Pacific Isle Packaging, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 1050 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

1050 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pacific Isle Packaging, Inc and Hotel Employees &
Restaurant Employees Local 5, AFL-CIO, af-
filiated with Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
Case 37-CA-2546
February 14, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On July 6, 1988, Administrative Law Judge
Gordon J Myatt issued the attached decision The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions
and a brief in response to the General Counsel's ex-
ceptions and in support of its cross-exceptions
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings, 2
and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order
We agree with the judge's finding that the Re
spondent did not unlawfully discharge its employ-
ees or refuse to bargain with the Union Contrary
to the judge, we find that the Respondent unlaw-
fully threatened its employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1)
The judge found, and we agree, that on August
11, 1987, the Respondent's employees walked out
of the Respondent's facility striking on behalf of
their demand for recognition As the employees
were leaving the premises, Phyllis Lawrence, the
Respondent's president and manager, repeatedly
shouted at the employees that they were jeopardiz
ing their jobs The judge found this statement law
fully informed the employees that their jobs could
be affected and that the Respondent was not re-
quired to recite all the rights of economic strikers
' The General Counsel and the Respondent have excepted to some of
the judge s credibility findings The Board s established policy is not to
overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces its that they
are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd
188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings
2 We reverse the judge s failure to admit into evidence a copy of a de
cision of the State of Hawaii Unemployment Insurance Division regard
ing the employees claim for unemployment insurance Duquesne Electric
212 NLRB 142 fn 1 (1974) We admit these documents nto evidence and
note that their admission does not affect the outcome in this case
Because of our resolution of the other issues in this case we find it
unnecessary to pass on the Respondent s contentions that the judge erred
in not drawing adverse inferences from the General Counsels failure to
present Wade Kahele and Elroy Kaniho as witnesses as well as the fail
ure to introduce the representation petition which Slim Ilae intended to
file with the Board
Economic strikers who have made unconditional
offers to return to work have the right to full rein-
statement and, if they have been permanently re-
placed, the right to be placed on a preferential
hiring list for openings that become available 3 The
Respondent's blanket statement that the employees
were jeopardizing their jobs clearly implied that by
walking out the employees were in danger of
losing their jobs The Respondent's unqualified
statement could reasonably be interpreted as a
threat of reprisal against the employees for engag-
ing in strike activity Thus, we find that the state
ment constitutes an unlawful threat in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) 4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Pacific Isle Packaging, Inc, Pearl
City, Hawaii, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees by telling them that
they are jeopardizing their jobs because they
engage in a strike
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its Pearl City, Oahu, Hawaii facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "5
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 20, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply
8 Laidlaw Corp 171 NLRB 1366 (1968) enfd 414 F 2d 79 (7th Cir
1969) cert denied 397 U S 920 (1970)
4 The General Counsel argues that the strike was an unfair labor prat
tice strike We cannot agree The strike was not caused by the Respond
ent s unlawful conduct The employees had already begun their walkout
before the threats were made Nor is there sufficient evidence to establish
that the strike was prolonged by the Respondents threats
S If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation
all 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
292 NLRB No 102
PACIFIC ISLE PACKAGING 1051
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT threaten you by telling you that
you are jeopardizing your jobs because you engage
in a strike
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
PACIFIC ISLE PACKING, INC
Wanda L Pate and Michael S Hurtado Esqs, of Honolu
lu, Hawaii , for the General Counsel
Richard M Rand Esq (Torkildson Katz Jossem Fonseca
& Moore), of Honolulu, Hawaii, for the Respondent
William A Sokol Esq (Van Bourg Weinberg Roger &
Rosenfeld), of San Francisco, California, for the Charg
ing Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J MYATT Administrative Law Judge On a
charge filed on August 11, 1987 by Hotel Employees &
Restaurant Employees, Local 5, AFL-CIO (the Union)
against Pacific Isle Packaging, Inc (the Respondent), the
Regional Director for Region 20 issued a complaint and
notice of hearing on September 8, 1987 1 The substantive
portions of the complaint allege that a majority of Re
spondent's employees, in an appropriate unit, designated
the Union as their exclusive representative for purposes
of collective bargaining on August 10 That by means of
an in person request on August 11 and by a written
request on August 17 representatives of the Union
sought recognition from Respondent as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the unit employees and that
Respondent unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain
with the Union as such representative In addition, the
complaint alleges Respondent unlawfully threatened to
and did, discharge eight unit employees on August 11 be
cause the employees engaged in union and/or protected
concerted activities The complaint alleges that by this
conduct Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) (3), and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), 29 U S C
§ 151 et seq Respondent filed an answer in which it ad
mitted certain allegations of the complaint, denied others,
and specifically denied engaging in conduct which vio
lated the Act
' All dates refer to 1987 unless otherwise indicated
A hearing was held on this matter in Honolulu,
Hawaii , on October 21, 22, and 23, 1987 All parties
were represented by counsel and afforded full opportune
ty to examine and cross examine witnesses and to present
material and relevant evidence on the issues raised here
Briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and Re
spondent and they have been considered
On the entire record in this matter, and from my ob
nervation of the witnesses while testifying I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The pleadings admit, and I find, that Respondent, Pa
cific Isle Packaging, Inc is a Hawaii corporation en
gaged in the business of manufacturing corrugated pack
aging and that Respondent maintains its primary place of
business and facility in Pearl City, Oahu Hawaii 2
During the calendar year 1986, in the course of its bust
ness operations, Respondent purchased and received at
its Pearl City facility, goods and products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the
State of Hawaii Based on the foregoing, I find Respond
ent is, and has been at all times material , an employer en
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings further admit and I find , that Hotel
Employees & Restaurant Employees , Local 5, AFL-
CIO, affiliated with Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor or
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background Facts
Respondents president and general manager is Phyllis
Lawrence She is also Respondents principal shareholder
with a 60 percent ownership interest Roy Takemoto is
Respondents accountant and the sole other shareholder
with a 40 percent ownership interest At the time Law
rence and Takemoto purchased the business from Re
spondent s predecessor, six of the current unit employees
were employed by the predecessor and continued to
work for Respondent
At the hearing the parties entered into a joint stipula
tion regarding the scope of the bargaining unit but were
in dispute as to the number of employees contained in
the unit 3 The stipulation provided that the following
was an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All full time and regular part time production and
maintenance employees of Pacific Isle Packaging,
Inc at its Pearl City, Hawaii facility, including
2 Respondent also has facilities on the Island of Maw and in Hilo on
the big island of Hawau These facilities however are not the subject of
concern in this proceeding
8 The stipulation is entered into evidence as Jt Exh I
1052 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trucker shippers truckers, die cutters, slitters, oper
ators , flexo assistants , taper apprentices , stackers
and die mounters excluding office clerical employ
ees, sales persons , guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act
The parties further agreed in the stipulation that nine
employees were in the bargaining unit but disagreed
about whether an additional employee, Brian Pacheco,
was to be included in the unit Thus, the unit would con
sist of 10 employees if Pacheco were included (as con
tended by Respondent), and 9 employees if he were ex
cluded (as contended by the General Counsel and the
Charging Party)
B The Employees Seek Representation by the Union
The unrefuted testimony indicates Respondents em
ployees became dissatisfied with their working conditions
sometime during the late spring or early summer of 1987
They met after work one evening in Blaisdell Park in
Pearl City and decided to seek representation by a
union 4 The employees authorized employee Robert
Lawrence to contact a union and arrange for a meeting 5
Robert Lawrence contacted Anson (Slim) Ilae , director
of organizing for the Union, and eventually a meeting
between the employees and representatives of the Union
was arranged for August 5 in Blaisdell Park
On August 5, eight of the unit employees met Ilae and
another organizer from the Union, Clarence Baijo
Walter Masaki, a diecutter and Meihle machine operator
for Respondent, was on vacation at the time and did not
attend this meeting According to Ilae and Baijo, the em
ployees expressed a number of complaints ranging from
the failure to receive sick leave benefits, favoritism being
shown in the plant and the fact that they worked for a
`witch of a boss " Ilae informed the employees about the
advantages of union representation and explained the
various ways the Union could attempt to seek recogni
tion from the Respondent Ilae and Baijo testified they
discussed with the employees the possibility of engaging
in a strike to achieve recognition of the Union Accord
ing to Baijo however this possibility was presented to
the employees as a final option Ilae gave the employees
authorization cards and told them to take the cards home
and think the matter over before signing
On various dates following the August 5 meeting six
employees signed the authorization cards and gave them
to Robert Lawrence to be turned over to the union rep
resentative A second meeting was held in Blaisdell Park
between Ilae and the employees on August 10 Francis
Tisalona, who attended the earlier meeting, was the only
unit employee not present at this meeting Masaki how
ever, attended and signed an authorization card while
there He gave this card to Lawrence at the meeting
Lawrence in turn gave Ilae the seven signed cards in ad
dition to his own signed card Ilae told the employees he
intended to go to Respondents facility the following
* Blaisdell Park is a location approximately 5 to 10 minutes away from
Respondent s facility
6 Robert Lawrence was employed as a die mounter and machine me
chanic by Respondent He is also a brother in law of Respondents press
dent Phyllis Lawrence
morning to request recognition of the Union from the
Respondent The testimony differs to some degree about
what Ilae told the employees at this meeetmg
According to Ilae, he showed the employees a letter
signed by Anthony Rutledge, the Union s financial secre
tary treasurer to Respondent requesting recognition of
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees (G C Exh 2a) and a recognition agree
ment (G C Exh 2b) to be signed if Respondent granted
the recognition request Ilae further testified he told the
employees that because a majority had signed cards, they
could picket if recognition were refused or they could
go to the Board and file a petition for an election 6 Ilae
stated he recommended going to the Board as the alter
nate procedure if recognition were refused
Robert Lawrence recalled that Ilae stated he would
request recognition from Respondent and, if refused, he
would have to go to the NLRB Lawrence also testified
that Ilae told the employees that if Respondent refused
to recognize the Union, he would come into the plant
and explain to the employees how long it would take to
pursue the next step in achieving recognition
Employee Nicholas Jale recalled that Ilae stated he
would come into the plant after requesting recognition
from Respondent and inform the employees about the
position Respondent took regarding the request Jale was
unable to recall any conversation occurring at the meet
ing about employees going on strike for recognition or
Ilae filing a petition with the Board
Lester Omura Respondents flexo operator testified
Ilae told the employees he was going to seek recognition
based on the authorization cards If the recognition were
refused by Respondent then according to Omura Ilae
stated he was going to go to the Board Although he tes
tified on direct examination that Ilae stated it would not
be necessary to go to an election because the Union had
a card majority, on cross examination Omura stated he
meant to indicate that Ilae told the employees it would
not be necessary to go on strike for recognition because
the Union had a card majority
Finally, employees Masaki and Rudolph Samson testi
feed that Ilae stated he was going to seek recognition
based on the authorization cards Samson stated he did
not recall any mention of a strike or any plan for the em
ployees to walk off the job, if Respondent refused to rec
ognize the Union Masaki testified that Ilae said he
would go to the Board if this occurred Masaki also testi
feed that Ilae asked the employees if they were willing
once the Union gained recognition to walk out in sup
port of the Union s contract demands He stated the em
ployees indicated they were willing to do so
It is undisputed that the employees efforts to become
represented by the Union became known by Respond
ent s management The subject was one of open discus
sion among the employees in the plant TakemOto testi
feed that during the latter part of the week of August 5,
Robert Lawrence told him the employees were seeking
union representation and all were signing authorization
6 Although Ilae testified he also had a representation petition prepared
at this time he did not show this document to the employees nor was
such a petition filed with the Board
PACIFIC ISLE PACKAGING 1053
cards Takemoto notified Phyllis Lawrence but learned
that she already knew this was occurring ' Phyllis Law
rence sought advice from her attorney who referred her
to Michael McGuire, a labor consultant A meeting be
tween McGuire and Respondents owners was arranged
for the morning of August 11 at Respondent s facility
C The Events on August 11
On August 11, McGuire arrived at Respondent s facile
ty sometime between 7 30 and 8 a in After a tour of the
working area of the warehouse like facility s McGuire
met with Respondent s owners in Lawrence s private
office to discuss the unionization effort on the part of the
employees Among other things, McGuire informed
Lawrence and Takemoto about their rights and the
rights of the employees during a union organizing cam
paign He advised Lawrence that she did not have to
sign any documents for the Union but was free to direct
the union representatives to the Regional Office of the
National Labor Relations Board While discussing the
matter, Lawrence was informed by the receptionist that
union representatives were in the reception area waiting
to see her The testimony is in sharp conflict about what
occurred thereafter in the reception room and in the
working area of the warehouse
Ilae testified he arrived at the plant shortly after 9 a in
He was accompanied by Baijo and another union repre
sentative, Dean Masai The latter, a communications as
sistant for the Union had been asked by Ilae to accom
pany the union representatives in order to photograph
the unit employees cheering in the event Respondent
granted the Union recognition According to Ilae after
the receptionist informed Phyllis Lawrence of the pres
ence of the union representatives, they had to wait sever
al minutes for Lawrence to come out of her office
When Lawrence appeared, Ilae stated he told her they
were there about her men in the warehouse' Lawrence
replied she did not want to hear anything about the
Union and ordered the union representatives off her
premises Then, according to Ilae he told Lawrence this
was a serious matter and advised her to seek legal assist
ance Ilae also testified he attempted to show Lawrence
the recognition request and agreement Ilae stated Law
rence continued to order the union representatives off
her property and told them to go to the Board 9 Accord
ing to Ilae, he thanked Lawrence for her time and left
the office with the other two union representatives Ilae
further testified that the union representatives then went
directly into the plant area of the facility to find Robert
Lawrence He said their purpose was to inform the em
ployee about what occurred in the office and the course
7 Robin Transfiguracion Respondents production manager testified
Tisalona informed him prior to August 11 that the employees had se
cured cards from Local 5 and were trying to organize a union Tisalona
identified Robert Lawrence as the leader in the unionization effort
8 A rough hand-drawn sketch of the facility including the office area
was put into evidence as G C Exh 4 This sketch depicted various types
of machinery in different locations on the warehouse floor as well as
large stacks of corrugated paper stock located throughout the warehouse
Photographs of the reception area and various locations throughout the
warehouse itself were placed into evidence as Resp Exhs 4 through 12
8 Baijo and Masai likewise testified that Lawrence ordered the union
representatives off the property and directed them to the Board
the Union would now follow in order to achieve recog
nition Ilae acknowledged that he did not tell Lawrence
that he intended to go into the warehouse to speak with
the employees and, of course, did not request permission
to do so
Annette Maunupau, the receptionist and Phyllis Law
rence gave a different version of the statements made in
the reception area Maunupau, who first began employ
ment with Respondent on the previous day, recalled that
Ilae told Lawrence he wanted to talk about the employ
ees and Lawrence replied that the union representatives
should go to the Board According to the testimony of
Maunupau and Lawrence, Ilae asked if that was what
Lawrence wanted and when Lawrence confirmed this
Ilae replied Fine, you had better call the police because
I am going to walk the boys Lawrence testified Ilae
left mumbling something that she was unable to under
stand Maunupau, however, stated that when Ilae left he
said, It's nice doing business with dummies like you io
According to Phyllis Lawrence, she returned to her
office and informed McGuire and Takemoto that Ilae
said she should call the police because the union repre
sentatives were going to pull the employees Lawrence
stated she told McGuire she was going into the plant and
ask Ilae to leave, because he s trespassing into my ware
house' Lawrence stated McGuire agreed she should
order the union representatives out because they were
trespassing She testified she then went into the ware
house and Takemoto followed her McGuire, on the
other hand, testified that when Lawrence returned to the
office she said Ilae wanted her to sign some docu
ments and she told Ilae 'to go to the NLRB Accord
ing to McGuire, Lawrence reported that Ilae then said,
Okay, then you'd better call the police because I in
going to pull the men out' McGuire stated he then sug
Bested Lawrence go back to make sure the employees
were still at work
The testimony regarding the events in the warehouse
is as conflicting as the testimony regarding the state
ments made in the reception area Ilae stated that be
cause he had never been in Respondents warehouse, he
did not know where the employees were normally locat
ed when working He testified he saw employee Elroy
Kaniho and asked where Bobby was referring to
Robert Lawrence Kaniho indicated Lawrence was at
the back end of the warehouse area and Ilae proceeded
down the aisle calling out the name Bobby He was
followed by Baijo and Masai who were walking several
feet behind him According to Ilae Phyllis Lawrence
came down the aisle yelling and screaming at him He
stated Phyllis Lawrence said he had no business there
and to get off her premises Ilae testified he told Phyllis
Lawrence that he had to inform the employees that
Lawrence did not want to talk with the union represent
atives and they would have to go to the Labor Board
and file a petition When Lawrence continued to scream
at him Ilae told her to get out of [his] face Finally
Ilae told Lawrence to kiss my ass She retorted, You
10 All the union representatives denied that Ilae told Lawrence to call
the police because the Union was going to pull the employees or that he
made the parting comments attributed to him by Maunupau
1054 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
kiss my ass and Ilae replied, Move your nose Ilae
stated all the employees were standing around them at
this time and Lawrence looked at everybody and said,
You guys want the Union? I want you all off my prem
ises Your jobs are in jeopardy Take your cars, get off
of my premises Ilae stated that Phyllis Lawrence then
called out to her production manager, Robin Transfigur
scion He stated she told Transfiguracion to shut the
machine down and close the doors At this point ac
cording to Ilae he stated to the employees, Well, I
guess she wants us out ' and they all proceeded to walk
toward the door located at the north end of the ware
house 11 Ilae further testified that while the employees
and the union representatives were walking toward the
door, Phyllis Lawrence kept yelling to the employees
that their jobs were in jeopardy and that she wanted
them off of her premises
The testimony of the other union representatives
while not as detailed as that of Ilae, was substantially in
agreement with the statements given by Ilae Bai jo testi
fled he was following several feet behind Ilae when the
union representatives entered the warehouse area 12
Baijo stated he had never been in that type of facility
before and he was occupied with looking around to ob
serve the kind of machinery and equipment being used
He further stated he did not hear all the comments that
passed between Ilae and Phyllis Lawrence except when
their voices were loud According to Baijo, as the union
representatives were walking down the aisle in search of
Robert Lawrence, Phyllis Lawrence came down the
aisle "screaming' for the union representatives to get off
her property She was followed by a Japanese man
whom Baijo did not know but later learned was Take
moto Baijo's testimony indicated that the employees
began to gather around Phyllis Lawrence and Ilae when
the profane exchange took place between them He
stated Phyllis Lawrence then told the employees, You
want a union? You all get off my property and move
your cars from my property Your jobs are in jeopardy
At this point according to Baijo, the employees were
just standing around and Ilae said Let s go Although
on direct examination Baijo did not state that he ever
heard Phyllis Lawrence order Transfiguracion to close
the warehouse doors, when pointed out on cross exami
nation that his affidavit indicated he heard this order
Baijo testified he did not hear such an order given by
Lawrence On redirect examination however, Baijo re
called that he heard Lawrence tell Transfiguracion to
close the warehouse doors He stated he left the ware
house by a smaller side door leading to the parking lot
because Transfiguracion was closing the large rollup
door at the time
Masai s testimony was essentially similar to that of
Baijo Masai stated that as the union representatives were
walking into the warehouse Ilae was asking employees
where Robert Lawrence was working According to
Masai , as the union representatives walked further down
the aisle Robert Lawrence appeared and Ilae told the
employee, She [Phyllis Lawrence] doesn't want to
talk Masai recalled that Phyllis Lawrence came up at
that point screaming for the union representatives to
get off her premises He further stated that Ilae told
Lawrence that he wanted to tell the employees what was
going on and it was at this juncture that Ilae and Phyllis
Lawrence engaged in the swearing exchange It was
then according to Masai that Lawrence told all the em
ployees that if they wanted the Union, their jobs were in
jeopardy and to get their cars off her property Masai
denied that Phyllis Lawrence told the employees to
return to work as they were leaving
The unit employees who testified also substantially
tracked the testimony of the union representatives
Robert Lawrence testified he was working on the press
at the time Ilae came into the warehouse Although the
power to the equipment was on, the press was not in op
eration at the time because Lawrence was changing the
printing dies for the next job order Wade Kahele13 and
Brian Pacheco were working on the press with Law
rence Robert Lawrence testified he heard his name
being called and he walked out from behind the press
into the aisle where he noticed Rae He stated Phyllis
Lawrence was there ordering Ilae off the premises and
Ilae was explaining that he wanted to talk with Robert
Lawrence Robert Lawrence further testified that as he
approached Ilae Phyllis Lawrence was blocking them
and continued to order the union representatives off the
property Because of this, he and Ilae proceeded up the
aisle in the direction of the office area While doing so
Ilae told Phyllis Lawrence to get out of his face and
Phyllis Lawrence replied, No just get off my god
damned premises a Robert Lawrence testified that it was
at this point the profane exchange took place between
Ilae and Phyllis Lawrence After the exchange, Phyllis
Lawrence then turned to the employees, who had gath
ered around, and told them if they wanted the Union
their jobs were in jeopardy and to get their cars off her
property Robert Lawrence further testified that Ilae
then stated, Well I guess she doesn t want you guys so
lets go According to Robert Lawrence it was then
that the employees and the union representatives began
to leave the premises Robert Lawrence testified he had
forgotten his truck keys and he returned to the area of
the die room to get them He stated that when he went
to exit through the door normally used by the employ
ees, it had been closed by Transfiguracion Phyllis Law
rence then instructed Transfiguracion to open a small
side door and Robert Lawrence and Kaniho left the
warehouse 14
Omura, who operated the flexo machine, testified that
that piece of equipment was down at the time the union
representatives came into the plant because he and
Transfiguracion were changing the dies and ink for a
new job order 15 To do so they had to go inside the ma
11 This door is a large rollup door leading to the parking area It is
normally used by employees when entering or leaving the warehouse
12 According to Baijo Ilae had informed him and Masai prior to
coming to Respondent s facility that Ijae had promised the employees he
would come into the plant and tell them about the outcome of the meet
mg with Phyllis Lawrence
1 s Kahele was not called as a witness in this proceeding
14 Kaniho also did not testify in this proceeding
15 The layout of the warehouse indicates the flexo and press machines
were in the same general area Large drums of ink were located between
Continued
PACIFIC ISLE PACKAGING
chine and work approximately a foot or so apart Gor
salves and Jale, the helpers on the flexo, were standing
outside the machine near the front cleaning up for the
next order
Omura further testified he first became aware of the
commotion in the warehouse when he heard Phyllis
Lawrence call out to Transfiguracion saying, Oh Robin,
the man is here Let the boys go Omura stated he then
heard either Gonsalves or Jale call out, Bobby, Slim s
here " Omura testified he continued working in the flexo
for several minutes and while there observed Ilae and
Phyllis Lawrence arguing in the vicinity of the press
Omura left the flexo and went to a desk in the area and
took his cap and automobile keys He further stated he
then followed Ilae and Phyllis Lawrence down the aisle
where he heard them exchange profanities It was then
according to Omura that Phyllis Lawrence turned to the
employees who had gathered around and ordered them
out saying their jobs were in jeopardy According to
Omura, he left by the rear rollup door before it was
closed by Transfiguracion He denied that either Robert
Lawrence or Ilae instructed the employees to walk off
their jobs He also denied that Phyllis Lawrence ever
told the employees to return to their jobs because work
was available
Jale s testimony indicates he heard Ilae and Phyllis
Lawrence yelling at each other as the union representa
tives came into the vicinity of the press and flexo ma
chines According to this witness, Phyllis Lawrence
came near the front of the flexo and told Transfigura
cion, The union guys are here Turn off the machines
He stated he observed Robert Lawrence coming from
the press toward Ilae and Phyllis Lawrence standing be
tween them yelling at Ilae as he attempted to speak with
Robert Lawrence Jale confirmed that Ilae and Phyllis
Lawrence exchanged insults and then, according to Jale,
Phyllis Lawrence told the employees that if they wanted
the Union their jobs were in jeopardy and to take their
vehicles and leave the property He, too, denied Ilae or
Robert Lawrence ever instructed the employees to leave
their jobs or that Phyllis Lawrence ever told the em
ployees work was available to be done and to return to
their machines
Gonsalves also testified he heard Phyllis Lawrence
and Ilae arguing as they approached the area of the flexo
machine He further testified that when he saw Ilae and
Baijo approaching, he called to Robert Lawrence to let
him know that the union representatives were there
Gonsalves stated Phyllis Lawrence came toward the
flexo and told Transfiguracion to turn the machines
off' He stated that when Robert Lawrence came from
the press and attempted to talk with Ilae, he was unable
to do so because Phyllis Lawrence was screaming for
Ilae to leave the premises According to Gonsalves, the
employees began to leave their machines and follow
Phyllis Lawrence and Ilae back up the aisle It was
during this time that he heard the exchange of profanities
between Ilae and Phyllis Lawrence Gonsalves further
testified that Phyllis Lawrence then said to the employ
the two machines with a passageway on either side (See G C Exh 4 and
R Exhs 6 and 8 )
1055
ees, You guys want a union? Do you know your jobs
are in ,jeopardy? And you guys still want a union? Get
off my premises Move all your cars from the parking
lot Gonsalves stated the employees then began to leave
the warehouse
Masaki and Samson were working on the rotary at the
time of the events in the plant Masaki stated the ma
chine was down due to a jam of the material when Ilae
and the union representatives came by followed by Phyl
lis Lawrence and headed toward the flexo and press
area He and Samson were working to clear the jam in
the machine Masaki and Samson stated they could not
hear all the conversation that took place between Phyllis
Lawrence and the union representative Samson asserted
the large stacks of corrugated stock tended to absorb all
but the loudest sounds Masaki testified he heard a
slight commotion' and then someone asked, Where s
Walter, referring to Masaki At that point the group
came back up the aisle headed in the area of the rotary
Masakt stated he then heard the insulting exchange be
tween Ilae and Phyllis Lawrence A few seconds later,
according to Masaki, he heard Phyllis Lawrence say
Get your cars off my premises " Masaki testified he
thought Phyllis Lawrence was saying `Get out, ' and he
left by the door normally used by Respondents custom
ers
Samson s testimony was only slightly more detailed
than that of Masaki He stated he heard the yelling when
Ilae and Phyllis Lawrence were in the press and flexo
area, but could not distinguish what was being said by
the parties As the group came nearer to the rotary he
heard Phyllis Lawrence say, Get out of here if you
want the Union Your jobs are in jeopardy Get your
stuff out of here' According to Samson, he then went to
the slitter to get his car keys and left along with the
other employees
The testimony of Respondents witnesses concerning
the events in the warehouse is in sharp conflict with that
of the testimony given by the employees and the union
representatives Takemoto stated that when he followed
Phyllis Lawrence into the plant he observed Ilae talking
to Robert Lawrence in the area of the press machine
According to Takemoto, he then heard Robert Law
rence say in a loud voice Turn off the machines, we re
walking out '16 Takemoto further testified that Ilae also
told the employees to turn off their machines because
they were walking out He stated he followed the union
representatives Phyllis Lawrence and the group of em
ployees as they headed up the aisle toward the exit
During all this time according to Takemoto, Phyllis
Lawrence was asking the union representatives to
please leave the premises ' He stated Ilae told Phyllis
Lawrence to shut up and when she continued to ask
them to leave Ilae swore at her Phyllis Lawrence re
plied in kind and the group continued walking Take
moto also stated that as the employees were moving
toward the exit, Phyllis Lawrence told them to please
get back to your jobs, because you re jeopardizing your
16 Takemoto also testified he thought he heard Robert Lawrence
call out the name Walter Masaki and state Turn off the machine be
cause we re walking out
1056 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jobs" He stated the employees left nonetheless, and
Phyllis Lawrence directed Transfiguracion to close the
rollup door leading to the parking area because Respond
ent had flammables stored in containers by the open
door 17
Pacheco testified he was helping Robert Lawrence
and Kahele on the press on August 11 when he heard
Robert Lawrence s name being called and observed
three individuals (later identified as the union representa
tives) approaching the area He told Robert Lawrence
someone was calling him and Lawrence came out of the
press and walked in their direction toward the stacker 18
According to Pacheco, Ilae said to Robert Lawrence,
She [Phyllis] doesn t want to talk, lets go Pacheco
testified Robert Lawrence then went over to the flexo
machine and told the employees there Lets go Pa
checo stated that while this was occurring, Phyllis Law
rence was asking the union representatives to please
leave the premises Pacheco further testified he did not
want to get involved and he walked to the back of the
press and remained there He stated that he did not hear
Phyllis Lawrence tell the departing employees to return
to their jobs because work was available
Pacheco acknowledged on the witness stand that
counsel for the General Counsel had spoken to him at
his home about the events on August 11 the day before
the hearing began in this matter He also acknowledged
that while she made notes of his statements that he re
fused to sign, he reviewed the notes and agreed that they
correctly set forth his comments He admitted that he
had not divulged to counsel for the General Counsel that
Ilae told Robert Lawrence that Phyllis Lawrence did not
want to talk and to let s go Pacheco further admitted
expressing concern about where he stood if the employ
ees who were now picketing were reinstated He testi
fled that after the employees left the warehouse Re
spondent promoted him from his utility position to that
of an assistant flexo operator His wages were increased
with the promotion from $4 an hour to $7 21 an hour
Transfiguracion testified he was working in the flexo
with Omura changing the dies when he heard someone
calling for Bobby He observed Ilae approaching the
stacker He stated that as he continued to work on the
dies Phyllis Lawrence came over to the flexo and said
Robin come and help me because the Union is here and
they re going to pull the boys out According to Trans
figuracion, he then went to the restroom to clean the ink
from his hands When he came out, he heard voices by
the side door-referring to the rear rollup door-and he
proceeded through the passageway between the rotary
and taper machines and large stack of stock toward the
main aisle in the plant Transfiguracion further testified
that as he walked up the aisle he observed several em
ployees leaving by the main customer door and getting
11 The outline of the warehouse reveals there was another large door
on the east side of the building facing the main driveway leading to Re
spondent s property This door was also apparently a rollup door and
was used by Respondents customers for picking up materials and prod
ucts The testimony indicates this door remained open and only the door
leading to the parking lot area was closed by Transfiguracion
18 The stacker apparently is a piece of equipment located directly in
front of the press
into their vehicles He stated as he approached the rear
door he saw Phyllis Lawrence and heard her say, Boys
get back to work or your jobs will be jeopardized He
further stated that Robert Lawrence and Kaniho were
the last of the employees to leave, and he then closed the
rollup door because Phyllis Lawrence was fearful some
one would toss a cigarette butt in the area of the flamma
bles 19
Respondents final witness regarding the events on
August 11 was Phyllis Lawrence She testified that she
followed the union representatives into the plant from
the office area after Ilae stated he was going to pull the
employees According to Phyllis Lawrence she heard
Ilae calling out the name Bobby as the representatives
proceeded down the aisle to the flexo and press area
She stated she caught up with them in front of the stack
er and observed Robert Lawrence there at the time She
stated she told the union representatives to please leave
the premises Ilae at this point according to Phyllis
Lawrence told her to shut up He then directed Robert
Lawrence to get the boys, saying She does not want to
listen Phyllis Lawrence further testified she then went
to the flexo machine to get assistance from Transfigure
cion She stated she told Transfiguracion, The Union
was there to walk the boys, to come and help me She
testified that Omura, who was inside the flexo machine
with Transfiguracion, then walked forward away from
her She further testified that she caught up with Ilae in
the vicinity of the taper machine 2O and again ordered
the union representatives off her premises Phyllis Law
rence stated that as the union representatives and the em
ployees who were now gathering around proceeded
down the aisle toward the rear rollup door she continued
to tell the union representatives to get off the premises
Lawrence denied that she was screaming or yelling at
the representatives but stated she told them to leave at
least eight or nine times during the confrontation in the
warehouse According to Phyllis Lawrence she ob
served employees Jale and Kahele walking out of the
rear door She stated they were in front of her and the
union representatives As she approached the rear rollup
door, she called to Kahele and Jale and other employees
who were leaving to come back to work because there
was work available She testified she made this statement
to the employees twice as they were leaving When her
comments were not acknowledged she called to the em
ployees stating they were jeopardizing their jobs if they
did not return to work Lawrence further testified that
after the employees exited the warehouse, she instructed
Transfiguracion to lower the rear rollup door because
drums of flammables were stored next to the door
D The Subsequent Events
After the employees left the premises, they drove their
vehicles off Respondents property and gathered outside
i0 The record indicates the area where flammables were located was
also used by the employees during their break or rest periods It con
tamed chairs for sitting and empty coffee cans in which smoking material
was disposed
20 The sketch of the working area of the warehouse indicates the taper
and rotary machines were in the same general vicinity
PACIFIC ISLE PACKAGING 1057
on the public space fronting the entrance to Respond
ent s property Masaki testified that when he got outside
on the public space he was informed that Phyllis Law
rence had kicked the employees out because the Union
had requested recognition Ilae and the union representa
tives stated they went to the trunk of their automobiles
and took out make shift picket signs which Masai let
tered for the employees Ilae testified that all the union
representatives had blank picket signs in their cars be
cause the Union had an on going dispute with the Ilikai
Hotel and were required to serve on picket line duty
during the week The make shift picket signs, lettered at
the site by Masai , contained the following
PACIFIC ISLE PACKAGING
WE WANT LOCAL 5
employees were ordered to leave the premises by Re
spondent for supporting the Union and thereby withdrew
their labor In this letter the Union asserted the eight em
ployees were unfair labor practice strikers (See G C
Exh 5) Respondent replied to the Unions August 18
letter on August 24 There, Respondent rejected the
Union s characterization of the employees as unfair labor
practice strikers and maintained its position that they
were engaging in a recognitional strike on behalf of the
Union (See R Exh 17 )
The record also reveals that on October 1, Walter
Masaki was reinstated by Respondent According to Re
spondent, a vacancy occurred and Masaki was offered
reinstatement which he accepted At the time of the
hearing, however, all the other employees remained un
reinstated
Later that same day, after unfair labor practice charges
were filed with the Regional Office of the Board, the
word unfair' was added to the legend of the picket
signs
On August 17, the Union sent a letter, over the signa
ture of Anthony Rutledge, making an unconditional offer
on behalf of the picketing employees to return to their
jobs 21 Among other things, the letter stated
The following eight (8) employees, citing the names
of the employees who withdrew their labor at 9
a m, August 11, 1987 in support of their demand
that you recognize and bargain in good faith with
their representative, Hotel Employees & Restaurant
Employees, Local 5, hereby unconditionally offer
and demand to return to work effective immediate
ly 22
Rutledge testified the letter was dictated by the Union's
attorney over the telephone from San Francisco
Respondent replied to the Union s offer on behalf of
the employees by letter on the same date In its letter,
Respondent reiterated that the employees withdrew their
services in support of the Union s demand for recogni
tion and stated that Respondent had hired permanent re
placements to fill the positions vacated by the employ
ees 23 Respondent offered in its letter to put the picket
mg employees on a preferential rehire list for vacancies
as they occurred (See R Exh 14) The Union replied
the following day with a letter again over the signature
of Rutledge stating that Respondent had misconstrued
the initial letter In this letter the Union stated that the
21 The eight picketing employees were Nicholas Jale Rudolph
Samson Christopher Gonsalves Lester Omura, Robert Lawrence Elroy
Kaniho Walter Masaki and Wade Kahele
22 It should be noted at this point that the complaint in this case al
leged in par 9(a) that the Union requested recognition in person on
August 11 and on August 17 by letter The General Counsel concluded
her case without introducing the Union s letter of August 17 Before Re
spondent presented its case it moved to have this portion of the allege
tion in par 9(a) dismissed for failure of proof The General Counsel at
that point offered no explanation and the motion was granted The letter
however was introduced into evidence by Respondent through the wit
ness Phyllis Lawrence as Resp Exh 13
23 The husband of Maunupau (the receptionist) was hired on August
13 as one of the replacements He was hired as an apprentice flexo opera
tor
Concluding Findings
Although this case raises several issues, the central
issue to be decided is whether the employees left their
jobs in support of the Union s request for recognition or
whether they were unlawfully discharged by Phyllis
Lawrence because they were seeking to be represented
by the Union As the lengthy recital of the testimony dis
closes, the ultimate resolution of this issue rests almost
exclusively on the credibility that is accorded the testi
mony of the various witnesses Although this Solomonic
search for the truth is difficult at best it is one which
nevertheless must be made no matter how harsh the re
sults
In arriving at my credibility determinations I am not
unmindful that rarely do witnesses perceive or hear the
same events in the same fashion Also, that testimony
purported to be truthful and accurate is often influenced
by the interest the witness has in the outcome of the pro
ceeding in which the testimony is given
Bearing this in mind, and having closely observed the
demeanor of all the witnesses while testifying, I find the
truthful account of what occurred on August 11 does not
completely conform with the versions given by the wit
nesses for either side Rather I find the truth lies some
where in between Thus while I find portions of the tes
timony given here to be reliable and trustworthy, I find
other portions of the testimony of the same witnesses to
be unworthy of belief NLRB v Universal Camera Corp
179 F 2d 749 754 (2d Cir 1950) Herrick & Smith 275
NLRB 398 (1985) Enterprise Products Co, 265 NLRB
544 (1982)
First, as noted there is no real contention that the
Union did not possess eight validly executed authonza
tion cards when the union representatives came to Re
spondent s facility on August 11 Therefore, whether the
unit consisted of 9 or 10 employees is of no consequence
because the Union clearly represented a majority of the
employees in the unit
I reject Respondents contention that Ilae failed to
make a proper demand for recognition in an appropriate
unit I credit the testimony of the union representatives
that Ilae told Lawrence he wanted to talk about [her]
men in the warehouse ' and mentioned the recognition
agreement that he wanted her to sign Lawrence cut off
1058 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all other conversation regarding the recognition request
by refusing to discuss the matter with Ilae referring him
to the Board, and ordering the union representatives off
the premises I do not credit the testimony of Lawrence
or Maunupau that Ilae s statements about the purpose of
his visit was as limited as they indicated My finding in
this regard is further reinforced by the testimony of
McGuire that Lawrence reported Ilae had documents he
wanted her to sign and she referred him to the Board
In addition, it is undisputed that Lawrence was aware,
prior to Ilae's arrival, that the employees in the ware
house were seeking union representation and signing au
thorization cards This fact had been reported to her by
Takemoto and had also been made known to Transfigur
acion by Tisalona Indeed, the prospect of the unioniza
tion of the employees was the sole reason why Lawrence
was consulting with McGuire at the time the union rep
resentatives appeared on the premises
In these circumstances, I find the record fully estab
lishes that the Union made a valid request for recogni
tion for an appropriate unit of Respondents employees
The fact that Lawrence foreclosed any further discussion
regarding the Union s request for recognition in no way
vitiates the adequacy of the demand Cf Medical Inves
tors Assn, 260 NLRB 941, 948 (1982)
This finding, however does not conclude the analysis
of the events that occurred in the reception office Con
trary to the testimony of the union representatives, I find
that Ilae did, in fact, tell Lawrence he was going to
walk the employees and she had better notify the
police In arriving at this conclusion, I do not accept the
Respondent's contention that the union representatives
and the employees had agreed on a prearranged plan to
walk out if the recognition demand was rejected I find
their testimony to be candid and forthright in that all op
tions were discussed during the predemand meetings but
that the prospect of walking out was presented as the
least desirable approach 24 Whether Ilae subsequently
changed his plans without notifying the employees or
whether he became angered by the manner in which
Lawrence summarily rejected the Union's request for
recognition I am unable to state Nonetheless, I am per
suaded Ilae made the statement attributed to him by
Lawrence and Maunupau when he turned to leave the
reception area In the absence of such a statement, there
was no reason for Lawrence to first go back into her
office to speak to McGuire and Takemoto before going
into the plant If, at this point, she entertained any fear
that the union representatives would not leave the prem
ises, she would have merely had to follow them from the
reception area to make certain they were departing
Once in the plant, it is apparent that the level of ten
sion and emotion between Lawrence and the union rep
resentatives rose to a heightened pitch I do not credit
Phyllis Lawrence s testimony that she was as calm or
composed as she attempted to portray on the witness
stand Nor do I credit her testimony, or that of Take
moto or Pacheco that Lawrence was simply asking the
union representatives to please leave the premises
Rather I find from the credited testimony that as Ilae
and the union representatives were walking further into
the warehouse in a determined search for Robert Law
rence, Phyllis Lawrence following closely, was equally
as determined and adamant in demanding that they leave
her premises The more her demands were being ig
nored the more strident they became By the time the
group reached the vicinity of the stacker she and Ilae
were shouting at each other
I credit the testimony of Phyllis Lawrence and only
to this limited extent that of Pacheco'25 in that when
Robert Lawrence appeared from the press Ilae said,
`She doesn t want to listen, let s go It was then that
Phyllis Lawrence went toward the flexo and called for
Transfiguracion to assist her because the Union was
going to pull the employees I do not, however, credit
the testimony of Pacheco that Robert Lawrence told the
employees on the flexo to let's go, ' or the testimony of
Takemoto that Robert Lawrence called out for the em
ployees to turn off their machines and walk Similarly I
do not credit the statements of Omura or Jale that Phyl
lis Lawrence ordered Transfiguracion to turn off the ma
chines and let the employees go I find these statements
by each of these witnesses to be nothing more than unre
liable embellishments of the events that occurred in the
plant
It is unrefuted that as Robert Lawrence walked with
Ilae and the union representatives toward the rotary and
taper machines, employees were beginning to move with
them toward the exits and Phyllis was still loudly insist
ing the union representatives leave her premises It was
then that the profane exchange, initiated by Ilae, took
place Despite the uniformity of the testimony of the em
ployees and the union representatives, I do not find that
Phyllis Lawrence at this point ordered the employees to
leave the premises and remove their vehicles from her
property Having observed the witnesses carefully I am
firmly convinced this portion of their testimony was con
trived to support the claim that they were ordered out of
the warehouse by Lawrence I particularly note that
Masaki who left at the same time the other employees
departed testified the employees were told, once they
were outside, that they had been kicked out" when Ilae
asked for recognition Therefore, I find that the employ
ees having heard the highly charged confrontation be
tween Phyllis Lawrence and Ilae and observing Robert
Lawrence walking away with the union representatives,
interpreted this, rightly or wrongly, as a signal to leave
their employment in support of the Union s demand for
recognition I further find that as the employees were
heading toward the open doors on the side and at the
rear of the warehouse, Phyllis Lawrence was following,
calling out that they were jeopardizing their jobs By her
own admission she made this statement several times and
25 I find Pacheco to be the most Lnreliable of the witnesses in this pro
24 Although the fact that a representation petition was never shown to ceedmg His evasiveness on the stand and his obvious concern about
the employees during the meeting on August 10 or filed with the Board maintaining his current position with Respondent at a substantial wage
is probative of whether Ilae intended to file a petition at all I do not increase persuades me to disregard his testimony where it is not corrobo
deem it conclusive evidence that he had no such intention rated by other credited testimony
PACIFIC ISLE PACKAGING 1059
I am persuaded that the final statement regarding the
jeopardy of their jobs was made as she approached the
rear door from which most of the employees were de
parting I attach no significance to the fact that Phyllis
Lawrence ordered the rear door closed after her con
frontation with Ilae It is undisputed that the main door
used by Respondent's customers remained open through
out the day Therefore, I do not find the closing of the
rear door to indicate anything other than Respondent s
efforts to ensure the safety of its premises after the
heated confrontation with the union representatives
Finally, if any lingering doubts existed as to the basis
for the reason the employees left the premises on August
11, they were fully dispelled by the Union's letter on
August 17 There, the Union, in making an unconditional
offer and demand for the employees to be returned to
their jobs, stated the employees withdrew their labor in
support of the Union's demand for recognition Although
Rutledge testified this letter was dictated long distance
by the Union's attorney in San Francisco, there is a clear
presumption that the wording of the letter was based on
facts supplied by the Union Thus, I deem this letter to
be an admission that reinforces the finding that the em
ployees voluntarily left their jobs to support the Union's
request for recognition Nor does the Union's subsequent
letter soften the impact of this revealing admission I find
the second letter to be nothing more than an ineffectual
attempt to nullify the admission by belatedly asserting
the employees withdrew their labor because they were
ordered to leave the warehouse Common experience
dictates that had the employees been unlawfully terms
nated by Phyllis Lawrence, as now asserted, a seasoned
union official such as Rutledge would have noted that
claim in his initial letter and made it the focal point for
the assertion that the employees were entitled to immedi
ate reinstatement to their jobs
Based on all the above findings, I conclude that the
General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponder
ance of the credible evidence in the record that Re
spondent has committed violations of the Act Thus, I
find Respondent did not discharge the employees on
August 11 because they sought to be represented by the
Union I further find that Respondent in the circum
stances presented here, did not threaten the employees
with loss of their jobs because they were seeking repre
sentation by the Union There is no requirement that an
employer recite, in haec verba, all the rights of economic
strikers to employees who are voluntarily leaving their
jobs in support of a unions demand for recognition 26
Therefore, when Phyllis Lawrence told the employees
they were jeopardizing their jobs by leaving, she was
telling them, in an imprecise fashion, that their current
job status could be affected Finally, having found that
Respondent did not commit any unfair labor practices
prior to, during, or after the Union's demand for recogni
tion, Respondent was privileged to refuse the request to
recognize the Union and refer the union representatives
to the Board Summer & Co v NLRB, 419 US 301
(1974)
In sum, the General Counsel has failed to establish that
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), or (5) of the
Act Therefore, I find the complaint in this case must be
dismissed in its entirety
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent, Pacific Isle Packaging, Inc, is an em
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
2 Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees, Local 5,
AFL-CIO affiliated with Hotel Employees and Restau
rant Employees International Union, AFL-CIO is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
3 Respondent did not threaten employees with loss of
their jobs because they engaged in union or other con
certed activities
4 Respondent did not discharge employees because
they sought to be represented by the Union
5 Respondent did not unlawfully refuse to bargain in
good faith with the Union when it sought recognition as
the collective bargaining representative of the employees
in an appropriate unit
[Recommended Order omitted from publication ]
28 See NLRB v Fleetwood Trailer Co 389 U S 375 (1967) Laidlaw
Corp 171 NLRB 1366 (1968) enfd 414 F 2d 99 (7th Cir 1969) cert
denied 397 U S 920 ( 1970) (setting forth the rights of economic sinkers)