Federal Collectors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 944 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Central Credit Collection Control Corp . d/b/a Federal
Collectors and Office and Professional Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local No.
23. Case 19-CA-5724
February 20, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On August 22, 1972, Administrative Law Judge*
George H. O'Brien issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
Respondent filed a brief in support of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision.
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
and to adopt his recommended Order.
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 Central Credit Collection Control
Corp. d/b/a Federal Collectors, Tacoma, Washing-
ton, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
' The title of "Trial Examiner " was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN , Trial Examiner: On June 20
through June 23 and on July 6, 1972, in Tacoma,
Washington , a hearing was held in the above -entitled
matter. The complaint, issued April 20, 1972, is based on a
charge filed March 20, 1972, by Office and Professional
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local
No. 23, herein called the Union. The complaint alleges in
material substance that Central Credit Collection Control
Corp. d/b/a Federal Collectors, herein called Respondent,
interfered with its employees ' right to self-organization and
sought to discourage membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union by a program of harassment, including
coercive interrogation , threats of reprisal , surveillance and
I The General Counsel's posthearing motion to correct the transcript is
granted.
2 Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
restrictions on normal conversation . The complaint further
alleges that Respondent's acts of harassment , restraint, and
coercion were intended to and did cause the resignation of
Union adherents , Nancy Webb Crosby, Joanne Fowlkes,
and Cathy Sonntag, and that Respondent thereby con-
structively discharged these employees in violation of
Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On the third day of the
instant hearing (June 22, 1972) the complaint was amended
to allege that General Counsel's witnesses, Cathy Sonntaa
and Barbara Jensen , had been that morning, constructively
discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the
Act.
Upon the entire record 1 in this proceeding , including my
observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the post hearing briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , with its office in Tacoma , is a collection
agency, licensed and regulated by the State of Washington.
Respondent annually receives in excess of $50,000 for
services rendered to users, each of which meets a
jurisdictional standard of the N .L.R.B. other than the
indirect inflow and other than the indirect outflow
standard . Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act , and its business meets the indirect
outflow jurisdictional standard described in Siemons
Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is an organization in which employees
participate and which deals with employers concerning
wages, hours , and other conditions of employment.
Respondent is therefore a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.2
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Setting
Respondent's founder and president is Ernie Roberts.
His wife, Barbara Roberts, is vice president and assistant
bookkeeper. The chief bookkeeper, Nancy Abelson works
only 2 days a week. Joan Zimmerman is treasurer and legal
secretary. Jerry Hall is manager. The total employee
complement is about 23 and is comprised of salesmen,
collectors, and about 14 clericals, most of whom are very
young women. In 1958 Roberts announced a rule that his
employees should not fraternize after working hours, after
the relations between a married collector and a young
clerical had resulted in the divorce and departure of the
former. In January 1972 some of Respondent's employees
discussed, in a nearby tavern, a repossession case which
had become "rather sticky." Roberts at a specially called
meeting in early February announced:
General Counsel had not shown compliance by the Union with the filing
and reporting requirements of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act. This motion was denied.
201 NLRB No. 142
FEDERAL COLLECTORS
At no time at no place, to no one, shall anybody discuss
company business, customers, debtors, or any informa-
tion with regard to the company, outside of the
company office. When you go outside the company
office at night, lock the door on company business.
You don't discuss it with your fellow employees even if
you ride home with them. You don't discuss it with
anyone, your husband or anyone else because this is
confidential information.
Barbara Roberts testified that Respondent's was a "very
rough business", and that "We get threatened to be shot,
threatened in many ways." Mr. Roberts also testified that
he received many threats. For this reason collectors use
pseudonyms in business, and have unlisted telephone
numbers in their homes.
Collectors are paid commission and rely heavily on the
telephone. Because they might be tempted to overstep
limits set by the Washington licensing authority or the
Federal Communications Commission, Respondent, in
September 1970, installed monitoring equipment which
permitted any telephone conversation to be recorded at
any time. Roberts obtained from each employee written
authorization to have his or her calls monitored. Between
the fall of 1971 and March 20, 1972, the business greatly
expanded, monitoring was neglected, and newly hired
employees were not asked to sign monitoring forms.
B. Sequence of Events 3
Mrs. Cathy Sonntag, 20 years old, was hired in
November 1971, at $325 per month. On January 1, 1972,
she was made assistant bookkeeper, at $350 per month,
with the responsibility of recording all collections daily,
and recording the time of all employees. On February 15
her salary was raised to $375 and Roberts promised that as
soon as she could perform her job, error free,4 she would
be raised to $400 per month.
Mrs. Sonntag's husband, Bryan, is a student at the
University of Puget Sound majoring in physical education.
Mrs. Sonntag and 7 or 8 of her fellow workers decided to
form a girls' softball team, which Bryan agreed to coach.
Mrs. Sonntag, in late February 1972 asked Roberts to be
the sponsor of the team. Roberts refused, reiterated his
nonfraternization rule, and stated that he would not even
permit the women to have the team without his sponsor-
ship.
When Mrs. Sonntag reported this fact to her husband, he
and Dale Jensen, husband of receptionist Barbara Jensen,
called on February 28 at the office of the Union and
questioned its secretary-treasurer, Kerschner. Two or three
days later, they returned and were informed by Kerschner
that he would require a list of employees. Mrs. Sonntag
prepared a list of the names of 14 women and current
addresses for 11 of the 14. Opposite the names of Irene
Sharsl, Joan Zimmerman, and Nancy Abelson, she wrote
"Don't mail to." This list was delivered to Kerschner by
Mr. Sonntag. Shortly thereafter both Sonntags and both
Jensens called on Kerschner, and Mrs. Sonntag told him
that letters should not be mailed to Anne Titsworth, Sandy
3 All dates are 1972 unless otherwise noted.
4 Sonntag continued to make serious errors in her daily posting through
945
Reynolds, or Jan Mallow, i.e. only eight of the employees
should receive letters from the Union. These were the same
women who had agreed to form a softball team.
Under date of March 6, 1972, Kerschner, disregarding
Mrs. Sonntag's oral instructions mailed a form letter to all
I I women for whom he had addresses, enclosing a return
envelope with an authorization for representation form.
When one of these was shown to Roberts by an
unidentified recipient, he "laughed at it because it was kind
of a farce the way it was worded."
On March 15, Kerschner mailed a second letter stating:
We received an excellent response from our first
mailing and now have almost enough "Authorization
Forms" to petition the National Labor Relations Board
for a secret ballot election.
The letter then recited the many benefits of union
representation.
On Friday, March 17, Mary Orris entered Roberts' office
and in the presence of Mrs. Roberts, asked whether he had
her new address, since she had recently moved. When he
replied in the negative, Miss Orris wrote down her new
address and gave it to Mrs. Roberts who then left the
office. Orris' purpose in making this inquiry was to learn
how the Union had obtained her new address. Roberts
asked who did have her address and Orris replied, Cathy
Sonntag and Nancy Fowlkes, and added that either
Fowlkes or Sonntag must have given it to the Union.
Roberts then left his office and Orris telephoned the
Union , using Roberts' telephone. When a secretarial voice
answered she asked for Kerschner, and stated that she was
calling to find out how the Union got her address. On
being informed that Kerschner was out she said she would
call back. Orris then reported to Roberts that she had
made the call, and its negative result.
As Orris passed Fowlkes' desk on her return to work she
announced that she had called the Union, asked how it had
obtained her address, and that the Union would not tell
her. She told Fowlkes that the Union had told her how
many girls had sent their cards in and that the conversation
might have been recorded.
On Friday afternoon, March 17, Roberts called a
meeting of all of his employees. He read the Union's
March 15 letter aloud to the assembly. He asked all those
who had received the letter in the mail to raise their hands.
Eight women raised their hands. Roberts then asked:
How many of you people want a union? I mean, do you
want a union here? If you want a union here I'm all for
it. Let's have a union . . . . But let's not have a half-
way union or a partial union and the rest of us not be
union. Either let's all be union or not, what do you
want . Tell me-hold up your hands , tell me what you
want.
No hand was raised. Roberts, before dismissing the
meeting, announced that every employee should bring to
him on Monday, all the communications which he or she
had received from the Union. Following the meeting on
Friday, and continuing on Monday morning Roberts
called his employees individually to his private office.
Roberts testified:
at least, March 16.
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I thought they were afraid to talk in front of each other
so I called them into my office and talked to them
individually . . . and asked them if they did want to go
union. Two or three of them indicated that they did.
Most of them indicated that they wouldn't even work
for me if I went union. . . . In view of the fact that all
the employees had not had an opportunity to have an
authorization form I asked them to bring in the copies
of this stuff so I could prepare an authorization form
for every employee . . . if they wanted a union I was
for it. There were only 8 of our people out of 20 some
that got union forms. Therefore we would have to make
copies to give the other employees the opportunity to
vote with the 8 that got the copies. . . . I told them if
they ever lied to me they would be fired because an
employee that lies to me would steal from me and I
handle too much money that belongs to other people to
have anybody that would lie. Anybody that tells the
truth has no fear in our operation, that I would
definitely say.
Mrs. Sonntag was interrogated by Roberts in the
presence of Mrs. Roberts, Hall, and Miss Orris. In answer
to his inquiries she replied that she had obtained Miss
Orris' address for the ball team, and had taken the list to
the Metropolitan Park Board and left it there. In response
to direct inquiries, she denied that she had started the
Union and denied that she had sent an authorization form
to the Union. She was reminded by Roberts that anyone
who lied to him would be fired, and told to be sure to bring
in, on Monday, all correspondence from the Union.
Mrs. Jensen was also interrogated on Friday. She
admitted receiving a letter from the Union but denied
returning a signed authorization form.
Mrs. Nancy Crosby was interrogated on Friday in the
presence of Mrs. Roberts and Hall. She answered that she
did not know whether or not she was for or against the
Union, and denied that she had sent in an authorization
form. She was reminded that she should bring in all union
correspondence on Monday.
At 8:30 a.m. (starting time) on Monday morning, March
20, Joanne Fowlkes was interrogated by Roberts. When
she admitted that she had returned a signed authorization
to the Union she was commended for her honesty and
assured that she would not be fired. Roberts remarked that
he knew that three people had sent in authorizations, yet
Fowlkes was the only one who had admitted doing so.
Roberts asked if she knew who had started the Union.
Fowlkes replied that she did know but she would not tell
him.5
Fowlkes was in charge of the mail desk. In the course of
her duties she passed by Mrs. Sonntag's desk and, stopping
briefly, said: "Don't say anything to Roberts".
Roberts, observing the two together, inquired in a loud
accusative tone, "What is this conversation about?" Mrs.
I Fowlkes' testified that Roberts also said.
The whole thing would come to a vote and in order to eliminate my
vote he would eliminate me and hire me back after everything was over
is specifically rejected
6 I have credited the testimony of Richard Sonntag that he telephoned
Cathy about 10 a.m or shortly after, and credited her testimony that she
was observed by Roberts I have credited Fowlkes' testimony that she
confessed to Roberts at 8 30 a m I have credited Roberts' testimony that he
Sonntag answered, "It is none of your business." Roberts
replied, "Everything that happens in this office between
8:30 and 5:30 is my business, and I don't want you ever to
forget that"
Shortly thereafter Mrs. Sonntag entered Roberts' office,
gave him the letters she had received from the Union and
told him that she had sent in a signed authorization form.
Roberts thanked her for telling him, added that he already
knew that she had sent in the authorization, and stated his
belief that the Sonntags and Mrs. Jensen were "behind the
union organization." Mrs. Sonntag admitted the fact.
On Monday morning Mrs. Jensen gave Roberts her
copies of the two Union letters and, in an attempt to
deceive him, a blank authorization form. Roberts, holding
the form in his hand, and staring in her eyes asked if she
had sent in a signed authorization, with the repeated
reminder that if she lied to him she would be fired. Mrs.
Jensen capitulated and admitted that she had sent one in.
Roberts asked if she had started the Union, and she replied
that she had not.
It was about 10 a.m. on Monday when Mrs. Crosby was
called to Roberts' office. She told him that she did not have
the union letters, because they had been thrown out. She
was asked whether she was for the Union and replied that
she did not know. She was asked if she had started the
Union and replied, "not directly." She was asked whether
Sonntag and Jensen had started it and replied that she was
not sure. She was reminded that if she lied to him she
would be fired.
Shortly after 10 a.m. Monday, Fowlkes, in the course of
her duties entered the private office of one of the
collectors, Tom Melvin, who had worked for Respondent
only since February 2, 1972. Melvin asked what was going
on in Roberts' office and Fowlkes replied that it had to do
with the Union. She added that she was going to come
back after lunch and tell Roberts that she was quitting her
job.
Melvin lost no time in reporting to Hall that Fowlkes
"was going to walk out at lunchtime and not come back."
Hall, in turn, told Roberts that Fowlkes was going to walk
out, and Roberts inferred that her close friend, Crosby
would too. At about the same time Roberts observed
Sonntag on the telephone.
Roberts, shortly thereafter, distributed new telephone
monitoring forms6 to every person in the office, because:
I had heard at least one or more of my employees was
going to walk out at lunch time and I wanted to
determine, if possible, if there was going to be more
than one walk out at lunchtime and not come back. I
wanted to know if I would have an office running that
afternoon or not.
Ten or fifteen minutes later, at about 10:30 a.m. when he
collected the signed monitoring forms, he noted that
neither Fowlkes nor Crosby had signed. When he inquired
picked up the monitoring forms at 10 30 a in and his further testimony that
these forms were distributed and retrieved within half an hour after they
were dictated . This requires me to discredit Roberts ' testimony that the
forms were dictated at 9: 10 a m . and to discredit the testimony of Melvin
that his conversation with Fowlkes took place between 8 : 30 and 9 a.m
Fowlkes placed the conversation with Melvin between 10 a in and 10.15
a in This is the only time which is consistent with Roberts' subsequent
actions
FEDERAL COLLECTORS 947
the reason, each replied that she did not use the telephone.
Roberts then stated that this bordered on insubordination,
and asked Fowlkes whether it was true that she planned to
walk out at noon. Following Fowlkes' affirmative reply
Crosby said, "If she goes, I go too." Roberts then stated,
"Here isn't the place to discuss it" and asked them to come
into his office. There in the presence of Hall, Roberts asked
why they were quitting, and the only reply he received was
"personal reasons" and "Too much pressure." Roberts told
them he did not want them to quit and urged them to
return to work. When they persisted in their refusal,
Roberts asked Hall to bring in additional witnesses
because "it looked like a cooked up arrangement." In the
presence of collectors Don Pollack, and Tom Melvin, and
clerk Anne Titsworth, Roberts repeated his request that the
two women return to work, and repeatedly assured them
that they were not being fired. Fowlkes and Crosby in the
presence of these witnesses acknowledged that they were
not being fired and repeated their determination to quit.
As Fowlkes and Crosby passed Sonntag's desk on the
way out of the office she said, "I'll be out in a couple of
minutes." When Sonntag joined the others on the street she
was reminded that she had said nothing to Roberts. She
returned to the office, told Hall to tell Roberts she was
quitting,7 and the three women then went to the union
office.
Immediately after Mrs. Sonntag walked out, Mrs. Jensen
walked up to Roberts' desk and in the presence of Hall
announced: "I demand a raise, or I am quitting." Roberts
replied that if her work improved by the end of March, she
could have a raise retroactive to March 15. If her work did
not improve she would be discharged.8
When Roberts observed Sonntag on the telephone
shortly after 10 a.m. she was talking to her brother-in-law,
City Councilman Richard Sonntag. She had told him that
she was going to quit her job, and he had urged her not to
be hasty, and to talk to him at the City Hall, (directly
across the street from Respondent's office) at her lunch
hour. She kept this appointment and brought with her,
Fowlkes, Crosby, and Kerschner. Her husband, Bryan, had
also been called to the City Hall by his brother. At this
meeting Mrs. Sonntag was persuaded that she should ask
Roberts to take her back to work. Kerschner then drove to
Seattle where he filed the charge giving rise to the instant
proceeding.
About 1:30 p.m. on Monday, March 20, Mrs. Sonntag
was received by Roberts in his office. She apologized for
telling Roberts that her conversation with Fowlkes was
"none of his business." She said she was sorry she quit, and
Roberts said he was sorry too. She said that "this whole
thing" was her husband's fault, that her husband had taken
7 Cathy Sonntag, on March 20, was under intense emotional strain and
her recollection of the day's events is badly scrambled Richard Sonntag
described her condition.
From her voice [on the telephone 1 it was obvious that she was in tears
or crying . . . she stated to me that she had been crying and upset for
about an hour While her testimony is honest , I am convinced that her
description of a second interview with Roberts on the morning of
March 20 is the product of a confused memory. In this connection I
credit the testimony of Hall that when Sonntag returned to the office
with the intention of telling Roberts that she was quitting, Roberts was
absent and she left without seeing him.
8 On April 1, Mrs. Jensen did receive the promised retroactive increase
the list of names and started the union thing. Roberts
answered, "I don't care about all the union thing. That
doesn't bother me. The only thing I don't like is your
husband interfering in company business."
Mrs. Sonntag said she would like to have her job back,
because her husband was not working and they needed the
money to put him through college . Roberts answered, "I
will be glad to take you back but it will depend entirely
about your husband's attitude about you working here.
The only way I will know that for sure is if Mr. Sonntag
talks to me and I have an opportunity to see what he has in
his eyes." 9
At 4 p.m. Bryan Sonntag was received by Roberts and
Hall. Mr. Sonntag convinced Roberts that he really wanted
his wife to return to work. Roberts explained that Mrs.
Sonntag's job had been assigned to Anne Titsworth, who
had started to work for Respondent January 31, and who
had prior bookkeeping training . Mrs. Sonntag's job would
therefore be that of head of the mail department, the
position vacated by Fowlkes, at no reduction in pay. Mr.
Sonntag accepted this condition.
Mrs. Sonntag returned to work on March 21.
On March 22, Kerschner mailed a third letter, announc-
ing that three workers had been coerced into quitting, that
unfair labor practice charges had been filed and urging
employees to sign authorization forms.
On Tuesday, March 28, at one of his regular bimonthly
meetings, Roberts read the Union's letter of March 22. He
told the employees that the Union was promising benefits
which it could not grant. He stated that if the office went
union, salaries would revert to the minimum union scale
and bargaining would proceed "from scratch." Roberts did
not then know what the union scale was, but assumed that
it was lower than what he was paying.
Complaint issued on April 20. The Answer filed May 2
denied the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint.
On June 8, Respondent received in the mail a subpoena
duces tecum issued at the request of the General Counsel
requiring Respondent to produce at the hearing:
All bills, receipts, invoices, accounting books and
ledgers, recapitulation records and other books and
records showing total amounts of renumeration re-
ceived from sales , services, commissions and other
transactions with all customers located outside the state
of Washington, together with the names of said
customers and amounts of business with each; and
from all customers located within the state of Washing-
ton, together with the names of said customers and the
amounts of business with each, during the period
commencing January, 1970 to the date of hearing.10
On the same date, Roberts received calls from a number
9 Roberts can tell , by looking in a man 's eyes , whether he is really
sincere.
iU The subpena which issued June 7, contained no "in lieu" clause.
Respondent's petition to revoke was received in the Regional Office on June
9 The General Counsel filed an answer to the petition to revoke on June 13.
On the same date the Regional Director mailed to the Associate Chief Trial
Examiner in San Francisco an Order referring the petition and answer to
him for ruling Since neither the subpoena nor its text was submitted, the
Associate Chief denied the petition without prejudice. On June 20 1 revoked
the herein quoted paragraph of the subpoena . Respondent thereafter
amended its answer to admit the jurisdictional facts and conclusion set forth
in the complaint.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of his clients , advising him that they had received
subpoenas requiring them to bring to the hearing their
books and records.
On June 9, Roberts called Mrs . Sonntag to his office.
After telling her that she did not have to answer any
questions if she did not want to , he inquired whether she
had given out the names of his customers . Mrs. Sonntag
answered that she had given the names of customers to
counsel for the General Counsel , Leslie Waite. When
reminded that this was a violation of company rules, and
that she could be discharged for this infraction , she replied,
"I felt they could subpoena the records anyway , so that is
why I didn't see any reason not to give them out." Roberts
then instructed her to compile the records described in the
subpoena which had been served upon Respondent.
Although protesting that this was impossible , Mrs. Sonntag
on every working day from June 9 through June 19
devoted full time to removing files and records from the
cabinets and stacking them on tables in the mailroom. She
resented this assignment and voiced this resentment to
Roberts and to her fellow employees.
Business meetings of the entire staff are held about twice
a month on Tuesday mornings between 8:20 and 8 : 30 a.m.
Sonntag and Jensen were 5 minutes late for the June 13
meeting and were publicly reminded by Roberts that they
should be on time for the next one . At the meeting Roberts
announced that June production was running 15 percent
behind the May total of $60 ,000 gross . He announced that
if production did not improve it would be necessary to roll
back some recent merit raises . He stated that this drop in
business , which might have been caused by the disclosure
of client's names , and the expense of defending against the
Union's charges would preclude the immediate installation
of air conditioning equipment . He added that it was a
shame that some people might lose their jobs because of a
"stupid baseball game.""
At the opening of the hearing , June 20, the complaint
was orally amended to allege as additional unfair labor
practices , Respondent 's acts and conduct on June 9 and
June 13 , above described , and a further incident on June
19.12
On June 21 , Cathy Sonntag and Barbara Jensen testified
as witnesses for the General Counsel. On June 22 Jensen
resumed her work as receptionist at 8:30 a .m.13 Sonntag,
when she was assigned the task of accumulating the
materials called for in the General Counsel 's subpoena had
been replaced on the mail desk by Chris Seal. When
Sonntag reported for work at about 8 : 20 a.m. Seal was at
the mail desk . Sonntag therefore approached Roberts and
asked what she was supposed to do . Roberts replied that
she should ask Mr . Hall. A few moments later Hall arrived
and there was a brief discussion between Roberts and Hall
in the presence of Sonntag and Sandy Reynolds . Hall said
he wanted Sonntag back on the mail desk. Roberts said he
did not want Sonntag in any position which involved any
responsibility. Sandy Reynolds volunteered that there
Ii Production did improve and Respondent grossed $56.000 in June
12 No evidence was tendered concerning any specific occurrence on June
19.
13 Shortly before 8 . 30, Jensen heard Roberts tell Collector John
Faulkner some of the witnesses were "actually lying ." Jensen shared this
opinion and had expressed her resentment by defamatory and insulting
would be work for Sonntag in the legal department.
Roberts, Hall, and Reynolds then retired to Roberts ' office
for a private conference, while Sonntag waited. There
Roberts capitulated to Hall and agreed that Sonntag
should again be responsible for the mail. Reynolds, who
had been excused from the conference before the decision
was reached , told Sonntag that she should see Mr. Hall.
The door to Roberts' office was open and he observed
two recently hired employees in animated conversation. He
called out: "Marcy and Shirley would you come back here
for me." With the door still open , Roberts said that he had
seen them talking, and that they were not to discuss
anything except office business . A moment later , Jensen,
who was the only other "front office" employee completed
a telephone conversation and approached Roberts' office.
She had heard him call , and understood that he wanted to
talk to all the women in the front office.
Roberts said , "As long as you are here , step right in, you
can hear the rules too. Everybody in the office is going to
hear them." Moments later, Sonntag, pursuant to Rey-
nolds' instructions, appeared at the door and said she had
to see Mr. Hall . Roberts said, "As long as you are here step
inside and I'll repeat what I have said . We are going to be
posting these rules and I just want to be real sure that
everybody in the office knows the rules so there will be no
mistake." Roberts then outlined the rules that he intended
to post that morning, and dismissed the group.
Hall took Sonntag back to the mail desk and told her
that she would continue to be in charge of the mail. At the
same time he transferred Seal to the legal department. Hall
then dictated to Zimmerman the following rules:
1. There will be no talking allowed in this office
during business hours, except that which has to do with
business.
2. There will be no personal calls allowed , except
those of an emergency nature.
3. Everyone will be at their desk at 8 : 30 and ready for
work, there will be no exceptions.
4. At 10:15 the early lunch hour half of the office will
break for a 10 minute break . At 10:25 the late lunch
hour half of the office will break for a 10 minute break.
The same procedure will be followed at 3:15 and 3:25.
5. There will be no coffee or food at your desk.
Roberts called the entire staff together , and Zimmerman
read the rules from her shorthand notes . 14 The time was
then 8 : 55 a.m . and Roberts and Hall left for the hearing,
scheduled to resume at 9 a.m.
About half an hour later Jensen walked back and laid on
Sonntag 's desk a note which she described as stating:
I was tired of all the crap that was going on and I was
going to quit . I asked her if she felt the same way.
Sonntag walked the note back to Jensen after writing on its
face in red ink the word "yes". A few minutes later, after a
brief verbal conference, Sonntag told Collector Don
Pollack that she was quitting and asked him to convey this
message to Roberts. While she was talking to Pollack they
comments addressed to Mary Orris and Ethelmae Warren.
i4 Roberts' explanatory remarks , as reported by Sonntag and Jensen
were consonant with his expressed desire to maintain order in the office and
did not interfere with, restrain or coerce any employee in the exercise of any
Sec. 7 right.
FEDERAL COLLECTORS 949
were joined by Jensen and Mrs . Roberts . Sonntag
announced that the way things were going and the way she
was treated was just too much to take . Jensen said , "Mat
goes for me too." Jensen and Sonntag then left the office.
C. Concluding Findings
1. By Roberts' group interrogation on March 17, 1972,
without any legitimate business purpose , Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By Roberts ' individual interrogation of employees
on March 17 and March 18, 1972, without any legitimate
business purpose, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
3. By Roberts' statement that union representation
would result in reversion of all salaries to minimum union
scale, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Roberts' statements that he knew who had started
the Union, that he knew how many employees had
received union letters, that he knew how many employees
had returned authorization cards created the impression of
surveillance. Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. The distribution of telephone monitoring forms for
the purpose of ascertaining how many employees intended
to walk out at noon created the impression of surveillance.
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, but
only because he did not state, at the same time , any of his
legitimate reasons for requiring these forms.
6. Respondent's prohibition of any discussion of
company business on employee 's nonworking time consti-
tutes an unlawful restriction on the right to self-organiza-
tion, and in its present form is violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
7. Mrs. Roberts did not make the remark attributed to
her by Fowlkes. I specifically reject Fowlkes' testimony
that she answered "yes" to a direct inquiry by Mr. Roberts
at the March 17 meeting, "Do you want to join the
Union?" and that Mrs. Roberts then said: "You'll be
fired." This portion of Fowlkes' testimony, uncorroborated
in any part, and denied by Mrs. Roberts can only be the
product of imagination or suggestion.
8. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by any act or statement of Jerry Hall. The statement
attributed to him by Mrs. Sonntag, is ambiguous in
content, and was not recalled by the other party to the
conversation , Barbara Jensen.
9. By announcing and posting rules on June 22,
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
rules governing attendance , talking during business hours,
and use of the telephone were not new. The grant of
coffeebreaks was required by a state law of which Roberts
was previously ignorant . The prohibition of coffee drinking
during working hours was a reasonable concomitant, and
Roberts' remark, "That's the way the Union wants it," is
no more than confirmation of his union animus.
10. Respondent upon receiving notice from his custom-
ers that they had been served with subpena, duces tecum,
had a legitimate business interest in ascertaining who had
divulged the names of the customers . The conduct of the
General Counsel in soliciting these names from Cathy
Sonntag, when he had the statutory right by proper
subpoena to obtain the information from Respondent,
compelled Mrs . Sonntag to violate a specific condition of
her employment . Respondent's interrogation , under these
circumstances did not violate Section 8(ax1) of the Act.
11. An employer constructively discharges an employee
in violation of the Act where , for discriminatory reasons, he
makes the employee 's conditions of work so intolerable or
undesirable that he is thereby forced to quit his job. The
pivotal factor is motive . Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 160
NLRB 1729, 1742.
Where there is no direct evidence of motive, the
presumption that "a man is held to intend the foreseeable
consequences of his conduct " will supply that lack. Here, it
is readily inferable that Roberts intended by his coercive
interrogation, and by his demand for telephone authoriza-
tions to compel the resignation of union advocates. Each
employee questioned was compelled to state, under threat
of discharge whether he or she favored union representa-
tion, and whether he or she had signed a union authoriza-
tion. While assured that there would be no reprisals if they
told the truth , the accusative tone of the questioning made
it clear to each employee that an affirmative answer to
either question would be displeasing to the boss . Jensen
and Sonntag lied to Roberts . Crosby equivocated, and
Roberts found her "I don't know," infuriating. The
precipitate and unexplained demand for monitoring forms,
following the confessions of Jensen , Sonntag, and Fowlkes
and the equivocation of Crosby, was a convincing
demonstration to the four that they had no future with
Respondent.
The resignation of Sonntag, Fowlkes, and Crosby on
March 20, 1972, was directly caused by Roberts' unlawful
interrogation, and was precipitated by his demand that
they sign telephone monitoring forms . The fact that all
other employees were subjected to the same abuse, and
required to sign the same form is immaterial . Zinke's
Foods, Inc., 185 NLRB No. 109.
The presumption that Roberts intended by his conduct
to force the resignation of union adherents is, however,
rebuttable, and the record contains clear, direct, and
positive evidence that Roberts did not intend to force any
employee to quit his or her employment. Roberts repeated-
ly urged Fowlkes and Crosby to remain at work, and each
adamantly refused . Roberts capitulated to Jensen 's ultima-
tum and persuaded her to remain with an increase in pay.
Roberts reemployed 15 Sonntag without attaching any
unlawful condition. He wanted her to be a happy employee
and knew that she would not be happy if her husband
disapproved of her place of employment.
This case presents the common situation where an
employer's unfair labor practice is designed to thwart its
employees' union activity while retaining them as employ-
ees. In such circumstances, voluntary abandonment of
1 Sonntag having quit voluntarily , Respondent was under no obligation Titsworth, with prior bookkeeping training had been hired one month after
to return her to the same job. Her assignment to the mail desk , without the initial assignment of Sonntag. The mail desk to which she was assigned
reduction in pay, was justified by business considerations. She had on March 21 was an equally important and responsible position.
continued to make serious errors after receiving her February 15 raise.
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment is not a constructive discharge. Chem-Spray
Filling Corp., 176 NLRB 754, and cases cited and discussed
at pp. 755-756.
12. There is no evidence that Respondent committed
any unfair labor practice on June 22, 1972, or that either
Sonntag or Jensen was subjected to discriminatory treat-
ment on that date.
13. Sonntag, Fowlkes, and Crosby resigned voluntarily
on March 20, 1972, and were not constructively dis-
charged.
14. Sonntag and Jensen resigned voluntarily on June
22, 1972, and were not constructively discharged.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, as set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
states and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices. It will therefore be recom-
mended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the recommended Order
below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since Respondent's president on the witness stand
testified with apparent sincerity that he had not "coerced"
any employee, it is evident that he misunderstands the
meaning of the word. It is therefore appropriate, proper,
and necessary that Respondent be prohibited from
engaging in any interrogation of employees concerning
their union or concerted activities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Central Credit Collection Control Corp. d/b/a
Federal Collectors, Respondent herein , is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Office and Professional Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local No. 23 is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union membership, activities, and sentiments, by
creating the impression that it was engaged in surveillance
of the union and concerted activities of its employees, by
threats to reduce salaries, and by rules which prohibit
employees from discussing wages , hours, and other
working conditions on nonwork time , Respondent has
16 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 findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
IT In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not, on this record, engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3)
or 8(aX4) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 16
ORDER
Respondent, Central Credit Collection Control Corp.
d/b/a Federal Collectors , its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning union member-
ship, activities or sentiments.
(b) Creating the impression that Respondent is engaging
in surveillance of the union activities of its employees.
(c) Threatening to reduce salaries as a result of union
representation.
(d) Prohibiting employees from engaging in union or
other concerted activities on nonwork time.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
the above-named Union or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action, necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its office in Tacoma, Washington, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent , shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.18
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
is In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read.
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in wnting, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
FEDERAL COLLECTORS
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found , after a
trial that we violated Federal Law by questioning employ-
ees about their union activities , by creating the impression
that we were spying upon their union activities, by
threatening to reduce salaries and by forbidding employees
to engage in union activities on their own time:
WE WILL NOT threaten to reduce your salaries if you
decide to be represented by a union.
WE WILL NOT question you about your union
membership , activities , or sentiments.
WE WILL NOT spy upon your union activities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce any rule which
interferes with your right, guaranteed by Federal Law
951
to discuss, in or out of the office, during nonwork time,
wages, hours, and working conditions, and to engage in
union or other concerted activities for your mutual aid
and protection.
CENTRAL CREDIT
COLLECTION CONTROL
CORP . D/B/A FEDERAL
COLLECTORS
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material . Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office , 10th Floor, Republic
Building, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,
Telephone 206-442-5692