Jeffries Truck Parts and Equipment, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 147 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

JEFFRIES TRUCK PARTS AND EQUIPMENT, INC.
Jeffries Truck Parts and Equipment, Inc. and
Roadway Equipment Sales , Inc. and Teamsters
Automotive Workers, Local 495, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases
21-CA-12103 and 21-RC-13359
January 15, 1975
DECISION, ORDER, DIRECTION, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On March 8, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Herman Corenman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and an answering
brief.
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, as modified
herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) when Ed Jeffries
remarked to William F. Matters, 2 weeks after the
election , that he was willing to spend $20,000 to keep
the Union out. Respondent contends that the remark
was not coercive, nor was it considered coercive of
employees' Section 7 rights, and it is protected free
speech under Section 8(c). Member Penello joins
Member Kennedy in finding merit in Respondent's
contention that such remark was not violative of
Section 8(a)(1).
Neither the General Counsel nor the Administra-
tive Law Judge cites precedent for finding such
statement unlawful. An employer may oppose his
employees' union activity and may spend whatever
sums he deems advisable in doing so. We fail to see
how the announcement, unaccompanied by threats
that the expenditures will be used to finance
unlawful activities, infringes upon employees' Sec-
I Acting Chairman Fanning finds , in agreement with the Administrative
Law Judge , that Respondent's announcement of its willingness to spend
$20,000 to keep the Union out violated Sec. 8 (aX1). In doing so, he notes
that such remark was not isolated , and must be weighed in the context of
Respondent 's other conduct , found unlawful herein , including interroga-
tion, and threats of layoff if the Union came in. Considered in the light of
these unlawful statements , Acting Chairman Fanning finds that the
announcement that Respondent was ready and willing to spend the
substantial sum of $20,000 to keep the Union out tended to demonstrate to
147
tion 7 rights. Accordingly, we find contrary to the
Administrative Law Judge that the remark in
question did not violate Section 8(a)(1).1
However, unlike our dissenting colleague, we
affirm the Administrative Law Judge's findings that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when
Ed Jeffries interrogated Roger Price in the Bell Pines
Restaurant as to Price's knowledge of the Union's
organizational activities and his attitudes with
respect thereto, and threatened that if the Union
came in there would be layoffs with Price, the newest
man, being the first to go, and when Ed Jeffries later
remarked to Price, subsequent to Price's filing of
unfair labor practice charges, that, had he known
Price felt like that, Price would never have been
working that long.
Though Jeffries denied the first conversation with
Price, the Administrative Law Judge credited Price
because he had placed the conversation as of the
time the Union had filed a petition for an election
with the Board. We perceive nothing in the record to
warrant reversal of that credibility finding.2 Thus,
Jeffries' remarks, as related by Price, revealed a
degree of knowledge of union organizational activi-
ties such as would have been obtained through
receipt of a copy of the petition (filed on August 14)
and the Union's bargaining demand 1 day earlier. In
these circumstances, we perceive no error in the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that the state-
ments made, according to Price in mid-August,
occurred during the critical period prior to the
election, and together with Jeffries' later statement to
Price on September 6 constituted objectionable
conduct affecting the election.
Thus, Jeffries' interrogation of Price as to his union
activities, his knowledge of the union activities of
other employees, and the threat that if the Union
came in there would be layoffs, with Price the newest
man being the first to go, could have no other effect
than to tend to restrain and coerce Price from
supporting the Union thus interfering generally with
employees exercise of Section 7 rights. Clearly, such
conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Nor was that Jeffries' only statement of a willing-
ness to discriminate against employees for their
union activity. He later commented to Price on
September 6, upon learning that Price believed he
had been laid off for union activity, "Well, I'll be
employees that their organizational activities would be met by whatever
action Respondent deemed necessary to thwart their desires . So viewed, the
remark in question was an open attempt to discourage union activity. Cf.
Charlena Lobtanco, an Individual, d/b/a Lob/'s Cafeteria, 187 NLRB 420
(1970).
2 Indeed Respondent has not taken express exception to the Administra-
tive Law Judge 's finding of fact that the conversation occurred as testified
to by Price, though it does take exception to the Administrative Law Judge's
analysis and conclusions with respect thereto.
216 NLRB No. 26
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
goddammed. I never would have believed that in my
life. If I had known that, you never would have been
working here this long." That statement carried the
clear implication that it was only his lack of
knowledge of union activities by Price that enabled
Price to work as long as he had. Although, as our
dissenting colleague finds, the remark may well have
been "impelled by his anger at Price for accusing him
of unlawful discrimination ," in circumstances where
the charge was not true, it can hardly be said to have
been "no more than an expression of disbelief that
Price could believe that Respondent would discrimi-
nate against Price."3 [Emphasis supplied.] In effect,
Jeffries, while denying discrimination in fact, reem-
phasized his earlier stated readiness to discriminate
in the right circumstances. Considering this remark
in the light of Jeffries' earlier unlawful interrogation
of Price and his threats to retaliate against employees
if the Union were successful, we are satisfied that the
Administrative Law Judge properly found that
Jeffries' statement on September 6 violated Section
8(a)(1).
As the record shows that Respondent engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) during the
critical preelection period, and that such conduct was
not isolated or remote and could reasonably have an
impact on the outcome of the election, particularly
here, where there was a close election in which eight
employees voted-three votes were cast for the
Petitioner, three votes were cast against the Petition-
er, and two votes were challenged-we find that
Respondent's conduct interfered with the election
and thus may warrant our setting such election aside.
However, the record also shows that, with respect
to the two challenged ballots, the Board agent's
challenge of the ballot of Price was sustained because
Price was not an employee and therefore not eligible
to vote on the date of the election, and the Petitioner
withdrew its challenge to the ballot of Smithgall.
Thus, the revised tally of ballots in the election now
shows that only the challenged ballot of Smithgall
remains to be opened and counted. In order that
Petitioner not be penalized as a result of Respon-
dent's wrongdoing, we shall direct a new election
only if the ballot of Smithgall, upon being opened
and counted , is a vote against the Petitioner. On the
other hand, if Smithgall's ballot indicates that he
voted for the Petitioner, the result would be 7 votes
for the Petitioner and 6 against, and the Petitioner
should be certified as the representative of the
employees.
Accordingly, we shall direct that the challenged
ballot of Smithgall be opened and counted and, if the
Petitioner then has a majority of the valid votes cast,
3 There is no inconsistency in the General Counsel's refusal to issue a
complaint on the basis of Price's charge of unlawful discrimination, and his
that the Petitioner be certified as the bargaining
representative for the employees in the appropriate
unit. However, if the revised tally of ballots shows
that the Petitioner has not received a majority of the
valid votes cast we shall order that the election be set
aside and direct that a new election be conducted.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for the Administrative
Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 3:
"3. By interrogating employees concerning the
identity of union activists and by threatening
employees with layoffs and other reprisals in connec-
tion with their union activities, the Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
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 as
modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Jeffries Truck Parts and Equipment, Inc., and
Roadway Equipment Sales, Inc., Bell, California, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order, as modified herein:
Delete from paragraph 1 the following words: "or
threatening to expend large sums of money to
prevent unionization of their employees."
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
Region 21 shall, pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, open and count the ballot of Herman Loyd
Smithgall and thereafter prepare and cause to be
served on the parties a revised tally of ballots,
including therein the count of said ballot. In the
event that the revised tally of ballots shows that the
Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots
cast, the Regional Director shall issue the appropri-
ate certification of representative . However, in the
event the revised tally of ballots shows that the
Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid
ballots cast, the following shall be applicable.
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that the election conduct-
alleging that Jeffries' statement was an independent 8(aXl) violation.
JEFFRIES TRUCK PARTS AND EQUIPMENT, INC.
ed herein on October 26, 1973, be, and it hereby is,
set aside.
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
A second election by secret ballot shall be
conducted among the employees in the unit found
appropriate, at such time as the Regional Director
deems appropriate. The Regional Director for
Region 21 shall direct and supervise the election,
subject to the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Eligible to
vote are those in the unit who were employed during
the payroll period immediately preceding the date of
issuance of the Notice of Second Election, including
employees who did not work during that period
because they were ill, on vacation, or temporarily
laid off. Also eligible are employees engaged in an
economic strike which commenced less than 12
months before the election date and who retained
their status as such during the eligibility period and
their replacements. Those in the military services of
the United States may vote if they appear in person
at the polls. Ineligible to vote are employees who
have quit or been discharged for cause since the
designated payroll period and employees engaged in
a strike who have been discharged for cause since the
commencement thereof, and who have not been
rehired or reinstated before the election date, and
employees engaged in an economic strike which
commenced more than 12 months before the election
date and who have been permanently replaced.4
Those eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to
be represented for collective-bargaining purposes by
Teamsters Automotive Workers, Local 495, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America.
MEMBER KENNEDY, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I concur with Member Penello in dismissing the
allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act when Respondent's vice president, Ed
Jeffries, told an employee that Respondent was
willing to spend $20,000 to keep the Union out.
Unlike the majority, however, I find that the
Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respon-
dent's other conduct herein is grounds for setting
aside the election is unsupported by the evidence.
The representation petition in this case was filed on
August 14. The election was held October 26. The
4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966); N.LRB. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.,
394 U.S. 759 ( 1969). Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election
eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
149
Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent's
vice president, Ed Jeffries, interrogated employee
Price about his union activities in a restaurant in
mid-August. Because Price testified that Jeffries said
at this time that "you got a letter from the Union
today or in the last day or so, that the Union wanted
to come in," the Administrative Law Judge conclud-
ed that this interrogation occurred during the critical
preelection period. Price makes no claim that Jeffries
referred to a letter being sent to the Employer. There
is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in this record as
to when Respondent received the petition. The
Administrative Law Judge's inference is unsupported
by the record.
The majority adopts the Administrative Law
Judge's inference because Jeffries' mid-August re-
marks "revealed a degree of knowledge of union
organizational activities such as would have been
obtained through receipt of a copy of the petition
.. . and the Union's bargaining demand one day
earlier." The majority fails to say what "degree"
Jeffries' knowledge had reached. The fallacy is self-
evident, since that general knowledge evident here
could have been obtained in any number of ways
which would warrant an equally valid inference that
the remarks occurred outside the critical period.
Furthermore, the election was not held until October
26 and, in view of the isolated nature of the
conversation in a social setting, I find it too remote
for it to be reasonably expected to have had an
impact sufficient to warrant setting aside the elec-
tion.
The majority also relies on Ed Jeffries' later remark
to Price as a basis for setting aside the election. That
remark is the basis of the remaining 8(a)(1) violation
found by the Administrative Law Judge, and the
majority finds that it interfered with the election. I do
not agree.
This finding by the Administrative Law Judge and
the majority is contrary to the preponderance of the
evidence. Respondent's president, Ray Jeffries, and
employee Price were good social friends. Price was
laid off on September 4. On September 5, the Union
filed a charge with the Board alleging that Price was
discriminatorily discharged. That charge was served
on September 6. Later that day Price came to the
plant. When Ray Jeffries asked Price if Price thought
he had been laid off for his union activities, Price
answered yes. Ray Jeffries replied, "Well, I never
would believe that in my life." As the Administrative
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 21
within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by
the Regional Director. The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Law Judge also found , when Ed Jeffries heard Price's
statement he also expressed disbelief , and added that
"If I had known that you never would have been
working here this long." The General Counsel, as the
Administrative Law Judge found , subsequently
dismissed the Union 's charge that Price's layoff
violated Section 8(aX3). The remark itself is clearly
no more than an expression of disbelief that Price
could believe that Respondent would discriminate
against Price . The General Counsel obviously did not
construe the remark as evidence that the discharge of
Price was discriminatorily motivated . I find it clear
that Respondent 's remarks to Price were precisely
what they appear to be on their face-an expression
of disbelief in Price 's assertion that he had been
discriminated against.
The majority, in its analysis of the impact of Ed
Jeffries' statement , lifts it completely out of its
context . Ray Jeffries was "surprised" that his
supposed friend , Price, would file a charge against
Jeffries alleging that Jeffries had laid off Price in
violation of Federal law. In this connection, Ray
Jeffries' testimony was that when he walked into the
lobby and saw Price talking to his secretary on
September 6 (after Respondent had been served with
the charge), "He [Price] was there and talking to
Barbara and I was a little upset about it." This
testimony of Ray Jeffries lies squarely within his
other testimony describing his distress over Price's
accusation of discrimination . The record is clear that
this was what "upset" Ray Jeffries and Ed Jeffries
and was the reason for their displeasure with Price.
The Administrative Law Judge 's actual description
of Ed Jeffries' remark is without evidential support.
The Administrative Law Judge found , and I quote,
"I further find that Ed Jeffries' remark to Roger
Price on September 6, 1973 at the Respondents' place
of business that if he had known that Price was active
for the Union he `never would have been working
here this long,' violated Section 8 (axl) of the Act."
But there simply is no evidence to support that part
of the finding which is emphasized. Price 's credited
testimony is that immediately after Ray Jeffries had
turned away from him:
Mr. Ed Jeffries came charging out of his
office and he said, "You what?"
And I said, "Ed, Ray asked me to tell him the
truth and I told him the truth and, yes, I do
believe that I was laid off because of my union
activities."
And he said, "Well, I'll be goddamned . I never
would have believed that in my life. If I had
known that you never would have been working
here this long."
The context makes clear that Ed Jeffries' remark was
impelled by his anger at Price for accusing him of
unlawful discrimination.
For these reasons, I would dismiss the complaint's
allegations discussed above and would proceed to
dispose of the challenged ballots. Having done so, I
would certify the results of the election or the
representative, as appropriate.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Administrative Law Judge: The
hearing in this proceeding was held on February 11, 1974,
at Los Angeles, California, on a complaint of the General
Counsel against Jeffries Truck Parts and Equipment, Inc.,
and Roadway Equipment Sales, Inc., herein jointly called
the Respondents . The complaint, issued on November 21,
1973, pursuant to charges and amended charges filed by
the Union on September 5, October 9 and 11, 1973, alleges
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Respondents ' answer to the complaint denies having
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. On December 26, 1973, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 21 of the Board consolidated for
hearing with the unfair labor practice case, the issues
presented by the Union's objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election held on October 26, 1973, and its
challenge to the ballot of Herman Loyd Smithgall in Case
21-RC-13359. The objections to election filed by the
Union coincide with the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
introduce evidence , to examine and cross-examine witness-
es, and to argue orally on the record. Counsel for the
General Counsel elected to argue orally on the record and
waived her right to file a brief . The Union made no
physical appearance on the record, but withdrew its
challenge to the ballot of Herman Loyd Smithgall. A brief
filed by the Respondent has been carefully considered
together with the oral argument by counsel for the General
Counsel. Upon the entire record and from my observation
of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The parties stipulated and agreed, and I find, that
Jeffries Truck Parts and Equipment, Inc., is a California
corporation engaged in the We of truck parts and
equipment . Roadway Equipment Sales, Inc., is a California
corporation engaged in the sale of hydraulic jacks, tires,
and pneumatic tools . Respondent Jeffries and Respondent
Roadway, herein collectively called Respondents, with
their principal places of business located at 5412 East Gage
Avenue, Bell, California, have common offices, ownership,
directors, and operators , and a common labor relations
policy. During the past calendar year, Respondents, in the
normal course and conduct of their business operations,
described above in the aggregate, purchased goods from
JEFFRIES TRUCK PARTS AND EQUIPMENT, INC.
suppliers located outside the State of California valued in
excess of $50,000. I find that the Respondents at all times
material herein have been and are an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties have stipulated and I find that Teamsters
Automotive Workers, Local 495, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, herein called the Union, is an organization
admitting employees to membership and which exists, at
least in part, for the purpose of dealing with employers
concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of
employment , and is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Roger Price was employed as a counterman by the
Respondents from May 1973 to September 4, 1973, when
he was laid off . He cast a challenged ballot in the Board
election conducted on October 24, 1973, and the challenge
made by the Board agent was sustained . He has not been
recalled by the Respondent since his September 4, 1973,
layoff, and he is currently employed elsewhere. The Union
had filed a petition for an election in Case 21-RC-13359
on August 14, 1973. About this date in mid-August 1973,
while Price was having lunch in a restaurant called Bell
Pines, with the manager of one of the Respondents, Mr. Ed
Jeffries , Respondents' vice president , entered the restau-
rant , ordered his lunch, and then turned to Price and said,
"Do you know anything about the Union?" Price replied,
"No, I don't." Jeffries then said, "You got a letter from the
Union today or in the last day or so, that the Union
wanted to come in ." Jeffries asked Price what he thought
about the Union. Price replied that he did not like the
Union, that the Union had only taken his money and not
helped him in any way. Jeffries then said , "Well, there are
some people trying to get the Union in. Do you have any
idea who it might be or anything?" Price replied , "No." Ed
Jeffries told Price, "You know, if the Union comes in, then
we are going to have to lay people off," and he said further,
"You are .the newest man there , so you'd be the first one to
9
0.991
Following Price's layoff on September 4, 1973, the Union
filed a charge with the Region 21 of the Board on
September 5, 1973, alleging that the Respondents had
discriminatorily discharged Price because of his union
activities . This charge was served by registered mail on
September 5, 1973, and delivered to the Respondent,
September 6, 1973. On this date of September 6, Price
came to the Respondent 's place of business to pick up his
1 Ed Jeffries, while conceding that he has been eating in this restaurant
for 10 to 15 years , and has had many conversations with almost all of his
employees while eating in the restaurant , nevertheless, testified contrary to
Price's testimony that "There was no conversation with Roger Price." In
view of the fact that this conversation ensued at the time that the Union had
filed its petition for an election August 14, 1973, with the Region 21 of the
Board, I credit Price's testimony that there was such a conversation with Ed
Jeffries.
151
bicycle and to give the bookkeeper and secretary his new
address. While there in the reception lobby, talking to the
secretary, Mr. Ray Jeffries, Respondents' president, came
in and asked Price, "Do you think we laid you off because
of your union activities?" Price answered, "Well, Ray-
mond, to tell you the truth, yes, I do." Jeffries replied,
"Well, I never would believe that in my life."2 Price
credibly testified that Respondents' vice president, Ed
Jeffries, then came charging out of his office and said,
"You what?" and Price replied, "Ed, Ray asked me to tell
him the truth, and I told him the truth, and, yes, I do
believe that I was laid off because of my union activities."
Ed Jeffries then said, according to Price's credible and
uncontradicted testimony, "Well, I'll be goddamned. I
never would have believed that in my life. If I had known
that, you never would have been working here this long."
Price then turned to the secretary and said, "Barbara, I can
see I better leave at this time," and he left .3
William F. Matters was formerly employed by the
Respondents for 5-1/2 years as a pickup and delivery
driver. He left his employment on November 28, 1973,
because of a heart attack. At the time of the hearing, he
was unemployed. He was the union observer at the Board
election held on October 26, 1973. The election results were
inconclusive, three voting for the Union, three against the
Union, with two challenged ballots. The Union filed
objections to Employer's conduct affecting the results of
the election. Objection 4 of the Union's objections recited
that the Employer prominently displayed a rifle on the day
of the election in the area selected for balloting, thereby
threatening and coercing employees in the exercise of their
vote. The Board Regional Director overruled this Objec-
tion 4, finding that this gun was an antique, 1895 octagon-
barreled Winchester rifle, which Raymond Jeffries stored
in the corner of his office and was being retained as
security for a debt, and the gun would be returned to the
customer once payment is made by him.
Employee Matters testified that about 2 weeks after the
election, and presumably after the Respondent had
received a copy of the Union's Objection to Election, Ed
Jeffries approached Matters, according to Matters' credi-
ble testimony, and told him "that he thought the Union
was putting pressure on him about the guns in the building
and he asked me if I saw any guns around the voting
booth." Matters replied that he hadn't seen any guns
around the voting booth. Matters said that the only gun he
saw was the gun in the office where the ballots were
counted. Matters testified further that Ed Jeffries men-
tioned that he had won the election and "he wants us all to
pull together with him and Ray for the Company to make
money again, and if this didn't happen, he would have to
do something about it." Matters replied, "If this meant
firing me, okay." Jeffries then said, according to Matters'
testimony, "We haven't forgotten what you did for the
2 Mr. Ray Jeffries testified that when he asked Price , "Do you really
think that I lard you off because I thought you were involved in union
activities," Price answered , "Raymond, I really do," but also said, "I hate
Umons."
3 The charge alleging that Price 's layoff violated Section 8 (aX3) of the
Act was dismissed by the Region 21 on November 20, 1973, and the
dismissal upheld on appeal on December 18, 1973.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company." According to Matters' uncontradicted testimo-
ny, Jeffries told him that he was willing to spend $20,000 to
keep the Union out.
Called as a witness for the Respondent , Ed Jeffries
testified that he received a letter from the National Labor
Relations Board stating that there was a gun on the
premises . Because Matters had acted as the union observer
at the election , he approached Matters at his work place
and told him he had received a letter and wanted to know
if Matters had seen a gun in the voting area . According to
Jeffries' credible testimony, Matters replied, "No, I did
not, and I will swear to that, Ed."
A. The Objections to the Election
A hearing was ordered on the Union's Objections 1 and
3 to employer conduct affecting the results of the election.
The objections are as follows:
1. Objection 1
The Employer coercively interrogated employees con-
cerning their union activities and the union activities of
other employees.
2. Objection 3
The Employer threatened employees with reprisals in
connection with their union activities and sympathies.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
I have credited the testimony of former employee Roger
Price concerning his conversations with Respondents' vice
president, Ed Jeffries , in the Bell Pines Restaurant. I find
that Jeffries ' remarks made on that occasion constituted
illegal interrogation concerning the identity of the union
activists ; and also constituted a threat that there would be
layoffs if a union came in , all in violation of Section 8(aXl)
of the Act . I also find that these coercive remarks were
made after the Union's petition for election had been filed
on August 14, 1973. This fact was established by Ed
Jeffries' remark to Price concerning his knowledge that
there was a "letter from the Union today or in the last day
or so that the Union wanted to come in ," and Price's
testimony that this conversation in the Bell Pines Restau-
rant occurred in mid-August . I find that these remarks
made by Ed Jeffries to Price not only constitute unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1 ) but also
support the Union's Objections 1 and 3 , and are sufficient
to overturn the election results . I also find that Ed Jeffries'
remark to William F. Matters 2 weeks after the election
that he was willing to spend $20,000 to keep the Union out
coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights to organize and join unions, and therefore
violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act. I further find that Ed
Jeffries' remark to Roger Price on September 6, 1973, at
the Respondents' place of business that if he had known
that Price was active for the Union he "never would have
been working here this long," violated Section 8(a)(1) of
4 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.
the Act. Although Price was in a layoff status at the time,
he nevertheless was entitled to the protection of Section 7
of the Act as any employee. See, e .g., Phelps Dodge
Corporation v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 177 (1941). Section
8(a)(1) conduct a fortiori is conduct which interferes with
the election. Dal-Tex Optical, 137 NLRB 1782, 1786-87
(1962).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondents described in section I, 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
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(aXl)
of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondents cease
and desist therefrom and from in any other manner
infringing upon its employees ' Section 7 rights, and that it
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire records in the case, I reach the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning the identity
of union activists and by threatening employees with
layoffs and other reprisals in connection with their union
activities and by threatening to spend large sums of money
to prevent unionization, the Respondents have interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and have
thereby engaged in , and are engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(aXl) 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:
ORDER4
Respondents, their officers , agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from coercively interrogating
employees concerning union activities or the identity of
union activists, or threatening layoffs or other reprisals
against employees who engage in union activities, or
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.
JEFFRIES TRUCK PARTS AND EQUIPMENT, INC.
threatening to expend large sums of money to prevent
unionization of their employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their plant in Bell, California , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of the notice
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being duly signed by the Respondents, shall be posted
by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and
be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are
not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
(c) The October 26, 1973, election shall be set aside and a
new election held at such time in the future within the
sound discretion of the Regional Director.
5 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
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.""
APPENDIX
153
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with respect
to their union activities or the identity of union
activists, or threaten layoffs or other reprisals against
employees for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization , to form, join, or
assist Teamsters Automotive Workers Local 495,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right is affected by the proviso to
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
JEFFRIES TRUCK PARTS AND
EQUIPMENT, INC.; AND
ROADWAY EQUIPMENT
SALES, INC.