Del E. Webb Realty and Management Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 593 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

DEL E. WEBB REALTY AND MGT. CO. 593
Del E. Webb Realty and Management Co. and David
Earl Patterson and Douglass Wright . Case 17-
CA-6063
is received from organizations whose operations meet the
Board's jurisdictional standards. I find that the Respond-
ent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
February 14, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY
On September 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respond-
ent filed a brief in response thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
disqiissed in its entirety.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
in this case was held on August 13, 1974, at Kansas City,
Kansas , on complaint of the General Counsel against Del
E. Webb Realty and Management Co., herein called the
Respondent or the Company. The charge was filed on May
13, 1974, by David Patterson and Douglas Wright, herein
called the Charging Parties, and the complaint issued on
June 17, 1974. The allegations of wrongdoing are that the
Respondent discharged these two men in violation of
Section 8(ax 1) of the Act. Briefs were filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINos OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The corporate Respondent is engaged in the manage-
ment and operation of office buildings , and has its
principal office in Phoenix , Arizona, and an office in
Kansas City, Missouri. It annually derives revenues in
excess of $ 100,000, of which in excess of $25,000 annually
216 NLRB No. 103
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The events giving rise to this proceeding occurred at the
Crown Center in Kansas City, Missouri, where the
Respondent, under contract with the owners of the realty,
furnish protection services . It is a very large complex of
buildings, covering perhaps 23 acres, with multiple com-
mercial establishments and high office buildings. Patterson
and Wright worked for the Company as security guards,
Patterson hired in December 1973 and Wright on January
2, 1974; they were assigned to the I 1 p.m. to 7 a.m. night
shift, which consisted of about 13 guards. There had
recently been a rash of thefts on the properties, and in
consequence the Respondent announced a change of hours
as of March 1. Each of the three shifts was ordered to
report for work 30 minutes before the previously estab-
lished starting hour; thus the night shift was on duty from
10:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. Understandably there was a certain
amount of resentment against the extra duty.
Both Patterson and Wright were discharged on May 7. It
is the theory of complaint that the reason why these men
were fired, or at least a contributing factor in the
considerations which led to their release, was the fact that
together with other guards they engaged in concerted
activity - vis-a-vis the employer - to protest against
having to work the extra 30 minutes each shift. In defense
the Respondent insists that whatever protest may have
been voiced by any guard, concerted or not concerted, had
nothing to do with the discharges. Affirmatively, it asserts
that Patterson and Wright were released because of
specific acts of misconduct which each concededly did
commit before May 7.
It is important to clarify a point of law at the outset. This
is not a union activity case; there was no union in the
picture and nobody turned to any labor organization for
assistance in any dispute with the Company. There is
therefore no allegation of violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. The theory of complaint instead is that the Respond-
ent "coerced" the two men in their statutory right to
engage in "concerted," as distinguished from " union,"
activities, and thereby violated Section 8(axl). This section
makes unlawful any coercion of employees with respect to
their rights under Section 7 of the Act, which in pertinent
part guarantees the right "to engage in . . . concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining.... .
The Board has held too often to warrant citation of
authority here that where an individual employee turns to
his employer alone to improve his condition of employ-
ment and is in no sense joined in his actions by any other
workman, he has not engaged in concerted activities in the
statutory sense and may be discharged with impunity.
That the Respondent had cause to release both Patterson
and Wright on May 7 is not disputed. In an ordinary case
of this kind the problem would be to weigh in the balance
those facts which point to perfectly proper discharge for
cause and the countervailing facts - protected union or
concerted activities by the employees and known by the
employer - tending to support an inference of illegal
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motivation . And the eventual question then is whether the
General Counsel, upon whom the affirmative and primary
burden of proof always rests, has proved that in fact the
man was discharged because of, or at least in part because
of, his protected activities . In such circumstances the
Board's final answer to the heart question is never an
absolute certainty. It is an inference, warranted or not
warranted, by the total picture.
In the case at bar there is an additional , or extended,
inference to be made , if warranted, before a conclusion of
illegal conduct can be reached. It is not at all clear either
Patterson or Wright was engaged in any concerted
activities ; the evidence points instead to their having done
whatever they did, alone, quite independently of "acti-
vities" by any other guards . But it was suggested at the
hearing that, regardless of how their conduct in fact came
about, management agents believed the two men were in
fact acting on behalf of a large number , and fired them for
that reason . It is an interesting argument and may or may
not be persuasive as a matter of law. Does an employer in
fact violate the statute if it thinks it is violating it, when in
fact no one was ever engaged in union or concerted
activities? The problem can be stated differently . When an
individual workman demands that the employer change
the hours of work for the entire group , his success or failure
affects them all . Does it follow from this that he was acting
in concert with them and was therefore protected against
discharge for such individual personal conduct ? Perhaps. If
all that is shown is that in their minds the rest of the
employees think as did the sole activist, agree with his
thoughts that the employer should change the work
schedule , but whatever he does he does alone, is that
activity then to be deemed concerted and protected?
Again, perhaps . Assume, finally, that while agreeing in
principle with the sole actor, the rest of the employees
make it clear they wish to disassociate themselves from his
activity , want nothing to do with it, refuse to sign his
petition to the employer, is he then engaged in statutory
concerted activity?
The best way to speak of a case of this kind is in terms of
the standard Board approach . Has the General Counsel, by
a preponderance of the substantial evidence on the record
as a whole, proved that an unfair labor practice was
committed? N.LRB. v. Glenn Raven, 203 F.2d 946 (C.A. 4,
1953).
A. Activities by the Two Discharged Employees
As stated above , a number of night-shift guards thought
little of the new order to report for work 30 minutes earlier,
and talked about writing a letter to the Company, to be
signed by all of them, in protest . Wright testified he drafted
some paragraphs for such a letter, the various ideas coming
from this or that guard . There came a time, in early March,
when the guards decided not to do this , or anything else
I Like Wright, Patterson also said some of the thoughts lie expressed in
the anonymous letter were those voiced by other guards . Asked to explain
why, unbeknownst to them, he then placed copies in their lockers instead of
just handing the letters to the others , he said : "I wanted to show that there
were some men at least concerned about what was going down there at Del
Webb." I doubt it could be said concerted activities come into being by
such devious action on the part of a single individual seeking to create the
false illusion of joint action.
about the problem, and not to sign any letter of any kind.
Whereupon Wright abandoned the whole idea and did
nothing else . This was the totality of the "concerted"
activity by Wright, which, according to the General
Counsel, constituted the protected or concerted activity for
which he was fired 2 months later.
Patterson , also aware of the widespread feeling of
resentment among the guards , decided to write a letter of
his own . He did, and in it disparaged the Company
generally, far beyond and above the exact complaint about
the alleged impropriety by management in adding unpaid
worktime duty upon the guards . But Patterson did not sign
the letter ; he wrote "ananymous [sic]" at the bottom
instead . He then had copies of the letter made and placed
one in each of about 10 of the individual dressing room
lockers of the other guards . Why he did this is not clear,
but a logical explanation is that this was his way of making
the unsigned letter appear as the "concerted" activity of
the rest of the men. The fact is they had nothing to do with
it.' Because Patterson cannot type, he asked Augustus,
another guard, to type it for him before he had copies
made . Augustus , called by the General Counsel to help
prove the concerted nature of what Patterson did, testified
that while he agreed with Patterson's views, he asked
Patterson at the time "not to mention my name . . . I
didn't want anybody to think I took part ... I didn't want
anything to do with it."
Some of the copies found their way into the hands of
supervisors . Patterson said the letter was spread about
early in March , and that a day or two later Clarence
Miller, his supervisor, asked did he know anything about it.
He denied any knowledge . There was no further talk of this
letter between Patterson and any representative of manage-
ment for over a month, until, when late in April, he
volunteered the information himself that he had written it.
In the interval a number of other things happened.
A copy of the letter also reached Gary Crockett, director
of security and top supervisor over all guards . Crockett
admitted at the hearing he had heard the rumor that
Wright intended to write a letter of complaint and
therefore assumed he had written this one. He testified he
telephoned Wright at home on March 14 to ask had he
written it; as Crockett read part of the letter on the
telephone Wright denied having had anything to do with it.
I rather believe Wright's statement that the supervisor was
upset and angry, and that he said he did not agree with the
charge of "dictatorship" spelled out in the letter . But I do
not credit Wright's further testimony that after his telling
Crockett he had not written the letter , and did not know
who had written it, Crockett said he would make it his
business to find out, and when he did "we're going to have
a little talk, and most likely you won't be working here any
more." Why would Crockett threaten to discharge Wright
immediately after learning he was not responsible for the
In his brief the General Counsel argues that the employees carried on
their concerted activity in this "cumbersome" manner because they knew
the Respondent's "mentality" was such that it would surely have retaliated
against them otherwise . There is no evidence of employer intent to
intimidate before the anonymous letter , certainly no indication of adverse
mentality before anything happened or came to its attention . This kind of
inverse reasoning to prove that the individual act was concerted and not
individual leaves much to be desired as a matter of logic.
DEL E. WEBB REALTY AND MGT. CO. 595
letter? Crockett denied any threats of reprisals, and I
believe him . Wright even added that after his protestation
of innocence , the supervisor "became friendly" and
suggested the two have a talk sometime . Wright, too, had
no further conversations with members of management
about any letter until the end of April.
B. The May 5 Incident; Discharges
The precipitating cause for the two discharges came on
May 5. At 5 a.m. that day Wright, on duty, went to the
dispatcher's office, where a number of supervising televi-
sion cameras are located, as well as telecommunication
equipment . Wilbert Walker, the dispatcher, was there; he
gets about in a wheelchair for he is unable to walk. He
asked Wright to watch the equipment while he went to the
restroom . Wright related at the hearing how, because he
was bored , he decided to send a false and confusing
message to the guard room ; he whistled into the intercom,
knowing this would send a number of guards scurring
about the premises to check on possible danger some-
where, and that they would be frustrated in their activity.
In a little while Patterson , also on duty, entered the room,
asking what had happened. Wright explained and the two
thought it a great joke, even decided to do it again. Walker
returned, learned what they were about to do, and several
times told them to stop it, not to do it again . They called
him a spoil sport, ignored his directive , and whistled again
into the intercom . The same thing happened again with the
other guards.
As it happened, every sound that goes into the
communication system is recorded on tape, and an inquiry
came from one of the major tenants in the large complex, a
company that has its own security guards but whose
electronic system is tied to that of this Respondent.
Eventually top management got a full report and on
Tuesday, May 7, Wright and Patterson were discharged.
It was Clarence Miller, their immediate supervisor, who
told them of the discharge , while reading from a directive
to that effect he had received from the top supervisor,
Crockett. The letter is in evidence and details first the May
5 incident of misconduct , and then notes also that the two
men had received below standard performance evaluations
on May 1. And in order to lift that reference , innocuous on
its face, to the level of proof of illegal motivation, the
General Counsel goes back to earlier ambiguous conversa-
tions which he calls sufficient to establish that in fact the
reason for the below standard evaluations in each case was
once again the two letters , one never written and the other
never signed . He asks for one inference that the men were
marked down in evaluation as retaliation for such
concerted activities , and a second inference on top of the
first, that the reference to the substandard evaluation in
May was oblique admission of the same pervasive
animosity.
C. The Month of April
In keeping with established company practice, a supervi-
sor talked to both Patterson and Wright at the end of April
in connection with the annual evaluations . In the latter
part of the month Patterson also had several conversations
with Crockett about his job performance and another with
a man name Orson Myers , a gentleman whom he called his
"Godfather," or family friend, and who had by his good
offices helped him get the job in the first place.
For 2 weeks in early April all guards attended a training
school full-time during the day, where there were visiting
lecturers in the field of security. In connection with his
talk, one of the teachers passed out a series of 11 double
photos of suspected shoplifters, with detailed information
about their last known addresses, automobiles used,
reported activities, and criminal records. While the lecturer
spoke, Patterson marked the pictures with offensive, street
gutter language made to appear as emerging from the
mouths of the suspected persons. He left the exhibits on his
table in the room at the end of the period, as he was not
supposed to do, because they might fall into the wrong
hands. Another speaker, James Risinger, many years a
police officer and alcoholism programs director for the
State of Kansas, lectured on alcohol and related problems.
He testified that Patterson several times disrupted the class
by speaking loudly to other guards and diverting their
attention from the subject at hand.
There is also a rule against drinking on the premises
applicable to all' guards. On one occasion Patterson lined
up a number of beer cans atop the men's lockers, one can
still with cold beer. Once , during a recess in the training
course, Patterson invited Crockett to a private talk outside
to discuss with him "problems on the third shift." Among
other things he said: "The best thing I can say about
Clarence Miller [his supervisor ] is that he's a no-good son-
of-a-bitch," because he checked on the men too closely.
This is from Crockett's testimony. Patterson said he did not
quite put it that way . In almost incoherent, rambling
language while testifying , he said : "I didn't call Clarence
S.O.B. That was quoted by - I quoted that by one of the
fellows on my shift. I was trying to make things better
down there is what I was trying to do." At another point
Patterson testified he told Crockett some one else had
called Miller "a no-good son-of-a-bitch."
Apparently Crockett alerted Myers to whatever prob-
lems he felt existed with respect to Patterson . Myers is
assistant to the president of Crown Center Redevelopment
Corporation, the Company which owns the realty and
which contracted with the Respondent to do the security
work. Part of his duties are to check on the adequacy of the
security performance. It will be recalled he had recom-
mended Patterson for employment . Sage, a higher supervi-
sor, told Patterson to go talk with Myers, and on April 19
he did so. Among the papers in a folder in front of Myers
were the shoplifter mug photos Patterson had marked up.
In fatherly fashion the older man said he was disappointed
and told Patterson that calling his superior an "s.o.b." was
not proper behavior for a man seeking to hold a position of
responsibility. Patterson responded that he did think just
that of Miller, and that other guards felt the same. Myers
then showed Patterson the shoplifter photos, indicating he
did not expect such behavior of the younger man.
Patterson's comment to this was that he had done a foolish
thing for entertainment. Continuing his testimony as to this
conversation , Myers said Patterson volunteered the in-
formation he had written a certain anonymous letter and
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was going to confess to Crockett about it, and then asked
did Myers have a copy of it. At this point, still according to
Myers, he drew a copy of the letter from the folder in front
of him, and then Patterson commented on it in detail
reference, saying certain items were true and others false.
In his direct testimony Patterson attempted to create the
impression Myers first started talking about his letter,
telling him he was being "corrupted" by Wright by reason
of the letter-writing business. This was one of the parts of
his testimony that detracted from Patterson's credibility in
this case.2 Later, on cross-examination, the admitted it was
he who had brought up the subject of the letter, and that
Myers did not talk about it.
Patterson then did go to Crockett, and had several
private talks with him before the May 5 incident in the
dispatcher's office. His testimony as to these conversations
is very confused, both as to how many times he talked to
the supervisor and as to exactly what words were used. It is
clear he started by telling Crockett he had written the
anonymous letter; he also said Crockett conceded he knew
that. This must be true, because Crockett did not deny it,
and because Myers explained he had received his copy
weeks before the interview with the young man and had
received the impression from Crockett that Crockett did
know who had written it. Perhaps because he is a more
experienced and more articulate man, and perhaps because
he was more candid, Crockett was very clear in his
testimony. One thing emerges without doubt; Patterson
said Crockett made very clear the guard was through, he
definitely was going to be fired, but Crockett directly
denied having said that.
In any event, Crockett laid out all the complaints he had
received - the business of the beer cans, the advice from
Risinger about disrupting the class, a report by another
instructor of Patterson disputing the correctness of the
lecturer's views, and the matter of the offensive writings on
the shoplifter pictures. Crockett said he deemed this a
serious business , that Patterson was a round peg in a
square hole, and that it would be best if he sought work
elsewhere . Crockett also said he did not want to hurt the
man, that if he left voluntarily he would give him a good
letter of recommendation, but that in the end he, Crockett,
"would probably have to do something ." I credit his
statement at the hearing that he did not say he was going to
fire the man.3
The fact remains no one came near him again, and
nothing was done about him until May 7, by which time he
had given the Company good cause to discharge him
entirely apart from any concerted, or not concerted
activities.
D. Analysis and Conclusion
I find the total evidence insufficient to support the
allegation Patterson and Wright were illegally discharged
2 From Patterson's testimony:
He mentioned the fact there was another fellow worker with me
named Doug Wright, and he says, "Gary Crockett told me that Doug
Wright was a bad influence on me," and I said, "Well, just what do you
mean by that?" He says, "Well, is Doug Wright corrupting you," and I
said, "I'm not sure what you mean . Doug Wright's a good man," and
then the letter was before him. He said - well, he didn' t state - he
and shall therefore recommend dismissal of the complaint.
On April 30 Supervisor Miller discussed with them their
annual evaluations; they had each been marked "fair team
worker" under an item called "team work," and "needs
improvement" under "assignment acceptance," but rated
satisfactory in all other respects. Both men questioned the
two pinpointed ratings, and while both testified about these
talks, Miller was not called to testify by the Respondent.
According to Wright, Miller told him the "assignment
acceptance" criticism "had to do with a certain letter
writing incident." Wright then protested he had not done
so, and the supervisor came back with "Well, you did write
a letter, didn't you?" Wright said he had "started to" and
Miller then said "that's what I'm talking about." With this
Miller left it with the phrase "we don't see eye to eye on
things." When Patterson asked why he had been marked
low, Miller explained it meant "ability of the worker to
accept the policies of the management" and "Due to this
letter, you surely can't be getting along with everybody."
Patterson had previously already told Miller he had written
the anonymous letter. At the final discharge conversation,
where it was again Supervisor Miller who did the talking to
the men, there was also a reference to letter writing.
Wright's testimony is that after Miller had finished
explaining the two reasons for dismissal - the telecommu-
nication incident and the poor evaluations - he, Wright,
asked was there any other reason, and Miller said: "Well,
with your poor attitude and your involvement in certain
letter writing incident, coupled with the poor ratings,
should be reason enough." And it is true Miller, like
Crockett, had heard a rumor that at one time at least
Wright was supposed to be drafting a letter of complaint
for multiple signatures.
The foregoing conversations represent the best evidence
in support of the complaint. And it does amount to some
indication that management thought less of the two men
because it knew in the case of Patterson, and suspected in
the case of Wright, that they had in some manner leaned
towards trying to change conditions of employment. This
evidence must be weighed against all other which tends to
weaken the complaint inference of unlawful intent in the
discharges.
To start with, a fording that the men were acting together
with other guards would be very difficult to make. See
Maietta Trucking Company, 194 NLRB 794 (1971). It is
true that at the start others egged Wright on to draft a
letter intended to present group demands upon the
Company. But it is no less true the group disassociated
itself from the activity before any kind of action came to
management's attention . The decision by all of them not to
sign anything, indeed to stop whatever they had for a while
intended, strongly supports this conclusion. The anony-
mous letter repeatedly speaks in the first person, and time
and again thereafter Patterson told one supervisor after
another he had not been acting on behalf of anyone else,
didn't state , but it was implied that he was referring, I felt , to the letter
in front of him.
3 Towards the end of his story , Patterson said that after the talks "I
wasn't sure. I was up in the air," on whether his job was or was not still
secure . His investigation affidavit contains the following statements: "At
this point I did not know whether I was working until May 10 , or not. My
employment was up in the air as far as I was concerned."
DEL E. WEBB REALTY AND MGT. CO. 597
that he had acted alone. The fact he stuffed copies of his
letter into the personal belongings of the other guards
hardly serves to make them coconspirators. At one point
he admitted he was "representing the feelings of all the
officers." But see Mushroom Transportation v. N.L.R.B.,
330 F.2d 683 (C.A. 3, 1964).
Did the managers nevertheless believe, even if erroneous-
ly, that the two men were spokesmen for the rest? At one of
the day training classes mentioned above, Crockett spoke
to the group, referred contemptuously to the anonymous
letter as he read from it, and revealed his irritation. There
is no reason to infer from this that he believed they were all
together behind it. Not knowing which guard had written
it, what could he do but talk to them all? And it certainly
can also be said Crockett was irritated towards Patterson,
after learning he had written the one letter, and even
towards Wright at the rumor of his being involved. The
General Counsel would add to this indirect evidence of
illegal motivation of the next month, the further fact that
on April 1 the Respondent changed the system and
resolved the excessive thefts problem in another way, with
all guards reverting to only 8 hours of work each shift.
Does the fact he did a favor for them all of necessity mean
he also knew they were engaged in concerted activity as
defined in the Act? If only these facts were considered,
really out of context, as it were, perhaps an unfair labor
practice finding could be reached. Compare, Henning and
Cheadle, Inc., 212 NLRB 776 (1974).
But there are other questions to be considered. If
Crockett was really determined to discharge Patterson in
April, whatever his reason, why did he not do so? And even
with respect to his various talks with the man in April -
those now said to show how important the anonymous
letter was to the chief - it must be remembered it was
Patterson who invited every meeting; Crockett never called
him in for anything. Even accepting the fact the head
supervisor knew who had written it, he made no move at
all about the letter; Patterson just felt he wanted to inform
the boss. Nor did the "godfather," Myers, speak of the
letter to Patterson until the employee himself bought up
the subject .4 But all of this is strong indication that
whatever management may have thought of the letter, it
was a minor consideration in its appraisal of the man.
The next step is the evaluation procedures. That there
was solid reason for marking Patterson down cannot be
disputed. He had misbehaved in more than one way before
the ratings were made . And even Wright admitted he
argued with the lecturer at the training school, hardly
commendable conduct. The variable norms listed for
evaluation purposes are of necessity stated in general terms
and cannot be considered definitive evidence of specific
criticism. If then, in the end, Crockett, in his summary of
basis for discharge in May, made reference to the below
standard reports, it may as well be his thinking was general
than pinpointed, as the complaint would have it.
But most important of all is the May 5 incident. The
guards at this location all become commissioned officers of
the Kansas City Police Department; they all carry guns.
How serious an offense is it to jest with false alarms when
young men as a result are scattered into the empty caverns
of so large a structure as the Crown Center at night? Both
Crockett and Myers called such behavior evidence of
immaturity; they were right. About 2 months had passed
since the letter, or letters, activity; everything that had
given rise to them had been solved and concluded.
Crockett said it had nothing to do with his discharge
decision. I am convinced neither man would have been
dismissed but for the May 5 incident.
Throughout the testimony of Patterson and Wright, as
well as in the General Counsel's brief, there runs a
continuous current of presumptions, retroactive opinions
of evil intent in management representatives. Repeatedly
the thought is expressed that if the employees did not
actually engage in concerted activity it was because they
knew the Company would retaliate with reprisals, or it was
"because of the atmosphere." The two men's denials of
responsibility to members of management must be taken
with a grain of salt, it is said, because they were behaving
"prudently." From the brief: ". . . the intent and precision
of the security operation unleashed against the letter
writers was anticipated by the guards and is the only
record factor which dissuaded them from straight forward-
ly taking their complaint to management." These state-
ments not only prove nothing, but also put a bad light on
the testimony generally. Unfair labor practices must be
proved by affirmative evidence, not by artfully articulated
presumptions.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
4 In his brief the General Counsel blandly suggests that Patterson's direct
testimony that it was he who first spoke of the letter to Myers, and that it
was he who dreamed up the idea he should inform Crockett about it, be
totally ignored . He suggested, instead, a contrary finding : that Myers first
confronted Patterson with the letter, and that it was Myers who instructed
Patterson to go to Crockett and confess The fact the General Counsel also
writes he is "reluctant to suggest" such a fanciful "scenario," makes it no
less imaginary.