girl friends. They taped up the
telephone jack in the booth of another theatre, which was
used as a local headquarters office, "since they strongly
suspect [ed], and not without some justification, that the
Union [was] using that jack to spy on company business
matters."21
In the justification of its refusal to bargain, Respondent
urges that, upon receipt of a copy of the letter of
withdrawal from the Union signed by the five aforemen-
tioned employees requesting the return of their union
authorization cards, they relied on the letter in their reply
to the Union's demand for recognition, and stated that
they did not believe the Union represented a majority.
'They added therein if the Union could show that it did, in
fact, represent a majority, the Respondent would bargain
with it. As no offer of proof resulted from their request,
they decided to await the outcome of the election, which,
as indicated hereinabove, the Union lost by a tie vote.
Respondent continued its argument in defense of its al-
leged refusal to bargain, stating that, 4 days prior to the
election, Michael Meiselman took the notice of election
to each operator in order to make certain that each em-
ployee knew that he could vote as he pleased without any
fear of reprisal whatsoever, and to make certain that the
Respondent did not have to undergo a rerun election.
Mike Meiselman testified that, after telling each operator
he was free to vote as he pleased, he concluded by stating
there would not be any hard feelings or reprisals no
matter how he voted.
The Respondent incorporated by reference in its brief
to the Trial Examiner a copy of its brief to the Regional
Director for Region 12 and renewed its contention that
the unit found appropriate by the Acting Regional
Director was inapproprite for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
G. Analysis and Conclusions as to Alleged Violations of
Section 8(a)(1)
On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude that
H. B. Meiselman , by his questioning of Willis Leroy Hill
at the latter's home on or about August 3, 1966, as to why
he wanted to join the Union and whether all the Respond-
ent's projectionists likewise were interested in joining
the Union; his similar questioning of Winfrey L. Turner,
on or about the same date, as to why he had joined the
Union; his questioning of Grubbs as to whether he in-
tended to "go along" with the Union or with H. B.
Meiselman; his further questioning of Grubbs as to
whether other projectionists had contacted him concern-
ing the Union; his and Michael Meiselman asking
Grubbs, on or about the same date, why he had joined the
Union and why the Union was trying to help the em-
ployees; and Michael Meiselman asking Ronald Jones
how he had gotten in contact with the Union, constituted
unlawful interrogation within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
I also find and conclude that H. B. Meiselman's state-
ment to Louis Tiliakos that he would close each of his
Jacksonville theatres before he would see them unionized
and that, in the event of his death, he would see to it that
his sons likewise would not have any union in Respond-
ent's Jacksonville theatres; his statement to Grubbs that
the Union was involved in organizing Respondent's em-
21 The foregoing is based upon the testimony of H. B. Meiselman,
which is credited only to the extent that it is not in conflict with that of
Tiliakos, Grubbs, and Jones
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC.
ployees because they wanted a better place for its mem-
bers to work and probably would assign the Respondent's
employees to smaller theatres; his similar statement to
Grubbs that before he would see a union "come in" he
would close all his theatres in the Jacksonville area; his
statement to Ronald Jones that he would not have the
Union in his Jacksonville projection booths as long as he
lived and he did not think his sons would do so likewise
after he passed away; and his further statement to Ken-
neth Reeves that if the Union won the election, he would
close all the theatres in the Jacksonville area, except two,
constituted coercive threats and violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
I further find and conclude that the statements of H. B.
Meiselman to all of his employees interviewed on or
about August 3, that he would give them raises or "travel
allowances," following immediately upon his initial
knowledge of the Union's organizational campaign, con-
stituted unilateral grants of wage increases and other
benefits and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find
and conclude that H. B. Meiselman's telling Grubbs, on
or about the same date, that other theatres would be
opened soon, and there would be many opportunities for
advancement for the projectionists, amounted to
promises of benefits to Respondent's employees and
likewise constituted interference and violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
I likewise find and conclude that H. B. Meiselman's
statement to Winfrey L. Turner on or about August 3,
1966, that he wished his employees had come to him and
talked to him first as he could have helped them as much
as the Union could help them and that they could have or-
ganized a union of their own, and H. B. Meiselman's in-
forming Joe Grubbs that the Respondent wanted him to
take over the job of Kenneth Reeves in order to remove
Reeves from contact with the other employees, it being
well known to Meiselman that Kenneth Reeves was ac-
tive in the Union's organizational efforts likewise con-
stituted unlawful interference and violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.22
H. Analysis and Conclusions as to Alleged Violations of
Section 8(a)(5)
Respondent urges as its affirmative defense that on Au-
gust 15, 1966, when the Union made its demand for
recognition, the Respondent entertained a good-faith
doubt that the Union represented a majority of its projec-
tionists. Respondent contends that the letter of
withdrawal, signed by five of its seven projectionists,
stated they did not want the Union to represent them
prior to the date the demand for recognition was made.
Accordingly, it argues that its refusal was not grounded
on any bad faith, but was motivated by a good-faith doubt
of the Union's majority status.
In my opinion the Respondent's refusal to recognize
the Union was not motivated by any good-faith doubt of
the Union's majority status. Indeed, H. B. Meiselman,
Respondent's president, by his own admission in his
22 Although various other conduct on the part of the Respondent was
alleged in the complaint to violate Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Trial Ex-
aminer has made no findings nor conclusions as to such other conduct, as
it would be cumulative.
23 See N L .R.B v Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (C.A. 6),
cert. denied 382 U S 830 , and Colson Corp. v. N .L.R B., 347 F 2d 128
889
testimony concerning his conversation with Willis Leroy
Hill on August 3, 1966, stated to Hill that he would
prefer that Hill not become a member of Local 511
because the Union "had pulled an illegal strike" on him,
without any notice. Likewise, in reply to Hill's comment
concerning the questions whether the projectionists
would be admitted to membership in Local 511, or they
might organize a new local, Meiselman stated that if a
new local were formed, he would be very glad to give his
theatres to that new labor organization. Meiselman's
strong animus against bargaining with Local 511 was
likewise brought out in the credited testimony of Louis
Tiliakos.
Respondent's lack of good-faith doubt as to the
Union's majority status is further reflected by Respond-
ent's numerous threats, promises of benefit, and coer-
cive interrogation of employees, all for the purpose of un-
dermining the Union's majority. I am persuaded that
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union on Au-
gust 25, 1966, stated in its letter on that date to Business
Agent Douglas D. Tidwell was not the result of any good-
faith doubt but was a device to gain time to destroy the
Union's majority, which I find existed on and since Au-
gust 1, 1966, on which date six of the seven employees
within the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate had
signed authenticated authorization cards for representa-
tion by the Union.23 The seventh employee, David Earl
Hill, who later signed a card, signed an application for
membership in the Union on August 1, 1966.24 There
was no fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or coercion in-
volved in the signing of the union cards which com-
menced early in July 1966 and ended on or about August
1, 1966.
In support of its position, the Respondent urges there
was a sufficient number of employees who signed the Au-
gust 12, 1966, withdrawal letter, to invalidate the Union's
majority status. In this connection, I find and conclude
that the Meiselmans, through their aforementioned con-
duct hereinabove found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1),
fostered and inspired the preparation and signing of the
letter of withdrawal.
Respondent also argues that several of its employees
signed cards for various reasons, other than authorizing
the Union to represent them. It points to the desires of
several employees to obtain international union cards,
and several to obtain extra work. Apart form the fact that
the credible evidence herein demonstrates that if any em-
ployees had such afterthoughts, they signed cards that
clearly designated the Union as their bargaining agent and
were free of any ambiguities. There was no fraud, deceit,
nor any misrepresentation with respect to the signing of
any of the cards. The afterthoughts and subjective think-
ing, or ex post facto sentiments of the employees,
reflected in their attempted withdrawal from the Union,
cannot negate the effect of their designation of the Union
as their bargaining agent, nor excuse the Respondent's
refusal to fulfill its statutory obligation. The foregoing
conclusions are clearly emphasized by evidence that the
Respondent's two highest ranking officials by their An-
(C.A. 8). See also Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 153 NLRB 273; and
American Cable Systems, Inc., 161 NLRB 332.
24 The six employees aforementioned who signed the cards were Ken-
neth C. Reeves, Ronald E Jones, Joe E. Grubbs, Louis M. Tiliakos,
Winfrey L Turner, and Willis Leroy Hill. As noted hereinabove, David
Earl Hill , according to the testimony of credited witnesses, likewise
signed a union authorization card for representation a few days later.
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gust 3, 1966, individual visits to the various projectionists
and by their threats and promises of benefits to em-
ployees, including the unilateral grant of wage increases
and travel allowances, gave the impetus to any change of
union sentiment that might have later occurred among its
employees. 25
I therefore find and conclude that on and since August
1, 1966, the Union represented the majority of the
Respondent's projectionists or operators, in the unit
found to be appropriate below.26
The appropriate unit consists of all motion picture pro-
jectionists, including relief projectionists, employed at
Employer's theatres located in the Jacksonville, Florida,
metropolitan area, including Atlantic Beach, Florida, but
excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. Southside Theatres, Inc., 109 NLRB
259, 261. Cf. Balaban & Katz (Princess Theatre), 87
NLRB 1071.
Although Respondent in its brief to the Trial Examiner
again raised the question of the appropriateness of the
unit described above, this contention is wholly lacking in
merit. Respondent failed to file with the Board a request
for review of the Acting Regional Director's Decision
finding the above-described unit to be appropriate and,
under well-established precedent, the unit issue is not
relitigable. See, in this connection, Ross Porta-Plant,
Inc., 166 NLRB 494 at 495. See also N.L.R.B. v.
Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, 379
F.2d 172 (C.A. 6), enfg. 154 NLRB 819. Accordingly,
Respondent cannot validly challenge the unit finding of
the Acting Regional Director in this proceeding, and her
finding is resjudicate.
The fact that the Union proceeded to an election after
the letter of withdrawal and later filed a refusal-to-bargain
charge does not constitute a valid defense for the
Respondent. See International Union of Electrical
Workers [S.N.C. Manufacturing Company, Inc.] v.
N.L.R.B., 352 F.2d 361 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 382
U.S. 902, and cases cited therein.
In view of the extensive conduct on the part of Re-
spondent with respect to violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, I am persuaded that the Respondent's refusal to
bargain with the Union was not the result of a good-faith
doubt of the Union's majority but was calculated solely
for the purpose of destroying that majority. Accordingly,
I find that the Union has demonstrated its majority status
and that Respondent on and since August 27, 1966, by
refusing to recognize or bargain with the Union violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.27
IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
On October 4, 1966, the Petitioner filed with the Re-
gional Director for Region 12, objections to the election,
which read as follows:
(1) Employer threatened to close its theatres if the em-
ployees voted for a union.
(2) Employer granted wage increase to entice the em-
ployees to vote against the Union and also offered other
benefits for the same purpose.
(3) Employer threatened to discharge those employees
who were supporters of the Union and did also request
union supporters to resign their employment.
25 See Santangelo & Co., 154 NLRB 1649.
26 Joy Silk Mills, Inc v. N L .R.B., 185 F .2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. de-
med 341 U.S. 914; and Bernel Foam Products Co., Inc, 146 NLRB
1277
By order, dated November 10, 1966, the Regional
Director consolidated a hearing on the aforesaid objec-
tions with the hearing on the instant complaint issued in
Case 12-CA-3663. The objections case related to the
election conducted in Case 12-RC-2546, which, as
stated heretofore, the Union lost by vote of 3 to 3 out of
7 eligible voters, was heard by me on the aforementioned
dates, together with the unfair labor practice allegations
discussed hereinabove.
Because of the evidence detailed hereinabove in sub-
sections B, C, D, and E, and the conclusions set forth
hereinabove in subsection F, I find merit in all the afore-
mentioned objections, with the exception noted below.
As stated above, the Respondent through its officials
and other agents, commencing from the time the petition
was filed on July 29, 1966, and continuing through Au-
gust 5, 1966, the date of the demand for recognition and
until September 27, 1966, the date the election was held,
engaged in extensive, coercive conduct, including
threatening its employees that its Jacksonville area
theatres would be closed if they were unionized as a
result of the employees' vote in the then-pending election.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in my conclusions
in subsection F, hereinabove, I find merit in Objection
No. 1 and recommend that it be sustained.
I likewise find that during the period commencing ap-
proximately August 1 and continuing until September 26,
1966, the Respondent through its unilateral grant of wage
increases, and in three instances travel allowances,28 to
employees Joe Grubbs, Willis Leroy Hill, Louis Tiliakos,
Winfrey L. Turner, Kenneth Reeves, and David Hill en-
gaged in interference sufficient to warrant the setting
aside of the election. I therefore find merit in Objection
No. 2. I likewise find no merit in Respondent's defense
that the wage increases were granted as part of its overall
plan to equalize the wages of all its employees. The
Respondent had no fixed pattern with respect to the
granting of wage increases, and its appears clear to me
that they were granted for the purpose of offering induce-
ments to the employees not to vote for the Union. Ac-
cordingly, I recommend that Objection No. 2 be
sustained.
I also find that the Employer, through its threats of
discharge to several employees because of their support
of the Union detailed hereinabove, likewise interfered
with the election. I therefore sustain the first portion of
Objection No. 3, but find that the evidence adduced at the
hearing was insufficient to support the second portion of
Objection No. 3, which alleged that the Employer
requested union supporters to resign their employment.
Based upon the findings above that Objection Nos. 1,
2, and the first part of Objection No. 3 are meritorious
and should be sustained, I shall recommend that the elec-
tion held on September 27, 1966, in the unit of motion
picture projectionists be set aside, as no current question
concerning representation exists with respect to these
employees.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
27 See Country Lane Food Store, 142 NLRB 683; and Werstein's
Uniform Shirt Company, 157 NLRB 856
28 Joe Grubbs, Winfrey Turner, and Willis Leroy Hill.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC.
tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, it will be further recommended
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
In order to make effective for the employees of the
Respondent the guarantee of rights contained in Section
7 of the Act, it will also be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from, in any manner, in-
fringing upon the rights guaranteed in that section.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu-
sions, and the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 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. By' interrogating empl_ oyees as to why they wanted
to join the Union, whether all the projectionists were
likewise interested in the Union, and why the Union was
trying to help the employees; interrogating another em-
ployee as to whether other projectionists had contacted
him concerning the Union; and interrogating another em-
ployee as to how he had gotten in contact with the Union;
by threatening employees that Respondent would close
its Jacksonville theatres before it would see them
unionized; threatening an employee that the Union was
organizing Respondent's employees because the Union
desired a better place for its own members to work and
probably would remove Respondent's employees to
smaller theatres; and threatening another employee that
Respondent had heard that he was quitting his employ-
ment, explaining to that employee that Respondent had
heard that the employee concerned was joining the
Union; promising benefits to employees, and the uni-
lateral granting of wage increases and/or "travel al-
lowances"; and promising employees prospective oppor-
tunities for advancement through the opening of other
theatres by the Respondent within the near future; by
various other conduct, including a statement to one em-
ployee by Respondent's president that he wished the em-
ployees had come and talked to him first as he could have
helped them as much as the Union and that they could
have organized a union of their own; and by reassigning
an employee well known as a strong union adherent to
another position in order to remove him from contact
with the other employees in the unit in order to defeat the
Union's organizational efforts, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By refusing to bargain collectively with Local 511,
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
z' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Exammer" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
891
and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative in the appropriate unit set forth herein,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is
recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by en-
gaging in unlawful interrogation of its employees concern-
ing their membership or activities in support of the Union
or any other labor organization; by offering its employees
unilateral raises or "travel allowances"; by other unlaw-
ful acts, including the suggestion to employees that
Respondent could help them as much as the Union could
and that the employees could have organized a union of
their own; and by reassigning an employee, an active
union adherent, to another position in order to remove
him from contact with the other employees within the ap-
propriate unit for the purpose of defeating the Union's or-
ganizing efforts.
(b) Discouraging membership of any of its employees
in the Union, or any other labor organization, by
threatening such employees with discharge or other
economic reprisal, by threatening the closing of its
theatres, or in any other manner by discriminating against
its employees with respect to hire, tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 511,
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative, in the appropriate unit set forth herein.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 511,
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining agent of the employees in the appropriate unit
and, if an agreement is reached, embody same in a signed
contract. The appropriate unit is:
All motion picture projectionists, including relief pro-
jectionists, employed at Employer's theatres located in
the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area, including
Atlantic Beach, Florida, but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Post at its various places of business in
Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida, area including Atlan-
tic Beach, Florida, and at its Jacksonville, Florida, local
office, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
B."29 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
gional Director for Region 12, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.30
With respect to the objections to the election filed by
the Union in Case 12-RC-2546, which were con-
solidated for hearing with the complaint in the instant
proceeding, Objection Nos. 1, 2, and the first part of 3 are
hereby sustained as no question concerning representa-
tion exists, and the second part of Objection No. 3 is
hereby overruled.
so In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights under
the law to be represented by Local 511, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving
Picture Machine Operators of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their joining the Union or with
respect to other concerted activities on their part.
WE WILL NOT grant increases or travel allowances
or promise other benefits to our employees for the
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
purpose of interfering with their rights to join unions
of their own choosing.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge or other economic reprisals for the purpose
of interfering with their rights to join unions of their
own choosing.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with
Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the
collective-bargaining agent for our employees in the
appropriate unit. The appropriate unit is:
All motion picture projectionists, including re-
lief projectionists, employed at Employer's
theatres located in the Jacksonville, Florida,
metropolitan area, including Atlantic Beach,
Florida, but excluding all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to join or assist Local 511,
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, or any other union, or to refrain
from any and all such activity.
CEDAR HILLS THEATRES,
INC., FENTON THEATRES,
INC., M & E LAND COM-
PANY, INC., PINE DRIVE-IN
THEATRES, INC., AND FREE-
LANCE FILM COMPANY,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 706,
Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida
33602, Telephone 228-7711.