Milo Brooke Ford

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 692 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.30
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that except as to unfair labor practices hereinabove specifi-
cally found , the complaint herein be dismissed.
30 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT request any employee to report to us the names of any employee
or employees sympathetic to United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, or any subordinate local union thereof, or any other labor
organization seeking to represent our employees.
WE WILL NOT ask applicants for employment how they feel about , or whether
they would vote for, a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization , to form , join, or assist the
above-named , or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
THE SINGER COMPANY, WOOD PRODUCTS DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building, 167 North Main Street , Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone No. 534-
3161.
Milo Brooke Ford and Automobile Salesmen and Miscellaneous
Workers Union , Local No. 192, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-
6723. May 6, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 1, 1965, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision together with supporting
briefs. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
158 NLRB No. 66.
MILO BROOKE FORD 693
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
exceptions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations 1 as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
hereinafter, and orders that the Respondent, Milo Brooke Ford,
Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
so modified.
1. Delete paragraphs 1(a) and 1(c), and substitute therefor the
following paragraphs :
"(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of any
labor organization of its employees by discharging any employee or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment."
"(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization,2 to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
1 On November 5, 1965, Respondent moved to reopen the record for the purpose of taking
additional evidence subsequent to the hearing bearing on the current status of the Charg-
ing Party as a labor organization . As the unfair labor practices found would remain the
same regardless of the present status of the Charging Party, we shall deny the motion
to reopen the record . In addition , for the purposes of our Decision herein, we find it
unnecessary to pass on all the observations of the Trial Examiner in footnote 12. How-
ever, we agree that such cross-examination should be undertaken only after a full review
of the pertinent facts. See Crown Corrugated Container, Inc., 123 NLRB 318, 319, foot-
note 2. The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner erred in not crediting the
testimony of its witnesses . It Is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial
Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant
evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Such a conclusion is not warranted here.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, 545, enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
2 As the record is not clear as to the present name or exact status of the Charging
Party as a labor organization , we have not under the particular facts of this case included
its name in the customary cease-and -desist order.
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959."
2. Delete the first and third indented paragraphs in the Appendix
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and substitute therefor the following
paragraphs:
WVE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf
of any labor organization by discharging any of our employees,
or in any other manner discriminating against our employees
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
IVE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, or to join or assist any labor orga-
nization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
With all parties represented , this proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Max
Rosenberg in Chicago, Illinois, on March 29 and 30, 1965, on the amended complaint
of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and the amended
answer of Milo Brooke Ford, herein called the Respondent .) At issue is whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Joseph Altamore
because he joined and assisted Automobile Salesmen and Miscellaneous Workers
Union, Local No. 192, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , and whether Respondent
independently violated Section 8(a)(1) by other acts and conduct . The parties
waived oral argument at the hearing. Briefs have been received from the General
Counsel and Respondent , which have been duly considered.2
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses , including their
demeanor while testifying on the stand , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent , an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business located in
Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the retail sale of new and used automobiles. During
the annual period material to this proceeding , Respondent , in the course and conduct
of its business, sold and distributed new and used cars, and parts therefor, as well as
other goods and supplies , valued in excess of $500,000, and during the same period
purchased new and used automobiles and parts therefor valued in excess of $50,000,
which were transported directly to Respondent 's place of business in Illinois from
points located outside the State. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
I The complaint , which issued on December IT, 1964, Is based on charges filed on
October 12, 1964.
2 The General Counsel's unopposed - motion to correct the transcript in certain particu-
lars is hereby granted.
MILO BROOKE FORD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
695
Respondent contends that the Union is not a labor organization within the con-
templation of the statute because it does not exist for the purposes enumerated in
Section 2(5) of the Act. Alternatively, Respondent asserts that, even if the Union
is deemed to satisfy the statutory definition of a "labor organization," it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act to proceed in this matter on the ground that the
Union has been placed under trusteeship by the parent International because its
officials have been charged with corruption and financial malpractice , and that the
Union has been ordered by a Federal district court to turn over its books, charter, and
assets to a trustee appointed by the International union and to refrain from organizing
employees or engaging in collective bargaining pending final adjudication of the
aforementioned charges by that tribunal . Merlin Griffith , the secretary-treasurer of
the Union, testified that its membership consists of salesmen who are employed by
approximately 25 to 30 automobile dealers in the Chicago , Illinois, area , that its
members participate in meetings of the Union called for the purpose of discussing the
desired wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment which they seek
to obtain from their employers, and, that the Union has conducted collective-
bargaining negotiations covering these subjects with Station Wagon Sales , Inc., and
McCormick Place Motors, Inc., for employees of these employers for whom the
Union was certified by the Board pursuant to consent elections conducted in Cases
Nos. 13-RC-10240 and 13-RC-10143, respectively."
The foregoing testimony of Griffith stands undenied. However, Respondent
attempted to interrogate Griffith concerning the circumstances under which the Union
came into existence, and the actions, character, and reputation of its officers. Based
on Boaid precedent in this area,4 I foreclosed the questioning of Griffith along these
lines, although I granted Respondent's counsel leave to make a pertinent offer of
proof, which I rejected. In its offer, Respondent asserted that, if permitted to inter-
iogate Griffith and other witnesses, it would thereby demonstrate that the Union came
into being on March 20, 1964, when it obtained a charter from the Distillery, Rectify-
ing, Wine and Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO; that Griffith achieved
the office of secretary-treasurer at a meeting held on April 11, 1964, at which no
individual associated, with the Union's membership was present; that the officers
selected an individual named Adrian Rogers as the president of the Union because of
his reputation for violence in the labor movement; that the officers obtained unsecured
loans from banking institutions, through the good offices of local politicians, which
served as the treasury from which the officers freely withdrew funds for their own
personal use without accounting therefor; that Griffith had been summoned before the
United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities,5 popularly known as
the McClellan Committee, where he testified that he had falsified records dealing with
the payment of pickets for performing picket duties ; that the parent International
union placed the Union under trusteeship because the activities of its officers were
suspect; that the Union failed and refused to comply with the lawful dominium thus
imposed ; that the International brought an action in a Federal district court to enforce
the trusteeship on the Union, and that the court issued a preliminary injunction
against the Union in which it ordered Griffith to deliver forthwith all books, records,
minutes, charter, seals, data, bank accounts, cash, and assets to the trustee duly
imposed on the Union under Section 302 of the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959, and, that the court enjoined the Union from organizing
employees and engaging in collective bargaining pending final adjudication of the
matter.
I am not unsympathetic to Respondent 's entreaty that a union whose officers may
have stolen or misused union funds or betrayed the trust and confidence of the
membership should not be permitted to utilize the processes of an agency of the
U.S. Government to perpetuate those fraudulent activities . But I must be guided by
the Board 's decisions in this area , and that Agency , has declared that:
"In order to be a labor organization under Section 2(5) of the Act, two
things are required : first , it must be an organization in which employees partici-
pate; and second , it must exist for the purpose, in whole or in part , of dealing
"The Union was certified at McCormick Place Motors, Inc, on August 11, 1964, and at
Station Wagon Sales, Inc , on December 14, 1964 It has also obtained a recognition
agreement-from a firm known as Star Pontiac
4 See Herbert Bernstein, etc, a copartnership d/b/a Laura Modes Company , 144 NLRB
1592 ; Alto Plastid Manufacturing Corporation , 136 NLRB 850.
See Hearings , Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management
Field, 445th Cong., 2d sess 12920-12927.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with employers concerning wages, hours, and other terns and conditions of
employment If an organization fulfills these two requirements, the fact that it
is an ineffectual representative , that its contracts do not secure the same gains that
other employees in the area enjoy, that certain of its office rs or representatives
may have criminal records, that there are betrayals of the trust and confidence of
the membership , or that its funds are stolen or misused , cannot affect the conclu-
clusion which the Act then compels us to reach , namely , that the organization is
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act " 6
Based on the undenied testimony of Griffith, I find that the Union exists for the pur-
poses set forth in Section 2(5) of the statute and that the Union is therefore a labor
organization
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The contentions
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent discharged employee Joseph Altamore
because of his activities on behalf of the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act He further contends that Respondent independently violated Section
8(a) (1) by coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union membership,
knowledge , ictivities , and desires , by creating and fostering the impression among its
employees that it was keeping under surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and
activities of the Union , by requesting its employees to furnish Respondent with
copies of statements which they gave to the Board and/or interiogating them with
respect to the contents thereof, and , by interfering with and obstructing an investiga-
tion of the charges in this proceeding by directing its employees to give false and/or
misleading information to Board agents Respondent asserts that Altamore was
discharged because he had a poor sales record and because he devoted too much of
his working time to personal business , and otherwise denies the commission of unfair
labor practices
B The events
In early 1964 the Union embarked on a campaign to organize automobile salesmen
in the Chicago area These activities reached Respondent 's business operations in
May or June 1964 ,7 when two union representatives visited Respondent 's establish-
ment where they distributed union literature and solicited the support of Francis Perl,
a salesman According to Perl , these individuals left their calling card with him in
the event he decided to assist the Union in its endeavors Thereafter, the Union
maintained a picket line at a Johnson Ford automobile agency in Chicago during the
months of September and October
Joseph Altamore was employed by Respondent at the end of June, and was dis-
charged on October 9 Altamore had previously been engaged in the construction
industry as a general contractor and his employment as an automobile salesman with
Respondent, which constituted his maiden voyage in the sale of automobiles, was
occasioned by the fact that he had made business contacts during his self employment
which might redound to the benefit of both Altamore and Respondent Around the
middle of September, Altamore learned from Perl that the latter had been approached
by the Union and, after discussing the matter , Perl gave Altamore the union busi-
ness card which he had received earlier Toward the end of September, Altamore
telephoned the Union 's office and arranged for a meeting with union representatives
on the following day At noon on September 30, during nonworking time, Altamore
visited the union hall and spoke to union officials , Matthew Cecil and Merlin Griffith,
concerning the benefits which the Union sought to achieve for automobile salesmen
At that time Altamore executed a union authorization card and procured additional
cards to be used in soliciting the membership of his fellow employees According to
Altamore , he thereafter successfully solicited Perl, and employees George Keough
and Donald McCall in a restaurant near Respondent's premises , although he spoke to
approximately 12 of the 14 salesmen about joining the Union on or about this date
Between September 30, the day on which he cast his lot with the Union, and October 9,
the date of his discharge , Altamore telephoned the Union to report on the progress
of his organizational efforts, and he had a discussion with union representatives on
an occasion when he passed a picket line which the Union was maintaining at Johnson
Ford
On September 27 or 28 the Union placed an advertisement in a local newspaper
announcing that a meeting was scheduled for the evening of September 30 at which
6 See Alto Plastic Manufacturing Corporation Supra 851-852
7 All dates occurred in 1964
MILO BROOKE FORD 697
the organizational efforts of the Union would be aired, a fact which became common
knowledge among the salesmen and Respondent's officials. Altamore testified that
while he was at work on September 30, he engaged in a conversation with Alfred
Renzetti, Respondent's assistant sales manager, concerning a business matter and the
topic of discussion turned to the union meeting to be held that evening. According
to Altamore, Renzetti remarked that "I hear you are going to the meeting tonight
and that you are going to join the Union." When Altamore denied that he would
be in attendance and inquired as to the source of Renzetti's information, the latter
replied that "I just heard it," and concluded the conversation by stating that "the
Union would never get in here." On the following day Altamore again spoke with
Renzetti at Respondent's place of business and during this conversation Renzetti
stated that "I heard you went to the Union last night and signed up." Altamore replied
that he had not attended the meeting, and asked "What always makes you come up
with the idea about this Union, with me?" Renzetti responded that, "Well, the
Union will never get in, here."
Altamore further testified that he next conversed with Renzetti on October 7 in the
presence of McCall, Perl, and Keough. The discussion opened when Altamore asked
Renzetti, "What is wrong, Al, don't you love me anymore? You have been giving
me the cold shoulder." Renzetti retorted that Altamore was "a trouble maker and
a leader." When Altamore pressed Renzetti to explain this remark, the'latter stated,
"All I can say is you are a troublemaker and a leader. This will all come out in the
wash. And when the truth comes out, I will tell you." Later, on the evening of
October 7, Altamore testified that he had individual conversations with employees
McCall, Perl, and Keough. According to Altamore, McCall walked by and stated that
he had something to say to Altamore. The two men left Respondent's showroom and
turned the corner of the building where McCall warned Altamore that "they were on
to me, that I was the organizer and that he [McCall] had gotten a call from Mr. Vitt
(Respondent's general manager ) and was questioned about me." Shortly thereafter,
Perl approached Altamore and advised the latter that Perl had "gotten a call from
Mr. Vitt, and was questioned about union activities and was questioned about me
[Altamore], that he knew that I was-rather, he knew that I was the organizer or
something." On the same evening, Keough also warned Altamore that Keough had
been questioned by Alfred Renzetti about Altamore and that the Respondent was "on
to" Altamore, a warning which was repeated on the evening of October 8.
Altamore testified that on the morning of October 9 he participated in a discussion
with Carmen Buonauro, Respondent's sales manager, and a representative of the
Ford Motor Company, during which mention was made of the Union's picket line at
the premises of Johnson Ford and its deleterious effect on automobile sales at that
establishment. Buonauro then remarked that "They ought to take all the `God damn
unions' and bomb every last one of them." Following this discussion, Buonauro, Vitt,
and possibly Renzetti, entered the office of Milo Brooke, Respondent's president. A
short time later, Vitt emerged and summoned Altamore into the former's office where
Vitt told Altamore "that he had sad news for me, that he was elected to fire me,,
and that personally, he didn't have anything against me, that he liked me, but
my sales were bad and I was the last man on the totem pole." Altamore complained
that he was not the lowest from the standpoint of sales, and suggested that Vitt consult
Respondent's "totem pole" to assure himself of this fact,8 at which point Vitt changed
tack and stated, "well, in any case, I understand you have been having some financial
difficulties, and you are being bothered by people,down here." Altamore acknowledged
that he was experiencing financial problems which developed out of the failure of his
contracting business, but denied that any of his creditors had ever come to Respond-
ent's premises to press their claims. Vitt then commented that "That is not neither
here nor there, but I don't think you will ever make a car salesman ." Altamore
assured Vitt that the latter was capable of becoming as good a salesman as any other
employee if he obtained more cooperation from Sales Manager Buonauro. Altamore
explained, that, until the beginning of September, Vitt had supervised his work and
the two got along well because Vitt took the time to instruct Altamore in his duties,
but that Buonauro, who succeeded Vitt as Altamore's supervisor, simply ignored
8 By "totem pole," Altamore had apparent reference to a chart which Respondent main-
tained on a monthly basis which indicated the relative standing of the salesmen in relation
to their monthly sales volume. Altamore testified, without contradiction, that he was
halfway down the list for the month of September. Perl testified that, when he looked
at the chart either in August or September,, Altamore's name appeared above Perl's and
other employees. The Respondent offered no testimonial denial of Altamore's and Perl's
assertions in this regard, and Vitt Ignored Altamore's entreaty to check the chart to
ascertain the accuracy of the latter's contention.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Altamore's requests for assistance. Altamore then pointed out to Vitt that the former
had won a prize of $62.50 and received a bonus of $50 for superior sales per-
formance at the end of August; that Vitt had complimented him for doing a good job
as a "beginner"; and, that Renzetti had told Altamore that the former "had a lot of
faith in me and he knew I could be a good salesman." 0 Altamore also testified that,
at no time prior to his discharge on October 9, did any representative of Respondent
indicate to him that Respondent was concerned with individuals "bothering" him
about financial matters while at work or that he would be discharged unless he sold
more automobiles, although Altamore admitted that a few weeks before his discharge,
Buonauro announced at a meeting of all salesmen that they would either have to
increase their volume of sales or their weekly draw would be cut off, and this
admonishment was repeated a week later when Buonauro summoned five or six sales-
men, including Altamore, into his office.10 However, on this occasion, Altamore
pointed out to Buonauro that the former had been devoting a large portion of his
time decorating the showroom and mailing out literature to promote the sale of
new models, and that Vitt had frequently complimented him for these endeavors.
It is undenied that several days after his discharge , Altamore engaged in a conver-
sation with Renzetti in a restaurant near Respondent 's showroom where the former
had gone to solicit the salesmen . During the conversation Altamore asked Renzetti
whether the latter was "mad at me because of this Union thing " and Renzetti replied
in the negative. After Renzetti indicated that he had learned of Altamore's activities
on behalf of the Union "through talk," Renzetti inquired whether Altamore was still
attempting to organize Respondent 's salesmen . When Altamore answered that he
was, Renzetti remarked that the former "would never get the Union in there" and
Renzetti stated that he could not believe it when he heard that Altamore was fostering
the Union because Renzetti "always had a lot of faith" in Altamore and he always
believed that Altamore "would be a very good salesman ." About a week later,
Altamore again spoke to Renzetti and the latter once more told Altamore that "you
will never get the Union in here, nobody wants the Union in here," and that Renzetti
had learned of Altamore's activities on behalf of the Union because "there was a lot
of talking going on."
Francis Pert, a salesman at Respondent's establishment, corroborated Altamore's
testimony that they had discussed the Union's campaign in September and that Pert
gave Altamore the business card which he had received from a union representative.
A few weeks before Altamore's termination, Pert joined the Union at Altamore's
persistent solicitation. After he signed the card, but before Altamore's discharge,
Pert testified, without contradiction, that he received a telephone call while at work
from Robert Vitt , Respondent's general manager . Initially, the conversation dealt
with business matters. However, Vitt then asked Pert, "Have you been approached
by the Union or do you know anything about the Union?" Pert replied that his only
contact with the Union occurred months before when he received a visit from union
representatives and obtained their calling card, but then added that "I think the only
other one they approached was Joe, Joe Altamore. But, I know of no one else."
With this intelligence, Vitt remarked, "Oh, then it is just you and Mr. Altamore.
You say he was approached," and Pert responded, "Yes, I think he was, I don't know."
George Keough, another salesman , testified that during June, July, August, and
September, there was considerable discussion concerning the Union because of the
picket line which was maintained at Johnson Ford. In September he signed a union
authorization card at the solicitation of Altamore. At some date prior to Altamore's
0In its attempt to establish that Altamore had a poor sales record and that this was
a causative factor in his discharge, Respondent claimed that the sum of $62 50, which
Altamore received at the end of July, actually constituted compensation for cork per-
formed for a partial pay period at the end of June, rather than a "prize " In support
of this assertion, Respondent urged that Altamore was hired on June 28 and that the
above-mentioned sum represented his pay for the partial pay period ending on June 30,
at the rate of five-sixths of his weekly draw of $75. While I am willing to accept
Respondent's arithmetic that five-sixths of $75 amounts to $62 50, I am hard pressed
to understand how the Respondent can seriously contend that Altamore's employment
from June 28 to June 30 constitutes five-sixths of a workweek. Accordingly, I accept
Altamore's testimony in this regard and find that he received a "prize" of $62 50 for his
.sales work during the month of July.
10 host of Respondent's salesmen receive a weekly advance or "draw" in the sum of
$75 In the event that their weekly commissions exceed the draw, they receive the
difference as added compensation However, they are allowed to retain the draw if they
earn no commissions during a given week or if the commissions do not equal the draw
MILO BROOKE FORD 699
discharge, Renzetti, Respondent's assistant sales manager, approached Keough and
inquired whether the latter had been invited to join the Union by Altamore and
whether Altamore "was pushing it," to which Keough replied, "not any more than
anyone else was." However, Keough testimonially acknowledged that Altamore
was the only employee who distributed authorization cards and literature among
Respondent's salesmen. On recall to the stand as a witness for Respondent, Keough
denied that he had any conversation with Altamore a few days before the latter's
discharge in which he warned Altamore to be careful because Respondent's officials
"were on to him." However, on cross-examination, he grudgingly conceded that he
"could have" mentioned to Altamore that Renzetti had asked Keough some ques-
tions about the Union during their conversation and finally stated that "I believe
there was some mention of that."
Donald McCall, who was also employed as a salesman by Respondent at the times
material herein, testified that in July or August he had a telephone conversation with
Vitt during which Vitt inquired whether McCall was aware of any union activity,
and McCall answered in the negative. In late August or early September he signed
a union authorization card at the behest of Altamore. McCall also was recalled as
a witness by Respondent and denied that, shortly before Altamore's discharge, he
warned Altamore "that the company was on to him and knew that he was soliciting
for membership for the union," although he could not recall whether he mentioned
to Altamore the subject of the telephone conversation which McCall had with Vitt
concerning the Union.
Salesman John Russo testified that, approximately 5 or 6 weeks prior to Alta-
more's discharge, Sales Manager Buonauro approached him and asked whether he
intended to join the Union, and Russo replied that he was undecided. About 2 or 3
weeks preceding the, discharge, Altamore discussed with Russo and fellow employee
Canella the benefits which might flow if they joined the Union, and gave them blank
authorization cards. According to Russo, at or about this time he and Canella had
a conversation with Buonauro, during which Buonauro inquired whether Altamore
had been soliciting their union membership and whether they had signed a card.
When these salesmen indicated their lack of interest in joining the Union, Buonauio
replied, "I am with you." A few days after Altamore's discharge, Buonauro inquired
of Russo and an employee named Kozicki as to whether they had executed any
authorization cards, and, about this time, Respondent's president, Milo Brooke,
asked Russo what the latter thought about the Union. Rounding out Russo's testi-
mony, this witness recalled an instance during the investigation of the charges giving
rise to this proceeding when a Board investigator arrived at the showroom to inter-
view the salesmen. While Russo was awaiting his turn to be interviewed, Buonauro
approached and instructed Russo not to waste too much time with the investigator
and cautioned that, if the investigator asked any questions, Russo was to "know
nothing." So far as appears on this record, Russo did not solicit Buonauro's advice
in this matter.
Alfred Renzetti, Respondent's assistant sales manager, testified that he had learned
of the Union's organizational campaign several weeks prior to Altamore's discharge
from conversations among his salesmen and when he observed the picket line at the
premises of Johnson Ford, and he was also aware that the Union had scheduled an
organizational meeting on September 30 because of the advertisement which the Union
placed in a local newspaper. According to Renzetti, he was first informed that
Altamore was active in the Union after his discharge when a salesman named Kozicki
told him so. Renzetti testified that, on or about September 30; he had occasion to
summon Altamore into his office to discuss the latter's asserted absences from the
showroom during working hours. According to Renzetti, Altamore had worked
"diligently and long" when he commenced his employment and Altamore frequently
discussed with Renzetti the subject of his finances and the fact that there was a suit
pending against Altamore stemming from his unsuccessful venture in the contracting
business. However, as time went on, Altamore began to absent himself more fre-
quently from work and Renzetti noticed that Altamore,"wasn't looking the same as
he was, and he wasn't working quite as well I thought he might have had problems."
Despite the fact that Renzetti was apprised by Altamore of the latter's financial diffi-
culties and the pending lawsuit, and the fact that these matetrs had occasioned Ala-
more's absences in the past. Renzetti made the remarkable statement that he called
Altamore to his office on September 30 and said "have you been attending union
meetings" during Altamore's absences. Altamore assured Renzetti that the former
had been engaged solely in taking care of his personal affairs, to which Renzetti
replied, "Well, I was wondering, because I thought you were pretty happy and
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
everything was going along with me helping you trying to be a salesman." According
to Renzetti, he questioned Altamore concerning his attendance at union meetings
"because I just thought that that would be the only thing that was deterring him
from his work," and such questioning was provoked by Renzetti's observation of.the
picket line at Johnson Ford which he passed daily on his way to work, although
Renzetti admitted that he never observed any of Respondent's employees at or near
that picket line. In further testimony, Renzetti acknowledged that he had called
Altamore a "troublemaker" shortly before his discharge on October 9. Renzetti
explained that ever since Altamore was employed, he was accustomed to "kid"
Altamore because the latter wore a mustache and was a "lady's man ," and that the
reference to Altamore as a "troublemaker" was thus inspired and had no connec-
tion with Altamore's activities on behalf of the Union. Finally, Renzetti denied
that he told Altamore at any time following his discharge that the Union "would
never get in" the Respondent's business enterprise, and denied that he told Alta-
more on October 1 that he knew Altamore had gone to a union meeting the night
before and joined the Union.
Robert Vitt, Respondent's general manager, testified that he became aware of the
Union's organizational activities as early as April or May, when employee Francis
Perl informed him that Perl had been approached by a union organizer to join that
labor organization. At the outset of his testimony, Vitt avowed that he was totally
unaware of Altamore's union membership or activities prior to his discharge. Vitt then
testified that, approximately a month- before Altamore's termination, he had a tele-
phone conversation with Perl in which he asked Perl whether the latter had been
again approached to join the Union, although Vitt did not explain what occasioned
his sudden and renewed interest in the matter. When questioned whether Perl
mentioned any other employee's name who had been similarly solicited, Vitt replied,
"He told me-I don't remember. I am sitting here listening to his testimony and I
am saying what he said . I don't remember." Although Vitt stated that he consulted
with other supervisors when deciding to discharge an employee, he insisted that he
made the decision to discharge Altamore on October 9 and four factors prompted
that decision. As enumerated by Vitt, "One was his poor sales performance" as
reflected in an exhibit on which Respondent relied. The second was "his personal
problems, mainly the fact that his creditors were harassing us, which in my opinion
keeps anyone from being a good salesman . Thirdly, the length of time that he had
worked there, his length of service and four, potential." Vitt also explained that he
took into consideration a salesman 's appearance, attitude, effort, helpfulness, person-
ality, and intelligence in arriving at a decision to discharge a man . However, Vitt
then made the surprising revelation that, at no time prior to Altamore's discharge,
did he personally inquire into whether Altamore failed to satisfy any of Vitt's
enumerated criteria. Thus, Vitt admitted that neither he, nor, to his knowledge,
any other representative of Respondent, had ever been contacted or harassed by any
creditors of Altamore, and Vitt expressed ignorance as to whether Altamore had been
excessively absent from the showroom because of his financial difficulties. More-
over, Vitt acknowledged that he was unaware of whether Altamore expended more
or less of his time than other salesmen in selling automobiles or in promoting sales,
such as by decorating the showroom or by mailing out promotional materials.
Furthermore, Vitt conceded that neither he, nor any representative of management,
had any occasion to reprimand Altamore for his appearance, attitude, effort, help-
fulness, personality, or intelligence during the course of his employment. Finally,
with respect to the assignment of "poor sales" as a reason for Altamore's discharge,
it does not appear, from Altamore's undenied testimony, that Vitt bothered to consult
the former's sales record when Altamore was terminated. Even had such consulta-
tion been made, I am not convinced that a perusal of that record, when contrasted
with the sales record of other salesmen, lends persuasive support to Vitt 's assertion
that this was a dominant factor which led to the discharge. Not only did other
salesmen exceed their monthly draws in more instances than Altamore, but they
also experienced situations where their commissions were less than his. Moreover,
Altamore's testimony is undenied that Vitt had complimented him for his sales
performance. According to Vitt, his only knowledge concerning Altamore's defi-
ciencies was gained from Alfred Renzetti or Carmen Buonauro, yet, there is nothing
in their testimony to indicate that they had registered any complaints about Altamore
with Vitt.
Carmen Buonauro, Respondent' s sales manager, proclaimed that he was totally
unaware of any union activity at Respondent's premises before the discharge of
Altamore on October 9, although he finally brought himself to state that he heard
his salesmen and managers "vaguely" talk about unionization prior to that date.
MILO BROOKE FORD 701
Buonauro insisted that his sole knowledge of Altamore 's union activities was gained
after the discharge when Russo volunteered the information that Altamore had
solicited his membership , at which point Buonauro simply asked Russo, in response
to this intelligence , whether the latter was going to join the Union . Buonauro then
recalled another occasion after the discharge when employee Kozicki also informed
him that Altamore had approached Kozicki about joining the Union . Buonauro
denied that he instructed Russo to withhold information from .a Board agent during
the investigation of this case . According to Buonauro , he merely told Russo not to
linger too long with the agent because an insufficient number of salesmen were avail-
able at the time to service customers . Buonauro also denied that he uttered the
statement that "the Union ought to be bombed to hell." In assessing Altamore's
abilities as a salesman , Buonauro remarked that "as a salesman , he was no good."
Apart from a vague and unsupported allusion to Altamore's poor sales ability,
Buonauro centered his criticism on Altamore 's inability properly to fill out an order.
At first, Buonauro asserted that he had to rewrite "every" order which Altamore
wrote. Buonauro then recanted and stated , "Not every one. We had to tell him
how to do it . There are some we rewrote for him ." Finally, Buonauro conceded
that other salesmen also made mistakes in writing up orders.
I credit the testimony of Joseph Altamore, not only because he impressed me as a
sincere and forthright witness, but because the countervailing testimony , in pertinent
detail , is too implausible to warrant acceptance . I find that around the middle of
September Altamore learned from Perl that the Union had previously expressed an
interest in organizing Respondent 's salesmen in early 1964, and obtained from Perl
the Union 's business card. It is undisputed , and I find that on September 27 or 28,
the Union advertised in a local newspaper that it had scheduled a meeting for the
evening of September 30 to discuss the progress of its organizational efforts, and
invited the automobile salesmen in Chicago to attend . It is also undisputed that, at
noon on September 30, Altamore proceeded to the union hall where he executed a
union authorization card and volunteered to assist the Union in organizing Respond-
ent's employees.. In pursuit of this goal , Altamore obtained additional cards and
successfully solicited Perl, McCall, and Keough on or about September 30, and
also persistently urged almost all of the remaining employees to join the Union.
I find that on September 30, while discussing a business matter with Assistant Sales
Manager Renzetti , the latter remarked that "I hear you are going to the meeting
tonight and that you are going to join the Union" and that "the Union would never
get in here," and I further find that on October 1, Renzetti again stated that "I
heard you went to the Union last night and signed up" and repeated that the Union
would never succeed at Respondent 's showroom . I do not credit Renzetti 's assertions
that he was unaware of Altamore's union activities until after his discharge , nor do I
credit his testimonial version of the conversations which he had with Altamore on
September 30 and October 1. George Keough testified without contradiction that,
after he signed an authorization card at the solicitation of Altamore but prior to the
latter's discharge , Renzetti inquired whether Altamore had invited Keough to join
the Union and whether Altamore was "pushing" the Union . Moreover, although
Renzetti admitted that he was aware that Altamore was laboring under financial
problems and a lawsuit resulting from an unsuccessful business venture, Renzetti
readily acknowledged that the first question put to Altamore on the very day when
the latter visited the Union and commenced soliciting Per], McCall , and Keough, as
well as the other salesmen, was directed to whether Altamore had been attending
union meetings because "I just, thought that that would be the only thing that was
deterring him from his work," a curious comment in view of Renzetti 's further state-
ment that "I thought you were pretty happy and everything was going along with
me helping you trying to be a salesman ," and inasmuch as the only advertised union
meeting was held on the evening of September 30, after the conversation . Further-
more, Altamore testified without contradiction that, after his discharge and while
he was, openly soliciting the salesmen on behalf of the Union , Renzetti informed him
that Renzetti could not believe it when he heard "through talk" that Altamore had
been assisting the Union in its organizational campaign . Accordingly, I find that
Renzetti knew, prior to Altamore's discharge , that the latter was actively supporting
the Union 's cause.
Nor do I credit Vitt's or Buonauro 's asserted ignorance of Altamore 's union activ-
ities prior to his discharge . Francis Perl testified that, a few weeks before Altamore's
discharge , he received a telephone call from Vitt during which the latter inquired-
whether Perl had been approached by the Union and whether he knew anything
about the Union's organizational drive. Perl replied that Altamore had been
"approached" by the Union. Vitt did not deny that he questioned Perl on this
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
occasion or that he received this intelligence . Initially, he blurted out that "He
[Perl] told me" about Altamore 's involvement , but then Vitt pulled himself up short
and professed that he could not remember . I credit Perl's testimony and find that,
prior to the discharge of Altamore , Vitt questioned Perl concerning the latter's
union activities and learned that Altamore had been in contact with the Union.
Carmen Buonauro also denied that he had knowledge of Altamore 's union activities
before the discharge . However , John Russo testified that , a few weeks prior to the
termination , he and employee Canella engaged in a conversation with Buonauro
during which the latter inquired whether they had been solicited by Altamore to join
the Union . Although Buonauro admitted that he learned from Russo that Altamore
had been urging employees to join the Union , and that he had questioned Russo
along these lines, he steadfastly proclaimed that this occurred following the dis-
charge. I credit Russo 's testimony in this regard , not only because of the manner
and circumstances under which he gave his testimony , tl but also because I was not
generally impressed with Buonauro 's candor as a witness , 12 and I find that Buonauro
questioned Russo prior to October 9 concerning the extent of Altamore 's involve-
ment with the Union and learned that Altamore had solicited Russo and Canella to
join. For similar reasons, I further credit Russo's testimony that, during the investi-
gation of the charges in this proceeding , he was instructed by Buonauro to refuse to
divulge any information concerning these charges to a Board agent without any prior
request by Russo for advice in the matter . I further find, based on Russo's undenied
testimony , that, after Altamore's discharge , he and employee Kozicki were interro-
gated by Buonauro as to whether they executed a union authorization card and that,
about the same time, Respondent 's piesident , Milo Brooke , engaged in a similar act
of interrogation.
I also credit the testimony of Altamore and find that , on October 7, 2 days before
his discharge , he asked Renzetti why relations between the two men had cooled
and Renzetti replied, "All I can say is you are a trouble maker and a leader This
will all come out in the wash . And when the truth comes out , I will tell you."
A?though Renzetii admitted that he had characterized Altamore as a "trouble maker,"
he sought to explain this characterization away on the ground that he frequently
chided Altanore for wearing a mustache and being a "lady's man ," and denied that
he had reference to Altamore 's union activities when he made the foregoing state-
ments. In light of Renzetti 's admitted interrogation of Altamore on September 30
concerning the latter 's attendance at union meetings and Renzetti 's comment that he
thought Altamore was satisfied with his employment relationship ; the fact that
Altamore was the only salesman who solicited membership among Respondent's
employees ; and Keough 's undenied testimony that he informed Renzetti of Alta-
more's activities on behalf of the Union before the discharge , I am convinced and find
that Renzetti's reference to Altamore as a "trouble maker " and "leader" had nothing
11 Russo, despite the fact that he was called to testify on behalf of the General Counsel,
was a reluctant and sometimes truculent witness. His hostility toward the General Coun-
sel stemmed basically from the fact that , on a Saturday morning prior to the hearing
herein , he had been roused out of bed at an early hour by counsel for the General Coun-
sel and , after being intensively questioned concerning his knowledge of the charges, was
subpenaed to testify . In view of his expressed hostility as a witness , I am persuaded
that lie spoke the truth when lie rendered this testimony.
12 At the conclusion of his cross -examination of Buonauro , counsel for the General
Counsel sought to draw the character of this witness into issue in order to show that he
was unworthy of belief This forensic exercise took the form of questioning Buonauro as
to whether lie had ever been convicted of a felony : Buonauro , a youthful man, was quick
to admit that , some 14 years earlier, he had purloined a television tube from a local com-
pany and that this unlawful acquisition amounted to approximately $ 15 When I
pressed counsel for the General Counsel as to whether this "crime" constituted an im-
peachable "felony" within the laws of the State of Illinois , counsel expressed ignorance
I, of course , recognize that a witness ' conviction of a cognizable felony may serve to
impugn his credibility under established rules of evidence , and that this is a trial tech-
nique which avid counsel frequently utilizes when lie is assured , after due investigation and
preparation of a case , that a witness had in fact previously engaged in this type of mis-
conduct But when counsel for the General Counsel embarks on such an inqury without
first assuring himself that a witness had in fact committed an impeachable crime, and
thereby needlessly and cruelly besmirches the witness ' character and reputation in his
community , I am convinced that this is shoddy business , beneath the dignity of a legal
representative of the ti S. Goveinment, and should neither be condoned nor countenanced.
MILO BROOKE FORD 703
to do with the latter 's glamorous appearance ,13 but instead was prompted solely by
Renzetti's knowledge that Altamore was in the forefront of the Union 's organiza-
tional campaign.
Based on Altamore 's undenied and credited testimony , I find that , on the evening
of October 7, and after Renzetti had been referred to him as a "trouble maker" and
a "leader," Per] warned Altamore that the former had received a telephone call
from Vitt during which Vitt questioned Perl concerning the activities of the Union
and Vitt announced that he knew that Altamore "was the organizer or something."
I also find that , on the same evening, McCall informed Altamore that he had
received a call from Vitt in which a similar statement was made by Vitt, and
Keough also apprised Altamore on the evenings of October 7 and 8 that Renzetti
had questioned Keough about Altamore and that Respondent was "on to" Altamore's
union activities . I do not credit the contrary testimony of Keough or McCall.14
I further find, based on Altamore 's credited testimony, that he engaged in a dis-
cussion with Buonauro and a representative of the Ford Motor Company on the
morning of October 9 , during which the'effect of the Union 's picket line at Johnson
Ford was explored , and that Buonauro exclaimed that "They ought to take all the
`God damn unions' and bomb every last one of them." Following this episode,
Altamore observed Buonauro , Vitt, and possibly Renzetti enter the office of Milo
Brooke and , shortly thereafter , Vitt emerged and informed Altamore that he was
discharged "because my sales were bad and I was the last man on the totem pole,"
because Altamore was "having some financial difficulties , and you are being bothered
by people down here," and then , because Altamore would never make a good sales-
man. In view of Vitt's singular inability to demonstrate testimonially the manner,
extent, or degree of Altamore's deficiencies , his insistence that he made the decision
to discharge Altamore, and Vitt's candid admission that he was not aware of any
fault that Altamore possessed which failed to satisfy Vitt 's enumerated criteria for
the retention of employment at the time of the termination , I am convinced and
find that Vitt 's asserted reasons for discharging Altamore on October were a pretext
to cloak the termination of the most active, known union adherent at Respondent's
place of business because of his union activities.
In his amended complaint , the General Counsel alleged that Respondent, by its
attorneys , requested its employees to furnish Respondent with copies of statements
which they gave to the Board and /or interrogated them with respect to the contents
thereof. By amendment to its answer , Respondent admitted that, on February 24,
1965, its attorneys:
requested its employees , George E. Keough and D. F. McCall to obtain for
them copies of statements they gave to a Board representative ; and that Respond-
ent's counsel also inquired of said employees , George E. Keough and D. F.
McCall concerning their interviews with said Board representative insofar as
said interviews applied to matters concerning and complained of in the Com-
plaint and in the Amendment thereto. Respondent admits that shortly after
February 24, 1965, it requested its former employee Perl to obtain a copy of a
statement he had given a Board representative and furnish it to Respondent's
attorneys.
I find, based on this aspect of the pleadings , the facts contained therein.
"I am fortified in this conclusion by Vitt's abortive attempt in assigning Altamore's
"poor appearance" as a reason for his discharge , and by Renzetti 's own testimony that
Altamore "wasn't looking the same as he was" when the former interrogated Altamore
on September 30. Moreover , I may be vain , but I was not impressed by my observation of
Altaniore that Renzetti ' s portrayal of Altamore was entirely accurate.
14 Keough and McCall were initially summoned by the General Counsel to testify in
support of his case-in -chief and , as indicated hereinabove , they were subsequently recalled
as witnesses on behalf of Respondent . In their latter appearance on the stand, they dis-
played a marked change in attitude toward the General Counsel ' s, as well as Altaniore's,
cause when they testified that they did not apprise Altaniore on October 7, 2 days before
his discharge, that Vitt and Renzetti were aware that Altamore was the prime union
protagonist among Respondent ' s employees and that they were "on to him " Howevei,
on cross-examination by the General Counsel , Keough grudgingly conceded that he "could
have" stated to Altamore that Renzetti had asked Keough some questions concerning the
Union during the conversation , a conversation in which Keough admitted he was ques-
tioned by Renzetti as to whether Altamore was "pusiung " the Union . In his cross-
examination by the General Counsel , McCall stated that lie could not remember whether
he mentioned to Altamore on October 7 that Vitt had questioned him conceiving the
activities of the Union.
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Conclusions
I have heretofore found that Respondent discharged Joseph Altamore on October 9,
1964, because he joined and assisted the Union in its campaign to organize Respond-
ent's automobile salesmen. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that the Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
I have also found that the Respondent interrogated its employees concerning their
union membership and their activities on behalf of the Union, by Vitt's questioning
of Perl and McCall; by Renzetti's interrogation of Keough and Altamore; by Buon-
auro's questioning of Russo and Canella; and by Brooke's interrogation of Russo.
I conclude that, in the context of Respondent's other unfair labor practices, such
interrogation was coercive and was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1).
Based on findings heretofore made, I conclude that Renzetti's statements to Alta-
more on September 30 and October 1, 1964, to the effect that the former had heard
that Altamore would attend and did attend a union meeting, created and fostered
the impression among Respondent's employees that it was keeping such activities
under surveillance, and offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1).15
I have heretofore found, based on Respondent's amended answer to the amended
complaint, that Respondent's attorneys requested employees to obtain for them
copies of the affidavits which the employees gave to a Board agent, and inquired of
these employees as to the subject matter of their interviews with said agent insofar
as it pertained to the matters embodied in the General Counsel's complaint. The
General Counsel urges that both of the foregoing acts by Respondent's counsel are
statutorily prohibited. The Respondent argues that its conduct was privileged because
it simply constituted an attempt to elicit information in order to defend this action.
In Johnnie's Poultry Co.,16 the Board summarized the safeguards imposed by it
and the courts concerning employer interrogation of employees regarding statements
or affidavits given by employees to a Board agent, and concluded:
In defining the area of permissible inquiry, the Board has generally found
coercive, and outside the ambit of privilege, interrogation concerning statements
or affidavits given to a Board agent. For such questions have a pronounced
inhibitory effect upon the exercise by employees of their Section 7 rights, which
includes protection in seeking vindication of those rights free from interference,
restraint, and coercion by their employer. Moreover, interrogation concerning
employee activities directed toward enforcement of Section 7 rights also inter-
feres with the Board's processes in carrying out the statutory mandate to protect
such rights. We note, in this connection, that under the safeguards attending a
hearing on unfair labor practices, counsel for Respondent parties are entitled to
the availability, upon request, of the affidavits of General Counsel witnesses for
use in cross-examining those witnesses.
And, in considering employer requests for Board statements, the Board, in W. T.
Grant Company,17 noted:
Knowledge by an employee that his employer may obtain copies of his state-
- ment serves only to inhibit that employee's willingness to give a statement at
all or to disclose all matters of which he has knowledge for fear of incurring
the employer's displeasure and possible reprisal. For this reason, statements
furnished by employees are, and must be, treated as confidential unless the
employee is called to testify at subsequent proceedings, at which time upon
proper demand, the statement is made available to the employer.
In my opinion, these teachings, by which I am bound, are apposite here. Accord-
ingly, I conclude that, by requesting employees to obtain affidavits which they gave
to the Board, and, by interrogating employees concerning the subject matter of their
interviews with a Board agent, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).
On the basis of the testimony previously credited, I have found that, during the
Board's investigation of the charges filed in this proceeding,. Respondent's sales man-
ager, Carmen Buonauro, instructed employee John Russo, to refuse to divulge any
information to a Board agent in connection with that investigation. It is clear, and
I have heretofore found, that this instruction was not prompted by any solicitation
Ie See Parker Seal Company, Division of Parker-Hannifin Corporation, 149 NLRB 809.
Is 146 NLRB 770, 775-776.
17144 NLRB 1179, 1182.
MILO BROOKE FORD 705
of advice by Russo from Buonauro in the matter. In Certain-Teed Products Corpora-
tion,18 the Board cautioned that its.
... ability to secure vindication of rights protected by the Act depends in large
measure upon the ability of its agents to investigate charges fully and to obtain
relevant information and supporting statements from individuals. It is for this
reason that the Board has carefully sought to protect the integrity of its processes
by preventing any obstruction of Board agents in their investigation of charges.
In the context .of this caution and this case, I conclude that Buonauro's unsolicited
advice to Russo was designed to and would in fact tend to discourage employees
from supplying information to a Board agent and thus hinder him in investigating
the charges filed in the instant case. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV.' THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Joseph Altamore, I
will recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent employment, and make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him,
by payment to him of a sum equal to that he would normally have earned from the
date of the discrimination to the date of offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during said period. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accord-
ance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in the
manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by
Respondent, which evince an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in
general , I deem it necessary to recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
in any other manner infringing on the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and on the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Automobile Salesmen and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Local No. 192,
AFL-CIO, is, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Joseph Altamore, thereby discriminating in regard to his hire
and tenure of employment , in order to'discourage membership in and activity on
behalf of the above -named labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices' within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
18 147 NLRB 1517, 1520.
221-731-67-vol. 158 46
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that Respondent, Milo Brooke Ford, Chicago, Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, and activities on behalf of, Automobile Sales-
men and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Local No. 192, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging any employee or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union affiliation, activities, and
sympathies, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or,coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; creating or fostering the impression among
its employees that it was keeping under surveillance their attendance of union meet-
ings; requesting employees to furnish it with copies of statements which they gave to
the Board and interrogating them concerning the contents of their interviews with
Board agents; and, interfering with and obstructing the investigation of unfair labor
practice charges by directing employees to refuse to divulge information pertinent
to the charges to a Board agent.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to'engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modi-
fied by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Joseph Altamore immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent employment, and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Joseph Altamore, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, aftei discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain
any backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respond-
ent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
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.
1B In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of it
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
MILO BROOKE FORD 707
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
therewith.20
21 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL.EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Automobile
Salesmen and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Local No. 192, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, by discharging any of our employees or in any
other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their union affilia-
tion, activities, and sympathies; create or foster the impression among our
employees that we are keeping under surveillance their attendance at union
meetings; request employees to furnish us with copies of statements which they
give to the Board or interrogate them concerning the contents of their interviews
with Board agents; or, interfere with and obstruct the investigation of unfair
labof practice charges by directing out employees to refuse to divulge informa-
tion pertinent to those charges to a Board agent.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, or to join or assist the above-named union or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Joseph Altamore immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent employment and make him whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against him.
WE WILL notify Joseph Altamore if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
All of our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named union, or any other labor organization.
MILO BROOKE FORD,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881
U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 291 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
Illinois, Telephone No. 828-7597.