Cummins Component Plant

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1981

259 N.L.R.B. 456 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cardinal Systems, a Division of Hospitality Motor The Remedy
Inns, Inc., d/b/a Cummins Component Plant
and Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar- As we have found that Respondent violated Sec-
tenders Union, Local No. 58, AFL-CIO and tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting employees to
Naomi Joyce Thompson. Cases 25-CA-11597, revoke dues-checkoff authorizations, we shall
25-CA-11838, and 25-CA-11795 adopt the Administrative Law Judge's recommend-
ed cease-and-desist provision with respect to this
December 2, 1981 violation. The General Counsel excepts to the Ad-
DECISION AND ORDER ministrative Law Judge's refusal to order an addi-
tional remedy requiring Respondent to remit dues
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND to the Union on behalf of those employees who
ZIMMERMAN were unlawfully solicited to revoke their dues-
On April 16, 1981, Administrative Law Judge checkoff authorizations. We find merit to the Gen-
Henry L. Jalette issued the attached Decision in eral Counsel's exception.4
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the As more fully described by the Administrative
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting Law Judge, the credited testimony establishes that
briefs and Respondent filed a brief in answer to the Respondent's cafeteria manager, Marge Cox, ap-
General Counsel's exceptions.' preached employees on frequent occasions and
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the urged these employees to submit to Respondent
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- written notices revealing whether or not they de-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- sired to continue to maintain their dues-checkoff
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel authorizations. During the course of these solicita-
The Board has considered the record and the at- tions Cox made disparaging remarks to one em-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and ployee about the "--Union" and approached an-
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- other employee a second time after that employee's
ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law initial written indication that she desired to main-
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as tain her dues-checkoff authorization. Following
modified herein.3 Cox's solicitations, several employees tendered re-
Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby ocations of their previously executed authorza-
denied as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the tions. Inasmuch as Cox approached some employ-
issues and positions of the parties. ees who had never made any inquiries whatsoever
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to regarding their dues obligations, the only reason-
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- able inference to be drawn is that, absent Cox's un-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- lawful solicitation, these employees would likely
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. Peggy Cox's name in Hiten's presence to the showing-of-interest state-
The General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law ment, we find the Administrative Law Judge's hesitancy unwarranted.
Judge's finding and conclusion that Respondent did not engage in con- Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent additionally violated Sec.
duct amounting to solicitation of employees to engage in surveillance of 8(a)(l) of the Act by virtue of Marge Cox's signing of an employee's
employees' union activities. He contends that the credited testimony of name, while in the presence of another employee, on the showing-of-in-
employee Wagner establishes that Cafeteria Manager Marge Cox, in addi- terest statement seeking the Union's removal as bargaining representative.
tion to interrogating Wagner about events occurring at union meetings We have modified the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order
already held, as found by the Administrative Law Judge, also solicited to reflect these additional violations.
Wagner before union meetings to let Cox know what transpired at such Finally the General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law
meetings. We find merit to the General Counsel's exception. Thus, the Judge's failure to include a broad cease-and-desist order herein. It is the
record clearly establishes that Wagner testified to more than one conver- Board's policy that such an order is warranted only when a respondent is
sation with Cox, including a conversation before any union meetings shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act, or has engaged in such
were held. Wagner's credited testimony in this regard indicates that Cox egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disre-
asked Wagner "to let her know what went on at the Union meetings." gard for employees' fundamental statutory rights. Hickmott Foods, Inc.,
Such conduct clearly constitutes a solicitation to engage in surveillance 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). With respect to the instant case, we find that a
of employees' union activities in violation of Sec. 8(aXl) of the Act. broad order is not warranted.
Daniel Construction Company, a Division of Daniel International Corpora- 'Member Fanning agrees with the Administrative Law Judge that re-
tion, 241 NLRB 336 (1979). quiring Respondent to remit dues on behalf of the union members it un-
In addition, the General Counsel excepts to the Administrative Law lawfully solicited to revoke checkoff is inconsistent with our holding that
Judge's failure to find and conclude that Respondent's cafeteria manager, an employer may unilaterally discontinue checkoff following expiration
Cox, falsely signed the name of a unit employee to a showing-of-interest of a collective-bargaining agreement. See Finger Lakes Plumbing d Heat-
statement accompanying a decertification petition in violation of Sec. ing Co., Inc., 253 NLRB 406 (1980); Peerless Roofing Co., Ltd., 247 NLRB
8(aXl). We agree. Although the Administrative Law Judge credited the 500 (1980). Because Respondent could lawfully discontinue checkoff
testimony of employee Hiten that she observed Marge Cox sign the name without revocation, its solicitation of revocations could not have unlaw-
of employee Peggy Cox to a showing-of-interest statement to be submit- fully caused any monetary loss to the Union. Moreover, the members
ted with a decertification petition, he declined to specifically find, based remain liable to the Union for their dues regardless of whether or not
on signature comparisons, that the name of Peggy Cox on the showing- Respondent deducts those dues from wages. In those cases which the ma-
of-interest statement was forged. However, in view of the Administrative jority relies upon, the obligation itself arose from an unlawfully created
Law Judge's crediting of Hiten's testimony that Marge Cox falsely signed relationship.
259 NLRB No. 65
A s w e h av e fo u n d th a t
l
December 2, 1981 e d i t i i it t i

4
Ipreached
ecko f
,. i t r f t s s li it -
-- Union
'
t i i t ti i iti l ritte indication that she desired to ain-

3 ' li it ti , r l l t r r -
' v t t ri
S

O
ilit less t e clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- la ful solicitation, these e ployees would likely.
),

'
' i i
l)

.
r

r
)
i l I ember
).

eo -
.,
( ). f

a
CUMMINS COMPONENT PLANT 457
have continued to maintain in effect their dues- Amended Conclusions of Law
checkoff authorizations. In any event, since Cox's S e te f g r io
conduct makes it impossible to ascertain with abso- Su
lute certainty whether the solicited employees
would have voluntarily maintained their authoriza- "6. By soliciting employees to engage in surveil-
tions, any doubts resulting from the illegal conduct lance of employees unon activities, by falsely sign-
should be resolved against the responsible party. ing the name of an employee to a statement seeking
In ordering this additional remedy, we find Re- the Union's removal as bargaining representative,
spondent's unlawful solicitation analogous to those by questioning employees about their union senti-
instances in which we have ordered reimbursement mets or activities and their cooperation with the
of union dues where employees have been unlaw- National Labor Relations Board in the processing
fully influenced or coerced by their employers into of cases i a manner and under circumstances tend-
paying dues, joining a union, or maintaining their ing to coerce employees in the exercise of Section
union membership. See Haven Manor Health Relat- 7 rights, by creating the impression that the union
ed Facility, 226 NLRB 329 (1976); R. L Sweet activities of the employees were under surveillance,
Lumber Company, 207 NLRB 529, 539-540 (1973). by promises of higher wages, improved working
As in those cases, a cease-and-desist order, standing conditions, or other benefits, by threats of a reduc-
alone, is insufficient to return the parties to the tion in hours if employees selected the Union in an
status quo existing prior to the commission of the election, by assisting employees in the filing of a
unfair labor practice and, thus, reimbursement to decertification petition, by soliciting employees to
the Union of dues lost herein as a result of Re- revoke dues-checkoff authorizations, by prohibiting
spondent's unfair labor practice is necessary and employees from talking about the Union on non-
proper to effectuate the purposes and policies of working time, and by threats to discharge employ-
the Act.5 Accordingly, in addition to the remedy ees for cooperating with the National Labor Rela-
provided by the Administrative Law Judge, we tions Board, Respondent has engaged in, and is en-
shall order Respondent to reimburse the Union for gaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
any dues lost by the Union with regard to those of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act."
employees unlawfully solicited. ORDER
ORDER
' We find unpersuasive Member Fanning's assertion that Respondent's Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
unlawful solicitation could not have caused any monetary loss to the Pursuant t Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Union because, under Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act, Respondent could lawfully Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
discontinue dues checkoff without employee revocation following con- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
tract expiration. In our view, Respondent's statutory right unilaterally to
discontinue checkoff at contract expiration bears no causal relationship to Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
whether or not unlawfully solicited employees would, in fact, have vol- fed below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
untarily maintained those authorizations in the absence of Respondent's Cardinal Systems, a Division of Hospitality Motor
unlawful conduct. Thus, while we agree that Respondent lawfully could Cardinal Systems, a Division of Hospitality Motor
have discontinued the contractual checkoff mechanism for all unit em- Inns, Inc., d/b/a Cummins Component Plant,
ployees upon expiration of the contract without first securing individual Walesboro, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,
revocations, the evidence indicates that Respondent instead chose to so- in i
licit employees individually to express in writing their intentions concern- and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
ing continued checkoff deductions and apparently continued to honor said recommended Order, as so modified:
such deductions for those employees who did not tender such a revoca-
tion. Accordingly, in these circumstances, the Union may in fact have 1 Insert the following as paragraph l(c) and re-
suffered monetary loss as a result of the revocations unlawfully solicited letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
by Respondent. In the absence of Respondent's unlawful conduct, the "( Soliciting ems to engage in surveil-
Union would likely have continued to receive dues through the checkoff "(c) Soliciting employees t engage in rveil-
mechanism on behalf of those employees unlawfully solicited by Re- lance of employees' union activities."
spondent. Therefore, in our view, a remedy requiring remittance of dues 2. Insert the following as paragraph l(g) and re-
to the Union lost as a likely result of Respondent's unlawful solicitation
properly returns the parties to the status quo ante existing prior to Re- letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
spondent's unlawful conduct. "(g) Falsely signing the name of an employee to
I As the record does not reveal whether the unlawfully solicited em-
ployees otherwise continued to tender dues to the Union apart from the a statement seeking the Union's removal as bargain-
checkoff mechanism, we shall leave the determination of the amounts ac- ing representative."
tually lost by the Union, if any, to the compliance stage of these proceed- 3. Insert the following as paragraph 2() and re-
ings. Further, we will limit such reimbursement as applicable to onlynsert the following paragraph 2(c) and re-
those employees who made no specific inquiries to Respondent regarding letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
their dues obligations prior to Respondent's solicitations. Of course, reim- "(C) Reimburse Hotel and Restaurant Employees
bursement will be ordered only with respect to those employees who in
fact otherwise had a dues obligation to the Union. and Bartenders Union, Local No. 58, AFL-CIO,
In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 all union dues not tendered to the Union by em-
NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the pay-
ments for break periods and the holiday pay for Christmas 1979 due ployees solicited to revoke their dues-checkoff au-
based on the formula set forth therein. thorizations, with interest thereon."
ckoff t ri ti . I t, i ' it the followin for Cnlio o T
t i rt i 6:
lute certainty et er the s licite e l ees . B s i e t e
l a e l taril ai tai e t ir t ri - 6 . ^ s li iti l s t i s r il-
tions, any doubts resulting fro the illegal conduct l a n c e o f e ployees union activities, falsely sign-
should be resolved against the responsible art . the t h e n a m e o f a n e l ee t a st t t see i
I r ri t i iti l r , fi t h e u et o n 's r e m o v al a s i i t ti ,
s e t's l f l s li it ti l s t t s sti i l s t t ir i s ti-
Nm e t s o r
of union dues here e ployees have been unla - oNational a r elations oard in t e r cessi
o f c a s e s n
to c o e r c e i ti
); .
t i o n in h o u r s i f
l
"
I i i ' ti t t t' *„ „ -in ~c l T *_i T L.
O
isc ti e dues checkoff ithout e ployee revocation following con- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
. ' t t t r ri t ilaterall to
t r r t l f ll s licite e l ees l , i fact, have vol- fie l , a ere r ers t at the espondent,
i t' ar„-na; i „*„„, s *«* «* u ** r* \s *
l f l it lity
/b/a
l ees upon expiration of the contract ithout first securing individual alesboro, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,
, * i. n i i. * r , * .
S
ti r tl ti t r s i r r r, as s ifie :

. n s e r t t h e
S
(c) t'l1cit: __i^.,_^ „_-_„ ; -
(
c ) O su
Uni
s e t. herefore, in our vie , a re edy requiring re ittance of dues 2. Insert the follo ing as paragraph l(g) and re-

S
t' l f l t. "(g) Falsely signing the na e of an e ployee to
* s l t r t e la f ll solicited e -
St t S
I T-- » lo~r n g . - i- 11 \ -
l 3. In s e r t t h e as
S
their dues obligations prior to espondent's solicitations. f course, rei - "(C) ei burse otel and estaurant E ployees
O
it i i t i l i i l ti , ll tO t
B ), r ... j . i .i_ * , i < pr.
S li O
m
3 .
1 , ,
a
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the sentative of our employees in the appropriate
Administrative Law Judge. unit. The appropriate unit is:
APPENDIX All full-time and regular part-time employ-
ees employed at our food service operations
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES at the Cummins Engine Company facility in
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE Walesboro, Indiana, exclusive of all clerical
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, all confidential employees, all
An Agency of the United States Government professional employees, all guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,WE WILL NOT make changes in working
the National Labor Relations Board found that we conditions with regard to clocking out for
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as breaks or payment of holiday pay without
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. notice no, or consultation with, the above-
named Union.
WE WILL NOT question employees about WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
their union sentiments or activities or their co- interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
operation with the National Labor Relation ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
Board in the processing of cases. them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we tions Act as amended.
are keeping your union activities under surveil- WE WILL, upon request, meet and bargain
lance by telling employees we will find out with the above-named Union in the appropri-
what happens at union meetings. ate unit described above concerning rates of
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to engage pay, wages, hours of work, and conditions of
in surveillance of employees' union activities. employment of our employees and, if an un-
WE WILL NOT promise higher wages, im- derstanding is reached, embody such under-
proved working conditions, or other benefits, standing in a signed agreement.
in order to induce you to withdraw your sup- WE WILL make Lois Wagner and Mike Fer-
port from Hotel and Restaurant Employees guson whole for any loss of pay they may
and Bartenders Union, Local No. 58, AFL- .
''10 Batndr UnoLclNo Fhave suffered by reason of our change in the
CIO.*, . .. , .. practice with regard to clocking out forWE WILL NOT threaten you with a reduction breaks
in hours of work if you select Hotel and Res- E
taurant Employees and Bartenders Union,WE WILL make all our employees whole
who were otherwise entitled to payment ofLocal No. 58, AFL-CIO, as your representa- who were otrwise entitled to payment of
tive in an election to be conducted by the Na- holiday pay for the Christmas 1979 holiday
tional Labor Relations Board. season by payment to them of 4 days of holi-
WE WILL NOT assist you in filing a petition day pay, wth terest thereon.
to decertify Hotel and Restaurant Employees WE WILL remit to Hotel and Restaurant
and Bartenders Union, Local No. 58, AFL- Employees and Bartenders Union, Local No.
CIOd B s U , L l N. 5, A - 58, AFL-CIO, all union dues not tendered to
WE WILL NOT falsely sign the name of an the Union by employees solicited to revoke
employee to a statement seeking the removal their dues-checkoff authorizations, with inter-
of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar- est o
tenders Union, Local No. 58, AFL-CIO, as
bargaining representative. CARDINAL SYSTEMS, A DIVISION OF
WE WILL NOT solicit you to revoke the HOSPITALITY MOTOR INNS, INC.,
dues-checkoff authorizations on behalf of D/B/A CUMMINS COMPONENT PLANT
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartend- DECISION
ers Union, Local No. 58, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from talking STATEMENT OF THE CASE
about the Union on nonworking time. HENRY L. JALETTE, Administrative Law Judge: This
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employ- proceeding involves allegations that Cardinal Systems, a
ees for cooperating with the National Labor Division of Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc., d/b/a Cummins
Relations Board. Component Plant (Respondent) violated Section 8(aX1),
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bar- (3), and (5) of the Act. The proceeding is based on a
gain with the above-named Union as the repre- charge filed by the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
i
i
t ri ll .
i iti , WE I i r i
l i i it t l i t f r
l l b r ea k s o r P t f li it t
n o t ic e n , o r lt ti it , t -
I T question e ployees about E ILL NOT in any like or related manner
i i ti ti iti r t ir c - interfere ith, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ti l l ti t
i , ti l l
i ,
i i ti i i r il
l lli l i i r ri
ti . ri r i
I li it l t , , , i i
i r ill f l ' i ti iti . l t l if
i t i , r
i i i , fi ,
i t i t it -W
rt fr t l t r t l l f r l ss f t a
B .,. * .,*
a e n cAhave suffered by reason of our change in the
CIO. ,, . .., practice .
i r f if l t l WE W mk a
W E ll r l ltaurnt Eployes ad Batendrs Uion, r t r is titl t t f
l . , - I , as r r r t - ho pay for th Chritmas t holiday
ti i l ti t t t - sholid f t ri t li
l . seaso n bypi m en ters t he of 4 day s of hn. 1-
I assist i fili etitionWEWIp Le w it h totere st there o n d R
t rtif t l t r t l Emp loyees andB ni, al No
t i l , E
m p lo y e e s a n d B a rt e n d e rs U n lo n L o c a l N o
a e n cA58, ll erci
l i t he U
nio n b y l li it t r
t ki movaletheir -checko f t ri ti , nter-
l t
l
i i nt ti .
li i ITALI I , I .,
- eckoff lf I
rt - DECISION
r
,
l t t i l t ti (a)l),
4
ti i Wy ILe tr
e
d ^ pay, 0
eUn l nt
CUMMINS COMPONENT PLANT 459
Bartenders Union, Local No. 58, AFL-CIO (the Union) 1I. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
in Case 25-CA-11597 on November 30, 1979, which
charge was amended on January 3, 1980. Complaint A. Introductory Statements
thereon issued on January 8, 1980, which complaint was The complaints herein allege that Respondent engaged
amended on May 14 and 27, 1980. On January 30, 1980, in a number of unfair labor practices before and after the
a charge was filed by Naomi Thompson in Case 25-CA- filing of the RD petition, including encouraging and as-
11795. That charge was amended on March 6, 1980, and sisting employees in the preparation and filing of the pe-
complaint issued on March 7, 1980. On February 6, 1980, tition and refusing to meet and bargain with the Union.
the Union filed the charge in Case 25-CA-11838, and on In support thereof, testimony was adduced attributing a
March 19, 1980, complaint issued thereon with an order number of unlawful remarks to Cox over a period of sev-
consolidating Cases 25-CA-11795 and 25-CA-11597. On eral months, and a substantial part of the case depends
June 5 and 6 and September 15 and 16, 1980, hearing on her credibility. Klassen's credibility is also at issue,
was held in Columbus, Indiana. but he is not alleged to have engaged in unfair labor
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of practices to the same extent as Cox.
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs of A threshold issue then, is who is to be credited. In my
the parties, I hereby make the following: judgment, in most instances of conflict, the General
Counsel's witnesses are to be credited. In general, al-
FINDINGS OF FACT leged discriminatee Thompson being the exception, I can
see no motive for the General Counsel's witnesses to lie.
I. THE FACTUAL SETTING Essentially, the record discloses employees aggrieved
Respondent is an Ohio corporation with its principal over poor union representation with their grievances in
office at Mayfield, Ohio, and facilities in the States of such regard being encouraged by Respondent. Thus, the
of ad Iaa, il, a faclity m te C s General Counsel's witnesses, again with the exception ofOhio and Indiana, including a facility at the Cummins Thompson, signed the petition to decertify the Union
Thompson, signed the petition to decertify the UnionComponent Plant of Cummins Engine Company in and revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations. In these
Walesboro, Indiana (the facility involved herein), where circumstances, and granted that they may have been ag-
it is engaged in providing food services to employees of grieved at Respondent about working conditions, I am
Cummins.2 At all times material herein, either as west persuaded that their testimony was not the product of in-
area food manager or regional manager of food support, terest or bias.
Frank Klassen was the supervisor primarily responsible The same may not be said for Respondent's witnesses.
for the operation of a number of Respondent's cafeterias, They clearly had an interest in the outcome of the pro-
including the Walesboro cafeteria. Marge Cox was man- ceeding. Linda Young was strongly opposed to thc
ager of the Walesboro cafeteria. Union. Marge Cox' conduct was in issue, as was Klas-
On June 28, 1973, the Union was certified as bargain- sen's. On the matter of demeanor, Marge Cox was not
ing representative of Respondent's employees who impressive. Her answers to questions were evasive and
worked at the cafeteria at the Walesboro plant. The last she clearly did not answer truthfully when confronted
contract between Respondent and the Union was entered with General Counsel's Exhibit 44, a sheet of her scrib-
into on December 7, 1976, effective to December 7, blings.
1979. On the basis of the foregoing, I credit the General
On October 1, 1979, a petition signed by employee Counsel's witnesses generally except where it appears to
Linda Young was filed in Case 25-RD-646. me they were mistaken. I do not credit Respondent's
On October 23, 1979, the parties entered into a consent witnesses generally. In those instances where I do, I rely
election agreement and pursuant thereto an election was on circumstances which tend to support their testimony.
scheduled for November 30, 1979.
On the morning of November 30, the Union filed the B. C
charge in Case 25-CA-11597, and by reason thereof the 1. The independent 8(a)(1) violation
ballots cast in the election later that day were impound-
ed. On January 25, 1980, the Regional Director dis- Paragraphs 5(a), (b), and (c) of the complaint allege
missed the petition in Case 25-RD-646, and on April 9, that in late July, August, and September 1979, Marge
1980, the Board affirmed the dismissal action. Cox interrogated employees about union activities, solic-
ited employees to engage in surveillance, and created the
impression of surveillance. In support of these allega-
tions, the General Counsel adduced the testimony of
Lois Wagner that in early August, Cox asked her "How
The original exhibits were misplaced and never reached me. Dupli- do you feel about the Union thing?" ox then discussed
cate exhibits were substituted except for G.C. Exhs. 47 and 49. The Gen- the fact that the union contract was expiring in Decem-
eral Counsel conceded by letter dated December 10. 1980, which is ber and added that "If you do not vote for your contract
hereby made part of the record that the absence of Exhs. 47 and 49 was in December we can get you more money." She also
not significant in terms of analysis of the issues.
Jurisdiction is not in issue. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, asked Wagner if she was a good union member. Wagner
and I find that Respondent meets the Board's standards for the assertion testified further that in late August, September, October,
of jurisdiction. or November, Cox would ask her after there had been a
1
, .
, ,

Respondent is an hio corporation ith its ri ci l
o v er r i r r nt ti it t ir ri i
i s u c h b ei r s t. hus, the
Ohio and Indiana, including a facilit at the ummins r l s l's itnesses, again it the xc ti of
Component Pndantaf nClumins a Efacintatte Companyins ti rtif
i i i t ir - eckoff t ri ti . I t s
l r , I i (t f ilit i l r i ), i t ,
it i i i i r i l t t i i ,
i ' ll ri l i i ti
i l r f f rt, terest or bias.
la r i ril i l i itne
ti , rl
f t ri . i l t e
f t ri . t , l

.
o n t i t ti .
t t 1. e independent 8(a)(l) violation
, t h a t i n
, o x
is r t t i l
*
d o f e e l a b o u t t h e U n io n C o x t h e n i
. .
l se an i h s o uo m br Wgr
" ri i ti i t i i . l i t , i d r.
r
"Jurisdiction i t i i . l i t . i
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union meeting what went on at the meeting, whether her the filing of the petition in Case 25-RD-646. The allega-
name had been brought up, and whether contract pro- tions are based essentially on the testiony of Sue Hiten.
posals had been discussed. When Wagner told Cox that Hiten is a former employee of Respondent who was
she could not give her any information, Cox told her she employed from October 1976 to January 1980 when she
would find somebody else that would. quit. 3 According to Hiten, she had several conversations
Cox did not specifically deny having the conversations with Marge Cox in which Cox remarked that the Union
with Wagner which Wagner described, and, contrary to was not doing anything for the employees and she (Cox)
Respondent's contentions, I find that in asking Wagner could do nothing for them as long as the Union was
how she felt about the Union, whether she was a good there.
union member, and what went on at the union meetings, In mid-August, Klassen held a meeting of employees
Cox engaged in unlawful interrogation. Her questions assertedly to advise them that the Company had been
had no legitimate purpose and occurred in the context of notified by the Union of a dues increase. (Apparently all,
other unfair labor practices as set forth below, including or most, of the employees had authorized dues checkoff.)
an implied promise of benefit. In the circumstances, such Klassen testified that the employees were upset at the
questioning would have a tendency to coerce the em- news and said they could not understand since the Union
ployee in the exercise of Section 7 rights and was viola- was not doing anything for them.
tive of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Hiten testified that a few days before September 26,
The allegation in paragraph 5(b) that in asking Wagner she talked to Klassen about how she could go about get-
about what happened at union meetings Cox solicited an ting rid of the Union. She testified he told her to contact
employee to engage in surveillance is found lacking in the National Labor Relations Board and he would get
merit. As I construe Wagner's testimony, Cox was en- her the telephone number. Hiten said she was later given
gaging in interrogation. However, in telling Wagner that the number, but she could not recall whether Cox or
she would find somebody else that would tell her what Klassen gave it to her
happened, I find that Cox created the impression of sur- On September 26, on reporting to work, Marge Cox
veillance as alleged in paragraph 5(c). asked Hiten if she had called the NLRB and Hiten said
Paragraph 5(d) of the complaint alleges that in late she had but no one was there. They then went to Cox's
July or early August 1979, Marge Cox told employees office and Hiten called Indianapolis and asked to be
that Respondent could "buy off" the Union and thereby billed on her home phone as Cox suggested. Cox told
remove it as the employees' collective-bargaining agent. her Klassen would reimburse her. (Hiten testified Klas-
The allegation is based on the testimony of Naomi sen later paid her $3.) On September 28, Hiten came to
Thompson that Cox remarked to her that the people work with the NLRB petition form. She testified that
who owned Cardinal now had enough money "to buy she showed it to Cox and told her she did not know how
and sell the union . . they even had enough money to fill it out. Cox suggested they go to the Company's
... to buy the Empire State Building." office (located some distance from the cafeteria). They
I credit Thompson's testimony, but I find the remark did, and there they met with Klassen, and Hiten filled
not to be violative of the Act. I construe the remark as a out the petition with information supplied by Klassen.
boast of Respondent's economic strength and not as a Item 1 of the form specifies the purpose of the petition
suggestion that Respondent would "buy off" the Union. which Hiten had checked as certification of representa-
Paragraph 5(e) of the complaint alleges that Marge tive and Klassen corrected that to withdrawal of union-
Cox in late July and August 1979, made promises of shop authority (which was also incorrect). Before they
benefits if employees rejected the Union. In support of left, Klassen's secretary weighed the material and placed
this allegation, the General Counsel adduced the testimo- postage on an envelope. The petition was not ready for
ny of Wagner, described earlier, when Cox interrogated mailing because it was not signed. Hiten had told Klas-
Wagner and told her "If you do not vote for your con- sen she would not sign it because of a matter pending
tract in December, we can get you more money." before the Union in which she was involved and Cox
I credit this testimony and find an unlawful promise of had suggested that Linda Young would sign.
higher wages. Cox and Hiten returned to the cafeteria and there
Wagner testified that Cox had told her on various oc- Hiten prepared a statement to be signed by employees to
casions that she thought the employees could make more be submitted with the petition as a showing of interest.
money if they did not have a union. I credit Wagner and She remarked to Cox that she would have to get Peggy
find such remarks to constitute implied promises of Cox, Marge Cox's daughter statement and an employee
higher wages in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. of Respondent, to sign the showing of interest and Cox
Employee Mike Ferguson testified that maybe a month said she would sign for her and she did. Hiten left Cox's
before the filing of the RD petition Cox said she would office and obtained the signatures of two employees,
like to see the Union out. She said the working condi- then she returned to the office where she obtained
tions would be a lot better with the Union out. I credit Young's signature and turned over to Young both the
Ferguson and find Cox's remark to constitute an unlaw- showing of interest statement and the petition which
ful promise of improved working conditions in violation Young signed. Hiten never saw the papers again.
of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Paragraphs 5(f), (g), (h), (i), and () allege, in effect, In November 1977 Hiten was fired, but was reinstated in August
that Respondent assisted and encouraged employees in 1978, without backpay, as a result of grievance proceedings.
,
(1 ,
i i i t ti . , i ,
t ll r t lasse gave it to her.

t it i
l i
l rl l li
t l t l
' r ini g : la t ti l
l ti ti i i
ti ti
l t i l i t
ll i t
f t ri ).
i ti la l
ti li la .
i I if ti
ti t t t l f i i rti ti
l i la l
l t rit t).
fi if las r t r ri l
i ll ti r l l ti l . ti
ri rl l
l i i
i i i i l
I i i ti i l f l i t t t i l i .
i t t t f t ri t r
ti
i l i ti
if i i
fi t tit t i li is ' l
i i i l i ti l t, i i
ti i i
i ti i ,
li t i t. i t i i- t r t r t t ffi r s t i
i
' ti i ti
i i
ti l
f), . I ,
.
CUMMINS COMPONENT PLANT 461
That evening, on the second shift, employees Lois the fact that Respondent's witnesses had more motive to
Wagner, Mike Ferguson, and Naomi Thompson were lie than Hiten, and my conviction that Marge Cox, in
asked to sign the showing of interest statement by particular, was not a credible witness, I credit Hiten.
Young, in the presence of Ann Walsh, a manager-trainee In light of the foregoing, I conclude and find that
and alleged supervisor. Wagner and Ferguson signed, but Marge Cox's conduct as described by Hiten and Wagner,
Thompson refused. (Earlier that day, Wagner had re- Klassen's payment of the telephone bill and providing
ceived a call from Cox in which Cox asked her if she the postage for the RD petition, constituted unlawful as-
was going to sign. Wagner said she did not know and sistance and encouragement in the filing of the RD peti-
Cox said she and Ferguson might as well sign because tion and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a(1)
"we" have signatures anyway.) of the Act. In making this finding, I do not rely on such
As noted above, on October 1, 1979, the RD petition ministerial aid as Klassen or Cox may have provided in
was filed.waT foregoing is Hiten's descripton of the preparation giving Hiten the Board's telephone number, nor in Klas-
The foregoing is Hiten's descripton of the preparation i ii 1 t R
and filing of the RD petition. Her testimony is contra- sens asistance i helpig Hiten correctly fill out the RD
dicted in most of the essential particulars. Thus, Cox petition. I will therefore dismiss paragraph 5(h) of the
denied she accompanied Hiten to Klassen's office or that complaint.
she signed her daughter's name. She testified that she did Paragraph 5(j) of the complaint alleges that Respond-
not know about the RD petition until it was over with. ent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by the conduct of
Peggy Cox testified that she signed the showing-of-inter- one Ann Walsh in directing employees to sign the RD
est statement at the request of Hiten. Klassen also denied petition. The evidence that Ann Walsh engaged in un-
that Cox accompanied Hiten to his office and that he re- lawful conduct is very sketchy. In any event, I conclude
imbursed Hiten for a telephone call. Becky Van Natta and find that Walsh, who was a manager trainee, was not
also denied that Cox accompanied Hiten to the office a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
and that she placed postage on an envelope for the peti- Act, nor did Respondent hold her out as an agent. Ac-
tion. According to Linda Young, she and Hiten started cordingly, I shall dismiss paragraph 5(j) of the complaint.
the RD petition. Hiten got her information about the Paragraphs 5(k), (1), and (n) allege that Marge Cox
Board from her father and Young, and Hiten went into threatened employees with a reduction in hours of work,
Cox's office to call the Board. changes in working conditions, and unspecified reprisals
As can be seen except as to the fact that Hiten initially if they continued to support the Union. In support of
inquired about how to go about decertifying the Union, these allegations, the General Counsel adduced testimony
there is a sharp conflict as to the preparation and filing by employee Lois Wagner that after a union meeting on
of the petition and the procurement of the showing-of- November 17 Cox was angry with her about a remark
interest statement, a conflict that can only be explained Wagner had made at the union meeting about Cox. In
as the result of consciously false testimony. The protago- the conversation they had, Cox told Wagner that, if the
nists are Hiten on the one hand and Marge and Peggy Union got back in, there would be an awful lot of
Cox, Klassen, Young, and Van Natta on the other. If the changes made. The General Counsel also adverts to testi-
test were one of numbers, Hiten could not be credited. I employee Rocille Bennett that, prior to a unionmony by employee Rocille Bennett that, prior to a union
credit Hiten. Contrary to Respondent's assertions, I can meeting in November, Cox told her that if she voted for
conceive of no motive for Hiten to lie. True, she may te nion Benne her hos t ad odthe Union Bennett would get her hours cut and wouldhave been aggrieved against Respondent over loss of.
wages during the period between her discharge in 1978 not get a raise. Hiten testified to a similar threat after thewages during the period between her discharge in 1978
and her reinstatement and Respondent's failure to pay D election on November 30, wherein Cox told her i
holiday pay in the 1979 Christmas season; yet, she ad- the Union got back in her hours would be cut and it
mitted that she initiated the process which led to the would be rough on the employees.
filing of the RD petition, a fact she would likely have The statements attributed to Cox are clearly unlawful
concealed if she were embarked on fabricating a story threats. I credit Wagner, Bennett, and Hiten, for reasons
about Respondent's participation in the process. More- earlier given, and I find that by such statements Re-
over, the details in her description of Respondent's par- spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
ticipation in the process lend credence to her testimony. Paragraph 5(m) of the complaint alleges that in mid-
Such details as the forgery of Peggy Cox's name, 5 the April 1980 Cox promised increased rates of pay and ad-
telephone bill, the postage stamp, while supportive of a herence to a collective-bargaining agreement if employ-
finding of assistance, were not all necessary. The role of ees selected another union to represent them. It appears
Marge Cox alone was sufficient.5 For these reasons, plus that, sometime in early 1980, Peggy Cox and Linda
Young undertook to obtain representation by a Team-
'To resolve credibility on the issue of the alleged forged signature, I sters Union. During a period of sick leave, Wagner re-
was asked to compare the writing of Peggy Cox name on G.C. Exh. 4 ceived phone calls from Marge Cox in one of which Cox
with specimens of her handwriting. The name Peggy Cox appears to be
an easy one to forge and I am hesistant to base a finding on my compari- told Wagner about the activity on behalf of the Team-
son, but were a comparison essential, I would find that the name of sters, and, one day after Wagner had returned to work,
Peggy Cox on G.C. Exh. 4 was forged. Marge Cox told her that Peggy Cox would run the
In this connection, Wagner's testimony that Cox had called her and Union, that it would be run right, and that they would
asked if she were going to sign the showing-of-interest statement and
Cox's saying Wagner and Ferguson might as well sign because "we" go by the contract. She also said that if Cummins took
have signatures anyway was undenied and credited over the cafeteria the employees would be taken over by
t sist r t in t e filing f the peti-
i aX
t i t i i i , I t r l
. l
w a s fil e d . **„*>-. * r .i- giving Hiten the Board's telephone nu ber, r i las-
s a n t c 1 f o1 he D
a fili f t e etiti . er testi is c tra- pe n . will therefo re d s a l of the
e t lh o n l w '" t h e re f o re i m s P agraph ( )
atcomplaint

e t stifi t t i t

t
i t t t t t, li t t t l l i t t .
t lt .
i t it t i t i , t l l l t
, l ss , , tt t t r. If t . l
mony by
r it it . tr r t t' rti , I ti i , t l t t i t
i f ti f r it t li . r , B w g
„ .°, .. . . ,have een agrievd aganst esponent oer los of not get a raise. Hiten testified to a similar threat after the
R e aion on Novemberd30o ahsreinrCoxreatdaher if
r r i t t t t' f il r t elenion t boke r , woere Cut and it
l o ; t h e U mo n l
i w o u ld be
t h e .
i ti l T h e l rl l l
l f ti . i
rti ti rl
i cri ti t ti )(l

."
t r t riti f e ox na e on . . xh. 4 cei e phone calls fro arge ox in one of hich ox
„ „, .^ , ; ; lf of the T-o™t o ld l

O. . . .
*In this connection, agner's testi ony that Cox had called her and Union, that it would be run right, and that they would
X' o0
ited,.over
t
0
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cummins and if they were represented by the Teamsters the questioning is by the supervisor who is alleged to
Union they would make more money. have engaged in unlawful conduct.
I credit Wagner and find that Cox's remarks constitut-
ed unlawful promises of benefit in violation of Section 2. The refusal to bargain
8(a)() of the Act. Paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges that Respondent
Paragraphs 5(o), (p), and (q) of the complaint are violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by engaging in indi-
somewhat interrelated and involve allegations of unlaw- vidual bargaining with its employees. The General Coun-
ful conduct by Marge Cox in connection with the hear- sel has not adverted to which acts and conduct of Re-
ing which was then scheduled in the instant case. spondent he is relying on for this allegation. In my judg-
According to Lois Wagner, on May 7, 1980, she men- ment, none of the conduct heretofore described consti-
tioned to Linda Young that she had given her pay stubs tuted individual bargaining
to the labor relations lawyer. Shortly thereafter, Cox Paragraph 7 of the complaint also alleges that Re-
called Wagner and asked her why she had given her pay spondent sought to undermine the Union by conduct de-
stubs to the union man. She told Wagner that Young had scribed above and thereby violated Section 8(aX5) of the
told her Wagner had done so and that he came to her Act. This allegation is disposed of below in connection
house regularly. Wagner told Cox she had given the pay with the refusal-to-bargain allegation in Case 25-CA-
stubs to a Board attorney and Cox said, "Where are all 11838
these questions coming from?" According to Wagner,
Cox ranted and raved to the point that Wagner hung up. C. Case 25-CA-11795
On May 9, Cox called again and complained about the
charges (apparently those against her) and asked Wagner 1. Alleged interference, restraint, and coericon
if she could explain them to her. Cox also told Wagner,
"[W]e could get fired for calling back and forth to each The complaint Case 25CA-11795 alleges that, on
other." (Wagner had been calling Bennett, about what is or about December 20, Marge Cox threatened its em-
not clear.") ( nh e ci e ta as ployees with discharge or other reprisals if they cooper-
On May 12, according to Rocille Bennett, Cox told ated with the Board and gave testimony under the Act.
her and Sally Holland, that she did not want the girls to Ths allegation is based on the testimony of Lois Wagner
be talking over the telephone about the Union. S did that on December 18 Cox had talked to the Board and,be talking over the telephone about when she came to work, she was very angry and she
not want the employees to call one another. She said she w h en s he c am e to w o r k sh e w as very angry an d sh e
did not want the first-shift employees to be talking to the said, "If I find out who went to that damn Labor Board
secondinowatte-shift employeestobtaknt. I'll fire them on the spot." Two days later, Cox was stillsecondshifte repeated her remarks
Holland testified on behalf of Respondent, but she was upset over her experience and she repeated her remarks
never specifically asked either by Respondent or the about firing somebody if she found out who it was.
General Counsel as to whether she had ever been pres- Respondent's defense to Wagner's testimony is that it
ent at a conversation such as Bennett described. Thus, should not be credited because, according to Wagner's
she neither contradicted nor corroborated Bennett. As I own testimony, employee Mike Ferguson was present
deem Bennett to be a credible witness, I credit her testi- when Cox first made her remarks and he did not cor-
mony and find that Cox's remarks to employees that roborate Wagner. Ferguson testified and was not exam-
they were not to call one another and that first-shift em- ined about this conversation. Thus, he neither corrobo-
ployees were not to talk to second-shift employees were rated nor contradicted Wagner. In the circumstances, as
directed to conversations which related either to matters Cox was not a reliable witness and did not deny this spe-
of concern among the employees in connection with the cific conversation, I credit Wagner. I find the remarks of
hearing herein or to union activities, in either case mat- Cox were unlawful threats and violative of Section
ters protected by Section 7 of the Act, that such remarks 8(a)(l) of the Act.
constituted a prohibition against employees exercising 2. The alleged discrimination against Naomi
Section 7 rights on nonworking time, and that Respond- Thompson
ent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I do not find that in telling Wagner that she knew Naomi Thompson was employed by Respondent in
about her giving her pay stubs to the union man Cox July 1977. She was discharged in November 1977, but
created the impression that Wagner's protected activities was reinstated in August 1978, pursuant to arbitration.
were being kept under surveillance, because Cox told Prior to September 25, 1979, Thompson worked 5 hours
Wagner that Young had informed her and Wagner had per day on the second shift, 5 days per week. On Sep-
herself told Young. I do find, however, that her interro- tember 25, she was advised that, effective September 28,
gation of Wagner about where all the questions were her hours were being reduced to 4 hours per day be-
coming from and her demand that Wagner explain the cause of a decrease in sales. Because she deemed 4 hours
charges to her were unlawful. Employees' knowledge of, per day insufficient to warrant continuing to work,
and participation in, matters involving the processing of Thompson quit on October 1.
unfair labor practice charges are protected by Section 7 The General Counsel contends that Thompson's hours
of the Act, and it appears too evident to require discus- of work were reduced because of her union activities
sion that a supervisor's intrusive questioning about such and that her quitting was, in law, a constructive dis-
matters will tend to coerce employees into refraining charge. As to her union activities, he adverted to the fact
from becoming involved. This is particularly true when that Thompson was one of only two employees (the

.
l) l i t ll t t t
l i ti i
t i l i l ll ti i i l . r l
l t r i ti it t r- se as not adverted to hich acts and conduct of Re-
l . t l l ti .
i , . - t, f t t r t f r ri ti-
i i t t t i i i l r i i .
t t l l i l r. rtl t ft , l i l
ll r i i t
)
t l r r t t . ll ti i l ti
r l rl . r t l i t l r i ll ti
ll .

if s l l i t t r. ls t l a er, T
"[ ] l et fire f r lli ac a f rt t eac o r h e l i t 20 se -CA- alle es t at.
ll
o r ab o u t D ec em be r °' M a r g e C ox t h r e at en ed *ts
em
other." Wagner had b en\calling B nne t, about wh t is l f r-
r i ill tt l
at ed w i t h t h e B o ar d d gave t ti r the ct.
ll ll t t i t ant the girls tol
T h is allegation is based on the testimony of Lois Wagner
herandSaly Hllad, hatsh di no wat te grlsto that on December 18 Cox had talked to the Board and,
t l i r t t l t the Union. She did h n eca t ox as r the
ll i
t ,
s
ift l t t l i t t
at d am n L a bo r B o ar d
dide tnwantdthe first-shift mployees.to be talking to the '111 fi t t t. l till
d- employees. ustoe e xeineadserpae ak
ll ti i lf t, apb i t
cifi l i t ab o ut """8 f
r l l ' f t r' t ti i t t it
ti ri
sh l d n o t it , r i t r'
i i ti l i r r t
i l t i ti
w h en C o x fi r s t a i t r-
' r. r t tifi s t x -
ll r if
d t i ti . , it r rr -
l nd-shift
a te d n i r. I t ir t , s
ti
x w a s " t li l it i t t i -
r ti i ti , i f
ri i ti ,
s i l ti ti
ti )(1
c stit t r i iti i t l r i i . ll i ri i ti i t i
ti
ti )(l

,

l r ll l i -
it -
De ame s
Lbor ,
eabout
f
s
i t r
and she
Board
CUMMINS COMPONENT PLANT 463
other was Ferguson) to wear a union button in Septem- particularly in an operation with many variable factors
ber and to her activity in removing a notice from the that can affect productivity and profit. It is significant
bulletin board relative to Saturday work, a matter about that there is no claim that Thompson's hours were given
which she felt aggrieved, and her sending a copy to the to anyone else on the second shift.
Union. Thompson testified that Cox was upset about Apart from the foregoing, I am unable to accept the
Thompson's removal of the notice and that she told her premise on which the allegation of constructive dis-
if she ever took anything off the bulletin board again she charge is based; namely, that Cox reduced Thompson's
would fire her. Employees Hiten and Wagner testified hours of work 1 hour per day in the belief Thompson
that Cox also mentioned to them that Thompson had re- would quit. True, Thompson testified she had told Cox
moved a notice from the bulletin board. According to months earlier that she could not continue to work if she
Hiten, Cox told her that anyone caught taking anything received less than 5 hours per day, and I credit her testi-
off the bulletin board and sending it to the Union would mony over Cox's denial. Nevertheless, I find it difficult
be fired. Wagner also testified that Cox referred to the to believe that Cox recalled the statement several months
notice being sent to the Union. later and undertook to reduce Thompson's hours to
According to Respondent, because of the many incon- bring about her quitting.
sistencies in the record on this point, Hiten and Wagner In short, in my judgment, the evidence adduced by the
cannot be credited. Whatever merit there might be to General Counsel is insufficient to warrant an inference
Respondent's argument, it is overshadowed by the fact that Thompson's hours of work were reduced because of
that Cox never denied any of the statements attributed to her union activities, and I shall dismiss the allegation that
her by Thompson, Hiten, and Wagner relative to the re- she was constructively discharged in violation of Section
moval of the notice. Rather, she was asked if she were 8(a) and (3) of the Act.
upset by Thompson's action and had any problems with
the notice leaving the cafeteria. Such questions and her D. Case 25-CA-11838
answers were pointless. In the absence of denials, I credit
Thompson, Hiten, and Wagner. 1. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The foregoing supports a finding of animus against
Thompson, but more than that is needed to establish that The collective-bargaining agreement between the
her hours of work were unlawfully reduced. There must Union and Respondent provided for a checkoff of dues.
be some evidence that the reduction in hours was moti- In January, a number of employees delivered signed
vated by the union activity. In this case, Respondent has statements to Respondent stating that they no longer de-
asserted that the reduction was attributable to a negative sired the deduction of dues from their wages. Sometime
trend in sales and profits. In this connection, the record thereafter, Respondent discontinued deducting dues on
indicates that on September 10 Klassen sent a memoran- behalf of such employees.
dum to Cox suggesting a reduction of hours on the The complaint alleges that Marge Cox solicited em-
second shift. There is no evidence to support an infer- ployees to revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations,
ence that this memorandum was motivated by anything thereby violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. In support
other than economic considerations. Cox did not act on of the allegation, the General Counsel adduced testimony
the memorandum until September 25, and the General from Lois Wagner that, one night in early January, Cox
Counsel argues that the negative trend referred to in came to her and said, "[Y]ou are supposed to fill out a
Klassen's memorandum had ended by September 25 so god-damn paper if you want those damn Union dues
that a reduction was no longer necessary. I have re- taken out of your check again." Wagner asked Cox if she
viewed Respondent's weekly operating reports and I find had a form. She did not, so Wagner found a sheet of
the data therein inconclusive on the issue of the necessity paper and wrote that she wanted her dues deducted.
for a reduction in hours. The total number of hours Wagner testified that Cox did not urge her one way or
worked each week appeared to vary from week to week, the other, although she did mention that Bennett was the
as did productivity figures and percent of profit, and it is only one who was going to have her dues deducted.
difficult to see any significant difference in the figures Rocille Bennett testified that, shortly after the election,
before September 25 and after. In my judgment, on the Cox had come to her and said that the Company had to
data before me, whether a reduction in hours on the know if she wanted her dues deducted or not. Bennett
second shift was necessary was a business judgment and had signed a statement that she did, and in April 1980
the evidence of animus against Thompson is insufficient Cox approached her again and said that the Company
to overcome it. In reaching this conclusion, I rely on the had lost Bennett's statement. Bennett signed another
September 10 memorandum and the fact that initially statement, but this time she stated that she did not want
Cox undertook to reduce the hours of Wagner also. her dues deducted.
While she may have changed her mind later, the fact Although seven other employees had signed state-
that she proposed the reduction supports the assertion ments revoking their dues-checkoff authorizations,
that it was in response to the September 10 memoran- Wagner and Bennett were the only witnesses called by
dum. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that the reduc- the General Counsel to testify about any solicitation by
tion in hours under consideration was only 5 hours per Cox. However, Respondent's own witness, Maxine
week in a total of close to 300. I do not know how many Tharp, testified that she was approached by Marge Cox,
employers could demonstrate through their books and and Linda Young described how Cox approached other
records that such a reduction was economically justified, employees. The issue, then, is not whether Cox did ap-

'

i
it t ti
it ' i l. t l , I fi it iffi lt
l t ti i t t r f rr t t t elie e t at ox recalled the state ent several onths
t t ' t
f t a incon- bring about her quitting.
sist i s i t r r t is i t, it r I t, i , t
' , it i '
aX1
ti r D. Case 25- A-11838

I n
s i r e d t h e
.
(l)

.

464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proach employees about dues deductions, but, rather, tract was not unlawful. I find the case to be controlling
whether her doing so was violative of Section 8(a)() of and shall dismiss the allegation. 7
the Act.
Respondent contends Cox's conduct was not violative (2) Job bidding
of the Act because it was in response to employees' in- The complaint alleges that Respondent ceased allow-
quiries about whether they had to continue dues deduc- ing its employees to bid on available full-time positions
tions, and in approaching employees Cox neither encour- or to select shift preferences. The General Counsel did
aged nor discouraged them in their decision. I find no not advert to this allegation in his brief and I do not
merit in Respondent's position. know on what evidence he relies for its support. As I am
There is testimony both by Cox and Linda Young that unaware of any, I shall dismiss the allegation.
the question of dues deductions was raised by employees
(whether only by Young to Cox or Young, Hiten, and( 3) Paydays
Peggy Cox is not clear). However, neither Wagner, Ben- The complaint alleges that on or about January 1,
nett, nor Tharp were shown to have approached Cox. It 1980, Respondent unilaterally changed paydays from a
was Cox who initiated the subject. The fact that some weekly basis to a biweekly basis. The record indicates
employees had approached Cox gave her no license to that by letter dated November 13, 1979, well in advance
approach employees who had not. By her doing so, Re- of the proposed change, Respondent notified the Union
spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Rock-Tenn it was planning such a change. The Union never re-
Company, 238 NLRB 403 (1978). sponded to the letter either to object or to request a
Moreover, Cox's conduct was not as innocent as Re- meeting. In the circumstances, it may be said to have ac-
spondent claims. Her remarks to Wagner about the "god- quiesced therein.
damn Union" and her statement that all but Bennett had
revoked were clear encouragement to revoke. In Ben-4) Clocking out for breaks
nett's case, Cox even undertook to solicit her a second The complaint alleges that since on or about August 6,
time after she had declined to revoke earlier with no 1979, Respondent unilaterally required its employees to
showing that there was any necessity to do so. For the clock out for breaks. However, the evidence adduced at
foregoing reasons, I find that Respondent violated Sec- the hearing was directed to a showing that such a re-
tion 8(a)(l) by soliciting employees to revoke their dues- quirement was imposed on employees in January 1980.
checkoff authorizations. Sometime in January 1980, Wagner was spoken to by
Paragraph 5(b) of the complaint alleges that in January Klassen and Cox relative to her conduct vis-a-vis, Cum-
1980 Marge Cox threatened employees with withholding mins management personnel. According to Wagner, she
of wage increases mandated by Federal law. The allega- was told in this meeting that from then on when she
tion is based on the testimony of Wagner that on some took a supper break, she was to clock in and out. Em-
unspecified date in January 1980 Cox told Wagner that ployee Ferguson testified he was also to clock out for
her attorney had told her that no one would receive the breaks. Both Wagner and Ferguson testified that prior to
$3.10 per hour until after this (apparently meaning the in- ths they took breaks on the clock and were paid.
stant matter) was settled on June 5. While Cox did not Respondent contends that no changes were made in
either Wagner's or Ferguson's hours of work or pay.expressly deny making this remark, it is difficult to either Wagner's or Ferguson's hours of work or pay.
accept Wagner's testimony as an accurate description of Unlike other issues in this case, the issue should be re-accept Wagner's testimony as an accurate description of solvable by an examination of Respondent's records. Un-
what Cox said because the remark as she describes itwhat Cox said because the remark as she describes itfortunately, the records (consisting of timecards and
makes little sense. In my judgment, a finding that the fortunately, the records (consistig of timecards andmakes little sense. In my judgment, a finding that the weekly operating reports) are not complete, nor are they
remark constituted an unlawful threat is not warranted. easily decipherable. Nevertheless, it does appear from
. The reful to b in Ferguson's timecards that a change occurred in the
matter of break periods and clocking out after the Christ-
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sec- mas break. It appears from his timecard for the week
tion 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by a number of unilateral ending January 11, 1980, that he began clocking out that
acts and by refusing to meet and bargain. week, although it is not entirely clear from an examina-
tion of his timecard because the timeclock did not work
a. The unilateral conduct properly. The timecards for the week ending January 25
were missing, so that one cannot determine whether Fer-
(1) Discontinuance of dues checkoff guson did clock out. However, the timecard for the
Althoh te G l C l hs a d te d - week ending February 1, 1980, clearly indicates he wasAlthough the General Counsel has alleged the discon- of Ferguson's timecards before Janu-
tinuance of dues checkoff as unilateral conduct violative c o Nary 1980 indicates similar clock entries. Any doubt that a
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, he has not addressed him- change occurred at the time, however, was removed by
self to the issue in his brief. In Peerless Roofing Co., Ltd., review of the weekly operating reports which indicate
247 NLRB 500 (1980), the Board adopted conclusions of that, beginning with the week ending January 1, Fergu-
the administrative law judge that the unilateral discon- ___
tinuance of dues checkoff after the expiration of a con- 1 See also Finger Lakes Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 253 NLRB 406,
fn. 4 (1980).
l)
J o b
(
i t l r). r, it r r, l i t ll ,

(4 C o
i r la t
m in s l. r,
r l
w as t o l d in t h is ti
ti
a b r eak , sh e w as c lo c k n a nd t.
E m
cif r t tifi l t l t f r
i b r e ak s r t tifi t t ri r t
til r ntl i i
t h is te t oo k b r ea k s o n
t h e c lo c k an d w e r e i .
ttl t t t t r i
, , ,. .,. , .. . ,.„. ,. .either s s l i i l gr r r re-
accep Wager'stestmonyas c d in li t i i t i , t i l r -t ti cri ti f ^^^^eaiaino epnetsrcrs whatCoxsaidbecuse he mak asshedescibe it solvable by an exa ination of espondent's records. n-
makeslittloe sadbens use.In my judmem as finding th hes t fortunately, the records (consisting f ti ecards
ake li l . I j t, i i t ti
ti l f l y i l
2. The refusal argai
f

Although the Genera ounse as llege he iscon „we k i rl t r l l ll t isc - oFegsnstearsbfeJnu
ckoff l t oi u, of F t c b J
i i t i il l t i . t
ti
lf t t i i i i f. I rless fi ., a i kl ti
), t t l i i i i i r ,
i ti il l i -
Of k ff i l i ger l i A ting ., I .. ,
.
2
l i
CUMMINS COMPONENT PLANT 465
son's hours of pay were reduced from 5 hours per day to month. It appears that about the same time Ferguson's
4-1/2 hours per day. How long this situation persisted is hours were reduced from 4-1/2 hours to 4 hours per day.
not entirely clear, because it appears that Ferguson's Respondent contends that these reductions in hours
hours of work may heve been reduced sometime in were not violative of the Act but were within its rights
March and he continued to receive pay for 4-1/2 hours. under the management rights clause of the agreement.
The matter is one of remedy which can be resolved in Moreover, Respondent points out that reduction in hours
compliance. had occurred in the past.
Wagner's timecards and her pay records also confirm In my judgment, the reduction of hours shown to have
her testimony. There were no "break" entries on her ti- occurred herein clearly fell within the scope of the man-
mecards before January 1980. In the week ending Janu- agement-rights clause which provided, in pertinent part:
ary 11, there is one handwritten "break" entry. Similarly, "The existing and continuing rights of management shall
"break" entries appear for the weeks ending February 1, include, but not be limited to, the right to schedule oper-
8, and 22. Even more significant, and as was the case ations and employees, hire, discipline, demote, or dis-
with Ferguson, although Wagner was clocking in and charge for just cause; layoff employees for lack of work,
out at the same times as before, beginning with the week manage, direct, and supervise its operations ... ." Thus,
ending January 11, 1980, her hours of pay were reduced the clause reserves to management such matters as
from 7 hours a day to 6-1/2 hours a day, a situation scheduling operations and employees and the layoff of
which persisted until the week ending May 2, 1980. employees for lack of work, matters closely related to
In short, Respondent's records corroborate the testi- such a matter as a decision to reduce hours. In this con-
mony of Wagner and Ferguson and clearly refute the as- nection, it is noted that article VII, section 1, which re-
sertion that no change occurred either in procedure or lates to hours of work provided that "Insofar as work is
pay. Cox's testimony that the clocking out was begun at deemed necessary, the normal work week shall consist of
the behest of Wagner is not credited. five (5) days of eight (8) hours each ... ." The phrase
As noted earlier, this conduct is alleged to have consti- "Insofar as work is deemed necessary" appears clearly to
tuted unilateral conduct violative of Section 8(a)(5) and vest in management the right to make the reductions in
(1) of the Act. It is clear the conduct represented a hours herein described.
change in conditions of employment and that it was un- On the basis of the foregoing, I find no merit to the
dertaken unilaterally. Although the contract had expired, allegation that the reductions in hours were violative of
it is settled law that upon expiration of a contract an em- Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
ployer is obligated to notify and bargain with the em-
ployees' collective-bargaining representative before it (6) Nonpayment of holiday pay
makes changes in conditions of employment. As Re- Article XII, section I of the contract which expired on
spondent did not do so, its conduct was violative of Sec- December 7, 1979, provided for paid holidays on Christ-
tion 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act. December 7, 1979, provided for paid holidays on Christ-ton 8(a5) and (1) of te At. mas Eve Day, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve Day,
In his brief, the General Counsel argues that Respond- and New Year's Day. On December 18, 1979, Respond
ent's policy relative to clocking in and out affected not ent posted a notice that because of the upcoming layoff
only Wagner and Ferguson, but also first shift employ- at Cummins Company it was forced to have a corre-
ees. As to first shift employees, he argues that they were sponding layoff and that in accordance with company
asked to forgo their lunch breaks or be docked in pay. I policy any employee on layoff for 3 or more consecutive
reject the argument for lack of proof. No employee testi- days in conjunction with a holiday would not receive
fied that he or she was required to forgo lunchbreaks or holiday pay
suffer a loss of pay, and the notation "no lunch" on cer- The General Counsel contends that in not paying em-
tain timecards of first-shift employees is insufficient to ployees holiday pay as provided in the contract, Re-
support General Counsel's position, ployees holiday pay as provided in the contract, Re-support General Counsel's position. spondent engaged in unilateral conduct violative of Sec-
(5) Reduction in hours tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Although Respondent ad-
verted to a company policy in its December 18 notice,
The complaint alleges that since on or about Septem- no such policy was shown to exist and Respondent ad-
ber 25, 1979, Respondent unilaterally reduced the hours verts to no contractual provision in defense of its con-
of work of its employees. The record indicates that ef- duct. Rather, it contends that its conduct was justified by
fective September 25, 1979, Naomi Thompson's hours of overriding economic considerations. The argument bor-
work were reduced from 5 hours to 4 hours per day ders on the frivolous. Respondent's situation before the
without notice to the Union. In May 1980, Wagner's holiday period in 1979 was precisely the same as in earli-
hours were reduced from 6-1/2 per day to 5-1/2 hours er years. The situation was different only in that after the
per day. Prior to the week ending May 16, 1980, Bennett regular holiday period Cummins contemplated a brief
had generally been paid for 7-1/2 hours per day (except layoff. Thus, no need for a layoff of Respondent's em-
for the weeks ending April 25 and May 2 and 9). By the ployees until after the holiday period. By its notice, Re-
week ending May 16, 1980, her hours had been reduced spondent undertook to accelerate any layoff with no de-
to 6 hours per day. Wagner testified that in May she was monstrable purpose or saving other than the deprivation
told that her hours of work were being reduced to 5-1/2 of holiday pay to employees who had been regularly em-
hours per day. The weekly operating reports confirm ployed. Such conduct clearly constituted a unilateral
this, but the reduction appears to have lasted only I change in working conditions, and, as noted above, al-

,
. .

,
) ) . .

.

akes changes i iti s l t. t
t t ^ A r t lc le X I I , s ec t i
o n I o f t h e c o n t r a c t w h lc h expire o n
t.oDecember ,
t ion 8(a) and r 1) of. the ct. ^ m as ve y, rist s , r' ,
I his ri f, t e r l s l r t t - r' . r , , -
t's li r l tiv t l i i t ff t t ta t
ly agner r , t l fir t ift l - t i it
s. t fir t ift l , r t t t , i
as e to f r t eir l c breaks r be docked in a . I policy a e ployee la ff f r 3 r re c sec ti e
reject t e ar e t f r lac f r f. l t sti- s i j ti it a li l t r i e
li
s ff r l f , t t ti l us
t i ti c r s f fir t- ift e ployees is insufficient to T h e G en e ra l C o u n se l c o nt e nroi e in not paying em-
l l' iti p10 ^ee h o l t d ay pa a s , prove ln t e c t ra c t; -
spondent engaged in unilateral c ct violative f ec-
(5) ti i rs
t io n 8(a) 5 ) ( ) t . lt t

ft
1
dspoie
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
though the contract had expired, Respondent was obli- 1. None of the current employees were employees at
gated to notify and bargain with the Union before it the time of the first contract in 1973.
changed existing conditions of employment. According- This is insufficient basis to question the Union's major-
ly, as it did not do so, its conduct was violative Section ity status as the Board has long held that turnover
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. among employees cannot, by itself, be used as a basis for
belief that a union has lost majority status since it is pre-
b. The refusal to meet and bargain sumed new employees will support the Union in the
By letter dated October 2, 1979, the Union requested same ratio as those whom they have replaced.8 There
that Respondent meet with it for the purpose of negotiat- was no rebuttal of that presumption here. To the con-
ing a new agreement, suggesting a meeting date of Octo- trary, all the employees employed at the time Respond-
ber 22. Respondent did not reply to the letter. ent refused to bargain had joined the Union and author-
By letter dated January 15, 1980, the Union again de- ized dues checkoff True, union membership was re-
manded that Respondent meet and bargain with it over a quired by the contract, but dues checkoff is voluntary
new agreement and also with regard to unilateral and no employees had requested revocation of dues
changes made by Respondent. By letter dated January checkoff until after Respondent's refusal to bargain.
29, 1980, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Octo- 2. Receipt of a copy of the RD petition from the
ber 2, 1979, and January 15, 1980, requests and asserted a NLRB advising that 7 out of 10 employees wanted an
good-faith doubt that the Union represented its employ- election.
ees. There was no express refusal to meet, but the letter Initially, Klassen testified that he knew that 7 out of 10
stated the Union's demand was being forwarded to coun- employees had signed the showing of interest statement
sel. No further reply was ever made. I construe Re- because he had received a copy from the Regional
spondent's response to constitute a refusal to meet and Office. However, after further examination, he admitted
bargain. The question is whether or not it had an obliga- he was not certain that was so. He may very well have
tion to do so. known how many employees had signed the showing of
The law is well settled that after the expiration of the interest because of Cox's participation in the RD election
certification year, a certified union enjoys a rebuttal pre- and the showing of interest statement, as described
sumption that its majority status continued. In order to above, but he would not normally receive such informa-
overcome the presumption, an employer who questions ton from the Regional Office because that would not
the Union's majority status must affirmatively show accord with Regional Office practice. In any event, Re-
either (1) that at the time of the refusal the Union in fact spondent could not rely on the RD petition and the
no longer enjoyed majority status, or (2) that the em- showing of interest statement because of supervisory
ployer's refusal was predicated on a good-faith and rea- taint in the preparation of the petition and the showing
sonably grounded doubt of the Union's continued major- of interest.
ity status. As to the second of these, i.e., good-faith 3. The absence of union activity, e.g., lack of union
doubt, two prerequisites for sustaining the defense are meetings, or contacts with Klassen relative to grievances.
that the asserted doubt must be based on objective con- On the matter of union meetings, it does not appear
siderations and it must not have been advanced for the that any were being held in the period immediately pre-
purpose of gaining time in which to undermine the ceding Respondent's refusal to bargain, but I fail to see
Union. Terrell Machine Company, 173 NLRB 1480 how this demonstrates lack of employee support. The
(1969), enfd. 427 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1970). Union was a viable organization as shown by the fact
A threshold question is when Respondent's refusal to that it had notified Respondent of a dues increase to be
bargain occurred. The complaint alleges that it occurred deducted from employee wages. On the matter of griev-
on January 24, 1980. However, as noted above, the ances, several employees had been reinstated pursuant to
Union mailed a letter to Respondent requesting to meet a grievance and arbitration proceeding in 1978, during
and bargain on October 2, 1979, and Klassen admitted the term of the contract. Moreover, until September
receipt of the letter within a day or two. It is undisputed 1979, the employees had a shop steward, Sally Holland,
that Respondent never responded to the request. No ex- who, according to Cox, quit her job because she was
planation was offered for such refusal, but it is evident pestered with too many complaints.
when one considers Respondent's conduct after October In short, the record does not support a finding of
2, 1979, that its failure to respond was, in effect, a refusal union inactivity such as to warrant Respondent question-
to meet and bargain with the Union at that time, rather ing the Union's majority status.
than at the later date of January 24. As a matter of fact, 4. At a meeting of employees in August, he had told
the refusal of January 24 only confirms the intent of Re- employees that he had been notified by the Union of a
spondent's failure to respond in October. Accordingly, in dues increase from $5 to $7.50 per month and the em-
determining whether there existed objective consider- ployees had become upset and told him they did not
ations to doubt the Union's majority status, inquiry must know what they were paying dues for because the Union
be addressed to the conditions which existed in the was doing nothing for them.
period on and after October 2, 1979. I fail to see how this supports a good-faith doubt of
The objective consideration relied on by Respondent majority status. Significantly, however upset the employ-
for doubting the Union's majority status were, according
to Klassen, the following: Laystrom Manufacturing Co., 151 NLRB 1482 (1965).

m e r a t io t t r l . r
t ti t
w as l f t t r ti r . t -
t ti t t , ll t l l t t ti espond-
l en t r ef
u se d t
r i
z ed d ues c h c k o ff r , i rs i s re-
t i i
d t h e tr t, t ckoff is l t r
il l l r st r v c ti f dues
t. r
c h e k o f un t il a ft e r t' refusal to bargain.
t i .
o f t titi fr t
, r rt
N L R B i i t t t f l t an
-f i l l ti .

i t i f i t r t st t t
fr t i l
h e w a
' ti i ti i t l ti
i i t t t t t, s s ri
t
io
titi t
.
.

,
.
5

, . il t i it t
, t t l
o ystrom .
ti c '
i
sa
CUMMINS COMPONENT PLANT 467
ees were about the dues increase, no employee indicated THE REMEDY
at the meeting that he or she no longer wanted to be Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfairHaving found that Respondent has engaged in unfairrepresented by the Union. (The employees may not have labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) and (5) oflabor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) ofknown at the time that they could rid themselves of the the Act I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
Union.) Employee Hiten did inquire about the matter in and desist therefrom and take appropriate and affirmative
late September, but the true wishes of the employees action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In
cannot be ascertained by what happened thereafter be- particular, I shall recommend that Lois Wagner and
cause of Respondent's interference in the decertification Mike Ferguson be made whole for any wages lost by
process. reason of Respondent's unilateral change relative to
5. On October 5, a union representative failed to meet clocking out for breaks, and that all employees who oth-
with Klassen as agreed. erwise fulfilled the requirements of holiday pay be made
I fail to see how this relates to employee sentiment. whole by payment to them for 4 days of holiday pay for
In short, the record does not support Respondent's as- the Christmas 1979 holiday period, with interest thereon
sertion that there existed objective considerations to jus- in accordance with Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
tify its questioning the Union's majority status. In reach- 651 (1977). As to Respondent's discontinuance of dues
ing this conclusion, I have adverted to Respondent's un- checkoff for those employees who were unlawfully solic-
lawful conduct relative to the RD petition, but its unlaw- ited to revoke their authorizations, I shall not recom-
ful conduct did not consist only in the unlawful assist- mend that Respondent remit dues to the Union in light
ance in the preparation of the RD petition. In addition, of Peerless Roofing Co., Ltd., 247 NLRB 500 (1980).
there was Cox's unlawful interrogation of Wagner in
early August; Cox's promise of more money if the em- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ployees did not have a union; and Cox's remark to Fer- 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
guson that working conditions would be a lot better off within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
with the Union out. Such remarks would tend to dissi- 2. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
pate the Union's majority status and one of the condi- Union, Local No. 58, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
tions for the assertion of a good-faith doubt is that it is within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
asserted in a context free of unfair labor practices. 3. All full-time and regular part-time employees of Re-
Cox's interrogation of Wagner and her promises to spondent employed at its food service operation at the
Wagner and Ferguson may not seem sufficiently serious Cummins facility in Walesboro, Indiana, exclusive of all
to deny employees an opportunity to vote on whether clerical employees, all confidential employees, all profes-
they still desire union representation, but Respondent's sional employees, all guards and supervisors as defined in
unlawful conduct did not end there. To the contrary, for the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
a period of months, and in a variety of ways, Respondent collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
had been guilty of unfair labor practices which demon- of the Act.
strate that its refusal to meet and bargain with the Union 4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the
after its October 2 request was designed to gain time to exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
undermine further whatever support remained for union appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
representation. Thus, there are Cox's threats of a cut in within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
hours if the Union won the RD election, the threat to 5. By its acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
discharge whoever went to the Board, the denial of holi- designed to undermine the Union and erode its support
day pay, the solicitation of revocations of dues checkoff, among employees, by its unilateral change in clocking
and the requirement that Wagner and Ferguson to clock out for breaks and failure to pay holiday pay, and by re-
out for breaks. Such unlawful conduct precludes Re- fusing to meet and bargain with the Union relative to
spondent from asserting any good-faith doubt of the rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and conditions of
Union's continued majority status. employment, Respondent has engaged in, and is engag-
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that by its acts of ing in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
interference, restraint, and coercion designed to under- tions 8(aX5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
mine the Union and erode its support among employees 6. By questioning employees about their union senti-
and by refusing since on or about October 2, 1979, to ments or activities and their cooperation with the Na-
meet and bargain with the Union, Respondent has violat- tional Labor Relations Board in the processing of cases
ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. in a manner and under circumstances tending to coerce
employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights, by creating
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES the impression that the union activities of the employees
UPON COMMERCE were under surveillance, by promises of higher wages,
improved working conditions, or other benefits, by
The activities of Respondent as set forth above, occur- threats of a reduction in hours if the employees selected
ring in connection with operations described above, have the Union in an election, by assisting employees in the
a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, filing of a decertification petition, by soliciting employees
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to revoke dues-checkoff authorizations, by prohibiting
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing con- employees from talking about the Union on nonworking
merce and the free flow of commerce. time, and by threats to discharge employees for cooper-
at the ti t t r s l r t t f ta pd r. , , ,, ,r * FTI- i .i-Having t i i
represented y t i . ( l y s t l i 8 1 ,, - , ,, * ., . , ,.'.,',, ' - . ti l f
t t ti t t t l ri t l f t te t, I ll r t t it r r t
i .) l it i i ir t t tt r i i t t t i f i
l t t r, t t tr i f t l ti i ff t t li i
t rt i t t ft rti l r, ll
f t' i t f t rtifi ti
t' il t r l r l ti t
. , i
t i t li
,.

-CONCLUSIONS
i.
t t i iti l l t tt r ff it i t e ea i f ection 2(6) and (7) of the ct.
. t
t ' ,
.
.

.
t e s
" it i t i
t io n s 8
t i i ti
m e n t o r a c e s t i ti it t -
o n a l L a b o r i t i
ti
a
ll t h e
,
m
i
m n n e r a n d
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ating with the National Labor Relations Board, Re- clocking out for breaks, by failing to pay holiday pay,
spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor and by refusing to meet and bargain with regard to rates
practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(l) and 2(6) of pay, wages, hours of work, and conditions of employ-
and (7) of the Act. ment.
7. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a (j) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent reduced straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the hours of work of Naomi Thompson because of her their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
union activities and that she was by reason thereof con- the above-named labor organization, or any other labor
structively discharged. organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section
9 7 of the Act or to refrain from any and all such activi-
U~O~~~RDERS~ ~ ~ties.
The Respondent, Cardinal Systems, a Division of Hos- 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
pitality Motor Inns, Inc., d/b/a Cummins Component fectuate the policies of the Act:
Plant, Walesboro, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, (a) Make whole Lois Wagner and Mike Ferguson by
and assigns, shall: payment for break periods, with interest thereon.
1. Cease and desist from: (b) Make whole all employees otherwise entitled to
(a) Interrogating employees about their union senti- holiday pay for the Christmas 1979 period by payment to
ments or activities, and their cooperation with the Na- them of the 4 days of holiday pay unlawfully withheld,
tional Labor Relations Board in the processing of cases with interest thereon.
in a manner or under circumstances constituting interfer- (c) Upon request, meet and bargain with the Hotel and
ence with, and restraint and coercion of employees in the Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local No.
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 58, AFL-CIO, in the appropriate unit described above,
(b) Creating the impression of surveillance of employ- with regard to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and
ees' union activities by telling employees it will find out conditions of employment of its employees, and, if an un-
what happens at union meetings. derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
(c) Promising employees higher wages, improved signed agreement
working conditions, or other benefits, in order to induce d s a is aii a aes ndia is(d) Post at its facility at Walesboro, Indiana, copies ofthem to withdraw their support from the Union. the attached notice marked Appendix."" Copies of said
(d) Threatening employees with a reduction in hours notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
of work if they selected the Union in an election to be
conduocted by the National Labor Relations Board. Region 25, after being signed by a duly authorized repre-conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. sentative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediate-
(e) Assisting employees in the filing of a petition to de- elyupon receipt thereof, anll be posted by it mmedate-
certifv the Union. oly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
(tf) oliciting emoyees to eoe e heo consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
(h Soliciting employees to revoke dues-checkoff au- cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
t(g) Prohibiting employees from talking abouts tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
Union on nonworking time.s fm t g a t spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
(h) Threatening to discharge employees for cooperat- faced or covered by any other material.
ing with the National Labor Relations Board. (c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
(i) Refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
representative of its employees in the unit herein found has taken to comply herewith.
appropriate by changing working conditions without IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of
notice to, or consultation with, the Union, with regard to the complaint found not to have been sustained by the
evidence be dismissed.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- '° In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
(l)

f
scharged,.organization,
ORDER9 7 f t e A c t o r t o refrai fro any and all such activi-
ties.

ti i ti l
ti i i , t i r ti it t - t f t f li y l f ll it l ,
l l i i f it i t r t t r .
i r r i t tit ti i t i l
it , t i t r i l l
r i ri t t ti i ri
( ) r ti t i i ill l
' i ti iti t lli l it ill fi out conditions f e ploy ent of its e ployees, and, if an un-
t t i t i
l i r s, i proved signed agreement.
r i iti , r t r fit , i r r t i ( P t f t W le or, Ii, c o
i t ir rt fr the nion. . t
( d ) P o s t at its facility at alesboron Indiana, copies f
i l ti t h e a ac he d no tr c e m ar k ed Appendix."o Copies f said
f r if t l t t i i l ti t R egi o n f t r ben sg ed b y a duly at r e d r
t t ti l r l ti r .s ett l l g ^ ^ duly authorized repr -
( ) i ti l i t fili f titi t - s e l t a t l v o f Respond nt, shall it i i t -
certify the Union. cly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
(f) Soliciting employees to revoke dues-checkoff au- cludng tlve days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
thorizations eluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
(g) Prohibiting employees from talking about the
t o m arily p o st ed . s l t ll
Union on nonworking time.espondent t i i
f a c e d , o r c o v e r e d ^ o t h e r m a t e n a l
i it t
c ) N o t f t h e
i)
d a s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h s O r d e r ,
h a s t a k e n

I T IS
t h e
,
t e ct r t
ti i r
t h £* at t ac he d no t ic e m ar k e d "Appendix."' Copies of said
(d) hretenng eploeeswitha rducion n hurs notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
s t re
tif t i . oly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
(f) li iti e ployees to revoke dues-checkoff au- consecutive days thereafter, in c s ic s l , i
goeluding ll l r ti t e ployees are cus-
{ ' m v e n
h
. ndix."'
l o rie re pr e-
e
"^enal