Power Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 945 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 945
lawful since Respondents were not aware of the fact that the individuals involved had
acted with other employees . Absent the concerted nature of the activity it appears
that the conduct of the employees discharged was conduct equivalent to that of filing
of individual grievances . Nevertheless, the discharges were held to be not violative
of the Act. In short, the Office Towel Supply and the Walls cases indicate that em-
ployee activity is not protected by the Act so as to render terminations for such
conduct unlawful unless (1) the activity is "in fact concerted activity" and (2) the
facts are such as to "warrant attributing to the Respondent knowledge" that the
activity was "concerted ." These factors are not present in the Bough situation.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner recommends that the allegations of the complaint
to the effect that Respondent unlawfully discharged Bough be dismissed.
ULTIMATE FiNDINOs AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board 's requirements for
the assertion of jurisdiction herein.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, and Locals 391 and 71, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent interfered with, restrained, or
coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act by threatening to discharge employees active on behalf of the afore-
mentioned labor organization and by terminating the employment of Quenton Reese
and Gordon M. Treadwell.
4. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The evidence adduced does not establish that Respondent violated the Act by
terminating the services of Manard E. Bough.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Power Equipment Company and International Union , United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-P2295. February 8, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 18, 1961, Trial Examiner James F. Foley-issued-his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached thereto. He also recommended that certain other allegations
of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) Of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. -
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed; - The
1In its brief , the Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner and the Regional
Director erred in not granting its requests for a continuance of the hearing herein until
135 NLRB No. 94.
6 3444 9 -6 2--vol 135---61
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 2 of
the Trial Examiner with the modifications below.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Power Equip-
ment Company, Galion, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees as to their union activities, interests,
or affiliations.
(b) Promising benefits to employees if they abandon union or other
concerted activity.
(c) Ordering or requiring employees to remove bowling shirts bear-
ing the initials or 'other identification of International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, and threatening em-
ployees with discharge if they were worn again during working hours.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist the International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
after the holding of an election in a representation proceeding involving the same parties,
although the Charging Party (who is also the petitioner in the representation case) had
waived these charges as a basis of any objection to the election. The question whether
a continuance is to be granted and the extent thereof is a matter within the sound dis-
cretion of the Regional Director or the Trial Examiner, under Sections 102 16 and 102.43
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. We perceive no abuse of
that discretion or prejudice to the Respondent in this case. See Dal-Tex Optical Com-
pany, Inc, 130 NLRB 1313. The Respondent's further claim that it was unable to pre-
pare for the hearing on the allegations of the complaint because of the pendency of the
Charging Party's appeal to the General Counsel from the Regional Director's refusal to
include certain other allegations in the complaint is palpably frivolous
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that Industrial Relations Director Ryon's order
that the employees remove their bowling shirts with UAW inscribed thereon and not
wear them during working hours under the threat of discharge interfered with the em-
ployees' activity protected by Section 7 and hence violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act
Though we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent did not prove the
special circumstances which might warrant its order, we have held that, even assuming
the existence of such circumstances, it is incumbent upon an einpolyer to advise the
employees why it is ordering them to give up a protected right. Maytath Company, 132
NLRB 1628. The reasonable inference from the failure to give any explanation is that
the employees would be discharged, thus emphasizing that the alternative which Ryon
gave the employees of "clocking out and not returning" meant their final termination
See ibid. However, we do not agree that Ryon's peremptory refusal to furnish an ex-
planation for this order constituted an additional independent 8(a)(1) violation.
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 947
gaining 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its place of business in Galion, Ohio, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representatives, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) by Training Director Tinstman's and Industrial Relations
Director Ryon's interrogation of employees and by Supervisor Sipes'
interrogation of employee Repp.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to their union activities,
interests, or affiliations.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees if they abandon
union or other concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT order or require employees to remove bowling
shirts bearing the initials or other identification of International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
and threaten them with discharge if they are worn again during
working hours.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any 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.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except
to the extent this right may be affected by a lawful agreement require-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment.
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated--------------=- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office (720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland 15,
Ohio; Telephone Number Dunbar 1-1420) if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case, Case No . 8-CA-2295, was brought under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat . 136, 73 Stat . 519), herein called the Act,
on a charge filed November 21, 1960 , by International Union , United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called
UAW, against Power Equipment Company, herein called Respondent . On Febru-
ary 23 , 1961 , the General Counsel issued a complaint against Respondent premised
on the allegations therein of violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent
filed an answer on March 10, 1961 . A hearing on the complaint and answer was
held on April 18 through 25, 1961, at Galion, Ohio, before James F. Foley, the
duly designated Trial Examiner.
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act , Respondent , through officers, agents , and supervisors , particularly Vice
President William H . Graham ; Industrial Relations Director Alan-V. Ryon, Training
Director Carl Tinstman, and Supervisor Ralph Sipes, interrogated Respondent's
employees from July 16 to the date of the complaint, February 23, 1961, concerning
union membership , activities, and sympathies ; through officers , agents, and super-
visors, particularly Vice President Graham, made promises of benefit and award to
Respondent's employees from November 16, 1960, to the date of the complaint, if
they would repudiate and abandon their membership in and activities and sympathies
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 949
for UAW, and from November 7, 1960 , to the date of the complaint , through
officers, agents , and supervisors , particularly Industrial Relations Director Ryon,
refused to permit employees to wear bowling shirts with UAW inscribed thereon on
Respondent 's premises, while not banning bowling shirts with other identification
thereon.
Respondent , General Counsel, and the Charging Party were represented at the
hearing. All parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard , to introduce evi-
dence, to make oral argument , and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by counsel for
General Counsel and Respondent after the close of the hearing. Independent Em-
ployees Union of Power Equipment Company, by counsel , was permitted to intervene
for the limited purpose of presenting as a preliminary matter a motion for the con-
tinuance of the hearing until after the Board election scheduled for April 27, 1961,
in which it , UAW, and the International Association of Machinists , District No. 59,
AFL-CIO, herein called Machinists , were seeking selection as collective -bargaining
representative . The motion was denied.'
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
power supply equipment at a plant in Galion, Ohio. The principal office of the
corporation is at the Galion, Ohio, plant, but its registered office is located in Detroit,
Michigan. Respondent annually purchases materials and supplies of a value in excess
of $100,000 from outside the State of Ohio, and annually sells finished products of a
value in excess of $100,000 which are transported and delivered from its plant in
Galion, Ohio, in interstate commerce to points located outside the State of Ohio.
I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
UAW is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. General background
The following background evidence is undisputed.
In May 1960, there was an intensive proxy fight between North Electric Company
and Neptune Meter Company for the control of Respondent's board of directors .2
The battle was recounted daily in the Galion newspapers and was of considerable
interest to the residents of Galion. In this battle for control, Respondent's then
incumbent management supported Neptune Meter .Company, and sought the aid of
the local community on behalf of that company. North Electric won. By the
middle of May 1960, it had acquired a majority interest in Respondent, and by
September 1960, it owned 96 percent of Respondent's -stock. Respondent had be-
come a subsidiary of North Electric Company, hereinafter called North Electric.
In May 1960, when North Electric acquired control, "there were employees in
both the hourly wage and salaried ranks who had been employed by North Electric.
Respondent was founded in 1935 as a partnership by persons who had been asso-
ciated with North Electric .3 Prior to the acquisition of control by North Electric,
the best recommendation an applicant for a -job with Respondent could have was
that he had resigned or had been fired from North- Electric.
In May 1960, Respondent's new board of directors appointed North Electric's
president, William Tucker, and its vice president, William Hugh Graham, to be presi-
dent and executive vice president, respectively, of Respondent. In July 1960, Alan V.
Ryon was hired by Graham to be industrial relations director? Ryon hired Carl
Tinstman as training manager on August 29, 1960.
I There were 12 witnesses for General Counsel and 15 for Respondent. The transcript
was 1,205 pages.
2L M Ericsson, a Swedish company, owns the majority of the stock of North Electric
Company It operates in 75 countries and has manufacturing operations in 14 of these
countries.
3 Respondent was incorporated in the early 1950's as a Michigan corporation. L. J Davis,
an original partner, was the first president He held this position until his death In 1957.
*Ryon had been engaged in industrial relations work at North Electric for the prior
18 years.
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
• During the first months of operation as a subsidiary of North Electric, Respondent
was beset by disquieting rumors destructive of employee morale. These rumors
dealt with job security and layoff. They were, in substance, that Respondent's em-
ployees would be replaced by North Electric employees and that North Electric
employees would have seniority over Respondent's employees. The uncertainty
generated by these rumors already had roots in the rumors and representations made
by Respondent's old management in its opposition to the acquisition of control by
North Electric during the proxy fight, and the length of time, from 1957 through
1959, that Respondent was up for sale.
Although being hampered in the initial stages of operation under new manage-
ment by the employee morale problem, Respondent increased its business immedi-
ately by the utilization of North Electric's nationwide sales force to sell its products.
So Respondent had the immediate need not only to retain its production level against
the morale factor, but also to raise it to fill the increased orders. In addition, the
new management had plans for the future that included further increases in
production.
Respondent took several early steps to meet the production problems. During the
first 90 days it hired an additional 200 employees .5 On July 13, 1960, Respondent
in a letter to employees, signed by Vice President Graham, notified them of a
5-cent-an-hour increase to hourly wage employees, and the establishment of an in-
dustrial engineering department, and cautioned the employees not to believe rumors
of what management intended to do without checking with their supervisors as to
the truth of such rumors. Carl Tinstman was hired as training manager on August
29, 1960, in part to conduct employee attitude surveys to find the causes for the
rumors and employee uncertainty, to evaluate the findings and make recommenda-
tions with the view of laying the rumors to rest, and improving employee morale.
On August 31, 1960, a written questionnaire designed to bring out employee
attitudes on the factors affecting their employment, prepared by Tinstman, was
distributed to all employees under a memorandum signed by Industrial Relations
Director Ryon. Ryon asked the employees to prepare the responses voluntarily and to
return the completed questionnaire unsigned.6 On September 5, 1960, Tinstman be-
gan supplementing the written surveys by personal interviews of employees. He inter-
viewed approximately 75 employees from that date through December 1960. In-
dustrial Relations Director Ryon also interviewed 30 to 40 employees as part of
this program.
On September 1, 1960, Donald E. Shipman, an employee in the inspection
department, was reprimanded for spreading the rumor that "all older employees
were to be released from Peco and replaced by new people." 7 Industrial Relations
Director Ryon, in a memorandum of that date, informed Shipman that he had been
placed on a 90-day probationary period, and advised him that for the next infraction
he could expect a more severe penalty, including the possibility of dismissal. On
September 16, 1960, President Tucker, in a speech to assembled employees, char-
acterized the rumor spreading as "spreading evil, vicious rumors and malicious lies,"
and the rumor spreaders as "Benedict Arnolds." In the first part of 1961, Respondent
brought the president of the Institute of Human Science, Chicago, Illinois, to the
plant in Galion, Ohio, to assist it in getting rid of rumors and to put good manage-
ment concepts in operation.
B. Union animus
While the new management of Respondent was struggling to neutralize the
problems it had inherited, and to place its plans in operation , union organizational
activity began. UAW began organizing about June 15, 1960 . Independent Em-
ployees Union and Machinists began their organizing activity shortly thereafter.s
Vice President Graham was aware of the union organizational activity from the
date it began.
5 On September 16, 1960, Respondent had approximately 900 employees
O Completed questionnaires were returned by 25 5 percent of the employees They
reached Respondent during the period from September 5 through 16, 1960, except for a
few which were received after the latter date On November 1, 1960, Tinstman submitted
to Ryon a written evaluation of the responses to the questionnaire together with his
recommendations
7 Peco is the short and familiar identification of Power Equipment Company
80n October 20, 1960, UAW filed with the Board a representation petition asking for
certification as collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's production and mainte-
nance employees A decision and direction of election was issued by the Board on April 4,
1961 (not published in NLRB volumes). The election was scheduled for April 27, 1961.
UAW, Machinists, and Independent Union of Employees were to be on the ballot
POWER EQUIPMENT,, COMPANY 951
In his September 16, 1960, speech to the assembled employees , President Tucker
in discussing rumors covered not only five rumors relating to job security and layoff,
but also talked about rumors relating to union . activity. He also discussed union
action in connection with the reprimand Respondent gave to one of its employees
for spreading a rumor relating to job security and layoff.
According to Tucker, it was rumored that Respondent had to have a union as
North Electric controlled all the labor in the required classification in Galion, that
it must be a national union because an independent union would give all the jobs
at Respondent's plant to North Electric employees, and that L. M. Ericsson, North
Electric 's parent company , favored unions and was sending a special representative
to Galion to give the Union an endorsement . He denied that labor was controlled
by North Electric, claiming that Respondent and North Electric were still competing
in the labor market that supplied workers to the Respondent. He stated that no
union , independent , national , or International , could furnish jobs or improve
chances for employment at Respondent or North Electric, or tell management whom
it must hire. He said categorically that "your management favors no union."
Tucker mentioned the increase in the frequency of distribution of "union propa-
ganda" at the gates of Respondent . He said that such a situation did not bother
him, that they would meet the unions on that front just as vigorously at any time.
He observed that the statements the union kept repeating in this propaganda to
the effect that the employees were free to join a union, and that the Federal Govern-
ment protected them in` this right, were true statements, that anybody could join a
union, but that the organizing unions avoided telling the employees that they could
refuse to join a union, and that they were also protected in this right. Tucker fol-
lowed this observation with the statement that the only way a union would come
into the plant was because the employees, at least a solid majority, "must insist upon
the privilege of paying a union to represent you in your dealings with your manage-
ment," that in fact Respondent would oppose any effort by any union to organize
Respondent's plant, and would avail itself of every legal action in doing so. He re-
peated that "your management will not invite or encourage any union to come into
the plant." He further stated that "We faced this union issue at North last year
and went through a Labor Board election, and to their credit, our people chose
cooperation rather than conflict." He,added that "We will face any issue here just
as aggressively as we faced that one."
Tucker branded as false the rumor that L. M. Ericsson, North Electric's parent
company , favored unions . He stated to the assembled employees that his patience
was at an end with respect to the spreading of false reports and rumors , and that
all the employees assembled would share in this feeling . He then stated that the
rumor that Respondent was going to lay off its- employees to make - room for
employees from - North Electric, was traced to two employees who admitted re-
sponsibility for spreading it, that each one was reprimanded verbally and put on
notice , and that in the case of one employee, it was his second notice. • He claimed
that throughout the investigation and during the conversations management per-
sonnel had with the employees "that not one word about unions or unionism was
uttered by these persons or by any management personnel ," but that "despite these
.facts, these employees endeavored to seek protection by going to a union and
claiming they were reprimanded because of union activities." .
Remarking . that the claim was as false as the statements that brought criticism
from management in the first place, Tucker made the statement that "a complaint
has been filed with the National Labor Relations Board . and. notice was served, a
few days ago," and concluded his remarks about unions by saying no law would
protect these employees from the dissemination of false statements or violations of
reasonable work rules , that despite the filing of this complaint , a third reprimand
would result in the discharge of the employee with the two reprimands, and that no
false charge he could "concoct" with the Labor Board would bring him back on the
payroll. He added that the Union these employees went to might try to make
capital out of their filing the complaint by leading the employees to believe,that
Respondent was in trouble and that the Union gained some advantage or had pro-
vided some protection by,taking action on behalf of these people . Contending that
such a situation was not true , he made the statement that his instructions to the
management personnel and his advice to the employees were to dismiss it from their
minds, and that "we will answer it and defeat it at the proper time and in the United
States Courts if necessary." 9
9 The two speeches were reproduced and placed in a paper cover with the title, "1960
Annual Report to the Employees," and mailed to every employee. Each of the speeches
was signed , Tucker identified the speeches at the outset of his speech as an annual report
to the employees
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vice President Graham 's speech dealt with the • cost reduction program and
competition for customers . He referred to the establishment of an industrial engi-
neering department to devise methods for lightening - the work of production, im-
proving products , enlarging markets, increasing the number of jobs, and increasing
the earnings of everyone connected with Respondent . He referred to "prophets of
doom and gloom who say the Company 's purpose is to make you [the employees]
work harder." Apparently he was referring to alleged rumors circulating in the
plant that the changes being made were part of -a "speed up" program . There was
no reference to unions or union , activity in Graham 's speech. 10
C. Respondent's, conduct in issue
General Counsel contends , by evidence and argument , that Training Manager
Tinstman 's interview of employees Wipert, Carver , Jones, Shipman , Watt, and Borck,
Industrial Relations Director Ryon's interview of employee Jones, Supervisor Sipes'
interviews of employees Repp and Crissinger , and Vice President Graham's inter-
view of employee Shipman , contained illegal coercive conduct. General Counsel
further contends by evidence and argument that Industrial Relations Director Ryon
engaged in illegal coercive conduct by his order requiring eight second -shift employ-
ees to remove the bowling shirts with UAW inscribed thereon they were wearing
during working hours, and forbidding them to wear the shirts during working hours
in the future.
1. Interviews by Tinstman
a. General
The evidence of General Counsel and Respondent is not in dispute that'I'instman
interviewed employees Duane Wipert, Rosemary Carver, James Jones, Donald E.
Shipman, Carl Watt, and William Borck, who testified for the General Counsel, as
well as seven other employees who testified in rebuttal for the Respondent, as part
of the group of 75 employees he interviewed in the employee attitude survey he con-
ducted during the period from September 5, 1960, through December 1960. Wipert
and Carver were interviewed in September,il Jones in September or October, Ship-
man on October 17 and 18, Watt on November 23, and Borck sometime in December.
At the time of the interviews, Wipert had been employed 1 year, Carver 2 years,
Jones 1 year, Shipman 31/2 years, Watt 51/2 years, and Borck 8 months.
Wipert, Carver, Shipman, Watt, and Borck were active in UAW's organizational
efforts. The evidence shows that they regularly attended UAW weekly meetings and,
with the exception of Carver, solicited the signing of cards authorizing UAW to act
as bargaining representative. Carver wore and passed out UAW insignia. So did
,Shipman. Wipert passed them out. Borck wore them . These insignia - were combs,
pencils, and badges. Jones wore a -UAW inscribed pocket or pencil holder as did
Shipman and Watt. Jones , Borck, and Carver were three of the employees wearing
the UAW inscribed bowling shirts that Industrial Relations Director Ryon ordered
removed.
Tinstman's testimony discloses he was aware of Shipman 's and Watt's connection
with UAW and its organizational activity. at the time of the interviews. He was also
aware that Borck had interests in UAW when he interviewed him in December in view
of. his wearing the UAW bowling shirt during working hours- on October 27 or
November 4, 1960. Tinstman was present when Ryon ordered Borck and the other
seven employees to remove the shirts. Borck also wore UAW insignia. Carver
testified that Tinstman knew of her connection with UAW when he interviewed her,
but could not indicate the source of his knowledge . Her testimony raises a doubt as
to whether she was wearing any identification during her interviews by Tinstman.
Jones testified that he and others wore UAW inscribed pencil or pocket holders "all
"General Counsel's position is that Tucker's speech, while standing alone is not viola-
tive of the Act, shows strong antiunion animus on the part of Respondent He also con-
tends that Graham's reference to `.'Benedict Arnolds" shows antiunion animus On
October 3, 1960, employee Carl Watt was reprimanded orallyy Factory Manager Pierce
for soliciting for UAW during working hours. Pierce told Watt that the next warning
would be written and accompanied by his termination papers Watt was told that em-
ployees had complained of his solicitation Pierce asked him if he had heard Tucker's
speech General Counsel does not contend that Pierce's reprimand and instruction to
Watt is a violation He does contend, however, that they are another showing of anti-
union animus.
11 Wipert testified he was interviewed in late August However, Tinstman did not begin
his employment until August 29, or begin the interviews until September 5
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 953
the time" at work as well as UAW inscribed pencils. I find that he was wearing the
pencil or pocket holder when interviewed by Tinstman. Wipert testified that he had
other employees wear union insignia. His testimony is silent as to whether he wore
them. The evidence does not disclose Tinstman had knowledge of his union activity
or affiliation. I do not premise knowledge on the solicitation of signatures on UAW
authorization cards as the evidence is silent as to any solicitation during working
hours by any employees with the exception of Watt. UAW representatives instructed
the employees assisting them not to solicit during working hours.
Tinstman testified that the employees interviewed represented a random selec-
tion of one of every seven employees from a list of employees by department with
adjustments to make certain each department was represented. This appears to be
the evidence of what happened as a general rule.ia Employee Borck was not inter-
viewed until December 1960. The other transformer department employees inter-
viewed by Tinstman who testified for General Counsel (Wipert, Carver, and Jones)
were interviewed in September or early October 1960. Transformer department
employees Fisher and LaRue, who were Respondent's witnesses, testified they were
interviewed by Tinstman in September or October.i3
The oral interviews supplemented the written attitude survey initiated August 31,
1960, by the transmission to employees of a questionnaire prepared by Tinstman
under a memorandum signed by Industrial Relations Director Ryon.14
There is likewise no dispute that in the interviews of the six employees who testi-
fied for the General Counsel, Tinstman generally followed the pattern of introducing
himself, telling the employees who he was, what his job was, and what he was seeking.
He wanted them to talk about any gripes and complaints they had about everything
pertaining to the job, and said his purpose was to find out what was affecting them
adversely as employees as well as the extent to which they were satisfied with their
employment. He invited the employees to do the talking, and answered questions or
made statements only to keep the employees talking along the line planned or to seek
a clarification of statements the employees made. The time taken by each interview
depended on the extent to which the employee was willing to discuss the complaints
and gripes generally prevailing in the plant together with his individual capacity
to discuss them.
Only the employee interviewed and Tinstman were present during each of the inter-
views.15 Tinstman took notes and told each employee interviewed that everything
said would be held confidential to the extent that it would not be known who dis-
closed the information gathered in the interview. This was to protect the employee
from reprisals such as might happen where the complaint or gripe discussed would
involve a supervisor. Tinstman did not ask the employees to keep confidential what
they discussed in the interviews. Some of the employees were interviewed in offices
other than Tinstman's office. I credit Tinstman's testimony that these offices were
designated by Respondent for interviewing employees.
Wipert's interview took 11h hours; Carver's first, 15 to 20 minutes, her second,
one-half hour; Jones' a "few hours"; Shipman's first, 1 hour on October 17 and 4
hours on October 18, and his second, 11h hours in the last week of November; Watt's,
51h hours; and Borck's, 21h hours.
11 It is clear from the testimony that Respondent was seeking knowledge of matters
which employees considered as affecting them adversely, and was interested in talking to
employees who could best disclose this information. While employees Shipman and Watt
may have been in the one out of seven selection, it appears that Tinstman selected them
in any event because they were employees of long tenure, broad experience, and aware of
management shortcomings which they had marshalled for use in selling UAW to the
employees.
18I give no weight to the testimony of employees Robinson and Warren, Respondent's
other witnesses from the tiansformer department. They testified that their interviews
were in the "fall" and "late fall," respectively. See infra for finding on credibility of
Warren's testimony.
14 The 43 questions on the written questionnaire explored the thinking of the employees
with respect to all phases of their jobs, their concerns about and enthusiasm for their
jobs and working conditions in general, their liaison with their supervisors and indirectly
with higher levels of management and the attitude of these levels of management toward
them, and the extent the employees were affected by rumors The evidence also discloses
that Tinstman evaluated the unsigned responses to the written questionnaire and made
to Industrial Relations Director Ryon recommendations based thereon designed to improve
working conditions
15 What was said or took place is disclosed only by the testimony of the employees and
Tinstman and what evidence was offered of relevant external circumstances
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. Shipman and Watt
General Counsel contends that the length of time Tinstman took to interview Ship-
man in October and Watt in his one interview is evidence of coercive conduct. How-
ever, Shipman's and Watt's testimony and other evidence shows that both Shipman
and Watt initiated at least the major part of the subjects discussed , and had plenty to
say about them. Shipman elected to discuss on October 17 the reprimand he received
on September 1, 1960 (supra), and another which he had received on August 19,
1960, for discussing matters not related to his job. At Tinstman's request on Oc-
tober 18, he repeated his statements of the prior day about the reprimands. He talked
about matters he considered deficiencies in working conditions, such as wage in-
equities . The evidence shows he was well informed, and together with his demeanor
on the witness stand disclosed an able capacity for self-expression . Watt's testimony
and the testimony of Tinstman showed Watt, a veteran employee, to have considerable
knowledge of Respondent's plant operations, and personnel conditions, and a ready
facility to discuss what he considered to be a long list of grievances and broken
promises. He readily testified that he enjoyed the interview, and did not have the
time to eat his lunch in Tinstman 's presence , as he had been permitted to do, or even
to drink coffee from the thermos which he had opened because each time he started
to do so Tinstman would say something of interest and he wished to reply.
Shipman testified that Tinstman did not ask any questions or otherwise initiate any
statements about unions or union activity, that he, not Tinstman, brought up the sub-
ject of unions. His testimony does not indicate or show that Tinstman said anything
in reply. According to Tinstman, the 11h-hour conversation Tinstman had with him
in the last week in November dealt with a proposed wage scale and classification
program. There is no evidence that unions or union activity were mentioned.
Watt testified that after a discussion of 2 hours Tinstman initiated on a proposed
wage scale at the general wage level, which was considerably below his, Tinstman
asked him if he had any questions. Watt testified that "We had a regular question
and answer session," "and I told him of some of the gripes I had and why I was for
a union." According to Watt, Tinstman asked him in the course of this conversation
if he believed everything he heard in a union meeting, or everything Frank Donley,
the UAW International representative, told him, and what he felt a union could do
for him. Tinstman's•testimony is silent in regard to this testimony of Watt. In con-
nection with the discussion of the wage level, Watt testified that Tinstman said that
he was 2 months behind in his interviews because of outside activities and Watt and
his outside friends were not giving him enough time to put the wage scale in effect.
Tinstman denied he made either of these statements. He said he may have indicated
that Respondent needed time to put the wage scale in effect. Watt also testified that
at the outset of the interview, Tinstman looked a his UAW inscribed pencil or pocket
holder, and said he was one of the, main. ones. Tinstman said he did not recollect
looking at Watt's UAW pocket holder,-and denied saying he was one of the main ones.
I credit. Watt's -testimony that Tinstman asked in the course of the conversation if
Watt believed everything he heard in a union meeting, or UAW Representative Donley
told him, and what he felt a union could do for him. I find, however, that he asked
these questions in regard to statements made by Watt in a discussion about unions
initiated by Watt. I find that if Tinstman looked in the direction of Watt's pocket
holder, it was a normal reaction to seeing him wearing it, especially in view of Re-
spondent's lack of favor for unions. In view of Tinstman's denial, I do not credit
Watt's testimony that he said he was one of the main ones. If he did say it, the evi-
dence would support the finding he said, in effect, that Watt was one of the main
employees. He was a veteran employee and one of the highest paid hourly wage
workers. He could be expected to disclose to Tinstman useful information. From
the evidence, it appears that Respondent would have appreciated receiving useful in-
formation about employee complaints and gripes from any useful source including an
employee engaged in union activity. In this part of the context, it appears that in any
event the interview of UAW supporter Watt was not to defeat union activity but to
benefit from the knowledge Watt had of the defects in Respondent's working con-
ditions, even though the defects may have been marshalled in connection with or-
ganizational activity.16 I do not credit Watt's testimony that Tinstman said that the
interviews were 2 months behind, and that Watt and his outside friends were keeping
him busy on other matters. There is no evidence that the interviews were 2 months
ie About November 1, 1960, Supervisor Seevers on behalf of Vice President Graham
sought out Shipman as one interested in unions to find out what he thought was wrong
with Respondent's working conditions, and carefully made note of, the defects Shipman
furnished to him.
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 955
behind in November . They had not been started until September . Moreover,
Tinstman started them only a few days after he began his employment with Respond-
ent. I further find that if Tinstman made a statement with respect to time in con-
nection with the wage scale program it was to the effect that it would take some time
to put it into effect . Shipman testified that Tinsman made such a statement to him
about the program when they discussed it in the last week in November , about the
same time Tinstman interviewed Watt.17
c. Jones
The testimony of employee Jones relating to the events that transpired when he was
interviewed by Tinstman clearly discloses that the interview followed closely the gen-
eral pattern of the interviews previously discussed , and that in no instance was the
subject of unions or union activity mentioned , raised , or discussed in any way by
Tinstman . Jones brought up the subject of unions but Tinstman remained silent in
regard to this subject. Tinstman was aware of Jones' association with UAW as he
was wearing a UAW inscribed pocket or pencil holder . As the interview was in
September or October 1960 , it antedated Jones' wearing of the UAW bowling shirt
on October 27 or November 4, 1960. As previously found, the interview lasted a
"few hours . " Tinstman in his rebuttal testimony corroborated Jones.
d. Carver
Carver testified that her first interview by Tinstman in early September lasted 15 to
20 minutes and consisted of Tinstman asking her if she had any complaints, and if she
was satisfied with her job. Carver replied to these questions. He did not mention
the UAW or any union during this interview. As previously stated, Carver testified
that Tinstman knew she was engaged in union activity . She could not , however, give
any evidence showing Tinstman had or could have had this knowledge. While she
stated "we" wore union insignia she did not disclose whether she herself wore any
UAW identification or insignia during this interview or the second interview a few
weeks later or whether she actually participated in the "we" activity of wearing
insignia in the plant.
According to Carver, about 5 p.m., a few weeks later, when she began work
on the second shift, she went to the coffee machine, which was near Tinstman's
office. He asked her to come in, and called her supervisor and told him where she
was. He talked with her about half an hour . He started with small talk and then
he brought up the subject of unions. This subject took up most of the conversation.
In response to General Counsel's question , "What did Mr . Tinstman say about the
union ?" she testified he stated if a union came into the plant there would have to
be more production ; she would be more confined to her job, she could not go look-
ing for work if she was idle but would have to wait at her work location for it.
She also testified that he said the better qualified personnel would not get the jobs as
seniority would govern, and that there would be increased wages raising labor
costs, which would prevent Respondent from expanding and hiring more people.
Tinstman did not reply to-her question whether wages were to be kept at a minimum
so the Respondent could have more money for its building program . On cross-
examination , Carver testified that in this conversation Tinstman did not say Re-
spondent objected to unions , brher future would be affected by her union member-
ship , or that he offered her any improvements in her working conditions. Carver
stated that he asked her what she would like to do, but admitted he asked her the
same question in the first conversation when unions were - not mentioned . Tinst-
man's testimony is silent with respect to this testimony of his interviews of Carver.
Carver's demeanor on the witness stand 'gave the Trial Examiner the impression
that she was a witness endeavoring to testify forthrightly and in accordance with
the best recollection of the relevant events. There is no specific rebuttal testimony
to appraise her testimony' against , and it departs from the evidence of the interviews
of Shipman and Jones, and from that of Watt's to the extent that it discloses the
bringing up of the union subject by Tinstman.
The contexts in which were included the statements about more production and
the necessity of remaining confined to her job and idle until work was brought to
17 In resolving the credibility issues, consideration is given to'tbe testimony of Respond-
ent's seven employee witnesses that Tinstman did not mention unions in their interviews,
and the testimony of Tinstman and Ryon that the latter instructed Tinstman on or about
September 5, 1960, not to bring up the subject of unions in the interviews. Tinstman
became aware of' the union activity as he began the interviews and asked Ryon if he
should continue the interviews
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her are not part of the record. It is not clear whether one followed the other or
were made at different times during the conversation and in different settings. Nor
is it evident from the record whether her testimony represents the language, or her
best recollection of it, used by Tinstman or just her conclusions as to what he said.
The first statement, which relates to a speedup, appears to be contradictory of the
second statement, which relates to a slowdown. For these reasons, I do not credit
this testimony. The statements she testified Tinstman made regarding promotions
being controlled by seniority, and wages causing increased labor costs in any event
are protected under Section 8(c) of the Act as expressions of opinion. It is gen-
erally known that unions often require that the collective-bargaining contract carry
the seniority test for promotion to better jobs. It is an economic consequence that
higher wages mean increased labor costs.
e. Wipert
Employee Wipert testified that in his 11/2-hour interview in September, Tinstman
asked him what he thought of unions, and said that a union which tries to get in a
company usually succeeds, and that the percentage of successful attempts was very
high. According .to Wipert he also said that if his superior found out what he was
discussing he would be let go. Wiper's testimony was that he made these state-
ments after the customary procedure Tinstman followed in conducting the inter-
view and his statement that the grievances and problems mentioned would be taken
to the higher-ups and worked out. Wipert responded to Tinstman's suggestion that
he talk about the grievances and problems by talking about cheap wages and poor
working conditions.18
Tinstman denied he asked Wipert what he thought of unions, that he stated that
union efforts to organize a plant were successful, or that he would be let go if his
superior knew what he was discussing.19
The problem in resolving these credibility conflicts is that the particular context
in which each of the alleged statements was made is not part of the record. The
witness gave his conclusion that Tinstman brought up .the subject of unions. I would
prefer to draw my own conclusion from the evidence. Tinstman denied he asked
Wipert what he thought about unions or made the other statements that related to
unions. I am not able to determine whether the statements attributed to Tinstman
were made in view of Tinstman's denials, and the other defects mentioned, and the
fact that the interview was held about the time Tinstman was instructed by Ryon
not to raise the subject of unions. I, therefore, find that the preponderance of the
evidence does not support the General Counsel's contention that the statements
attributed to him by Wipert were made, or in any event were made in such a manner
that they constituted interrogation or a threat, within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1).
f. Borck
(1) The testimony
Employee Borck, a relatively new employee of 8 months, was interviewed by
Tinstman in December 1960 for 21/2 hours. He was one of the eight employees
who wore the UAW inscribed bowling shirt on October 27 or November 4, 1960, in
Tinstman's presence. As previously stated, the evidence does not show whether
Tinstman had knowledge that he participated in UAW's organizational activity.
Borck's testimony about this interview is set out in the following paragraphs.
After asking him if his name was Borck, saying he wanted to get the right per-
son, Tinstman said to him the talk could be formal or informal, employer-employee,
or man to man. Borck elected to talk man to man. They started talking. They
"batted the breeze." Tinstman brought up different things about the shop. He
would carry the discussion to a certain point, and then would leave it for Borck to
pick up. Borck testified he refused to do so. This, according to Borck, went on for
18Wipert had a conversation with Tinstman again in November 1960 at Tinstman's re-
quest. Tinstman told him Respondent was going to furnish bowling shirts to the second-
shift bowling league, and asked him if he would wear it. Wipert replied that he already
had a UAW bowling shirt, and would wear it more than Respondent's shirt He testified
that Tinstman understood.
19 Tinstman was an electrical engineer who had done graduate and undergraduate work
in industrial psychology. He had never been in Gallon, Ohio, until his association with
Respondent. He moved his family there on August 15, 1960 There is no evidence that
Tinstman had any knowledge of prior management-union relations either at North Electric
or Respondent's plant, or had any animus toward unions
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 957
an hour and a half, and then Tinstman said he had given him all kinds of openings
to take off in any direction he wanted. He testified that Tinstman said at this point
that Borck knew as well as he did why he was there. When he told him he was not
sure, Tinstman said he wanted to know what his position in the union situation was.
Borck replied that his position was very obvious due to the bowling shirt incident.
Tinstman then asked Borck what he thought a union could do for the employees
that Respondent could not do or was not already doing. Borck replied: "Better
wages, working conditions, and more fringe benefits." Tinstman asked Borck if
Respondent would pay more money than it could afford to pay.
Tinstman discussed Respondent's proposed wage plan. They talked about fringe
benefits including retirement and various things about the shop, and how things were
running. Tinstman said there would be strikes if a union came in the plant. Borck
replied that he did not think so. Borck's boss in the transformer department called
and said it was after 12 p.m., that his ride was waiting for him. As he was leaving,
Borck said he was for the Union when he came in and would be for the Union as
he walked out, that Tinstman could talk to him all he wanted but it would do no
good. Tinstman said he thought he could do something for him, and would like
to see him again. Borck also stated that during the interview when he was getting
"sort of wound up" over Tinstman's attitude toward him and what he was saying,
he told Tinstman, "That I didn't know, but maybe I was sticking my neck out.
That if he wanted to cut it off he could go ahead and cut it off. But I was going
to say what I thought anyhow." Tinstman replied, "That no one was going to cut
my neck off for what I said. We could talk freely." Tinstman took notes.
On cross-examination, Borck testified that Tinstman brought up the subject of
unions, that he was questioned about how he felt about the Union, about his union
activities, and asked what the Union could do for him, and if the Union could get
more money for him than Respondent would pay." He admitted that no member
of management asked him to stop engaging in union activity, and that he received
no notices warning him of union activity. He also admitted that he was aware other
employees were being interviewed, that the interviews were regularly carried on
every day for a period of time, and quite a few employees in the area where he
worked were interviewed.
He testified on cross that Tinstman and he discussed topics dealing with the shop.
They talked about other topics, including other jobs Tinstman had. Borck told
Tinstman about his previous work, hobbies, and interests, and his relations with
other employees. "The majority of the time it was talk about his previous jobs and
my previous jobs." He testified on cross that Tinstman asked him what his interests
in,the Union were, and not what his union activities were. He stated that in his
mind he thought that Tinstman in asking what his interests in the union were,
was asking him what his union activities were. In regard to his testimony on direct
examination that after the first hour and a half, in which Tinstman gave him leads
to start talking, and his refusal to do so, Tinstman asked him about his union
activities, Respondent's counsel asked him the question:
Now, if you had spent an hour and a half on listening, how did he spend the
last hour and a half of your conference or the last hour ,and a quarter? Did
you spend all of that time discussing the union?
Borck answered:
He asked me to explore different things that I thought the union could do for us
and he would see if he could answer questions on what the company could do
better.
On redirect, Borck stated that about one-third of the way through the interview,
Tinstman stated, "I have been all around this subject and left you all kinds of open-
ings. Now I want to know what your personal feelings are on the union." Borck
had testified on cross that in his mind Tinstman spent the first hour and a half
"talking all around the subject of unions until he broached this specific question."
The specific question was the one he first said on cross-examination related to union
activities and later testified was about his union interests. On direct examination,
he had testified that Tinstman said he wanted to know what his position on the union
situation was.
In connection with Borck's testimony, Tinstman testified that Borck in the interview
demonstrated a better than average intelligence, and an interest in what was
going on and finding out about things. He was interested in a better job with Re-
spondent, and as part of his responsibility as training manager, he explained to Borck
the Respondent's educational assistance program, and indicated to him that he
would be quite happy at some point to talk specifically about what he might do about
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further schooling so he could get a better job. Tinstm^an denied he said to Borck
that he had left him all kinds of openings, that he knew as well as Tinstman why
Borck was there, and that he said to Borck that he wanted to know what his position
on the union situation was. In rebuttal of Borck's testimony that Tinstman said he
was interested in him, and could do something for him, Tinstman testified that he
indicated to him his interest in him from the standpoint of Respondent's educational
program.
(2) Credibility resolution
In determining the weight, if any, to be given to Borck's testimony the state of
mind disclosed by his testimony must be recognized. His testimony discloses that
he was fully convinced at the time he testified that Tmstman interviewed him to talk
about unions and to question him regarding them.
He admitted that when he testified he was of the belief that during the first 11/2
hours of the interview, Tinstman was talking in a roundabout way about the UAW,
that Tinstman gave him several leads to talk about it but he refused. When he
refused, according to Borck, Tinstman then said that he knew what he was there
for and that he wanted to know what Borck's position in the union situation was.
Then Tinstman asked him to explore different things the Union would do, and he
would see if he could show what the Company could do better. The first hour and a
half was clearly taken up by an attempt by Tinstman to get Borck to talk about
complaints and gripes in the same manner as other interviewed employees had. It
appears to the Trial Examiner that when Borck refused to talk, Tinstman indicated
that he had not succeeded in getting him to talk and would try to bring out the com-
plaints and gripes by questions. Because of his state of mind, he believed Tinstman
had indicated he was going to be more specific in probing into his mind about his
union activities.
Borck stated that most of the interview was taken up talking about Tinstman's
jobs and his jobs, and that he told Tinstman about his previous work, hobbies, and
interests, and his relations with other employees. They discussed topics dealing with
the shop, about Respondent's proposed wage plan, fringe benefits, and various things
about the shop and how things were running. Borck testified that during the inter-
view he said to Tinstman that perhaps he was sticking his neck out, but if he wanted
"to cut it off he could go ahead and cut it off," that he was going to say what he
thought anyhow, and that Tinstman replied that no one was going to cut his neck off.
This testimony discloses to the Trial Examiner that they were talking about the
shop and matters that Tinstman had covered with other employees. It is to be
noted that Tinstman testified that Borck demonstrated a better than average in-
telligence, an interest in what was going on, and finding out about things, and was
interested in a better job with Respondent, and that he, Tinstman, explained to
Borck, Respondent's educational program, and indicated to him that he would be
quite happy at some point to talk about what he might do about further schooling
so he could get a better job. It could well be that Tinstman asked him what a union
could do for him and whether it could get more money for him than what Respond-
ent would pay. However, the contexts in which such statements were made are not
disclosed by the record. In talking about fringe benefits, including retirement pen-
sions, which Respondent did not have, the capacity of a union to obtain such bene-
fits could have been raised by Borck. As previously stated, he testified that he said
to Tinstman he had been sticking his neck out.
In view of the obvious conviction Borck had when he testified that he was inter-
viewed about the Union, a situation not at all clear from his testimony, I give no
weight to his conclusionary statements on cross-examination that Tinstman brought
up the subject of unions, that he was questioned about how he felt about a union, and
about his union activities. He admitted that he superimposed on the language
purportedly used by Tinstman what he believed Tinstman in a roundabout way was
saying about union and union activity.
For the above reasons, I do not credit Borck's testimony.
2. Ryon's interview of employee Jones
Employee Jones, who was interviewed by Tinstman in September or October
1960 (supra), was interviewed by Industrial Relations Director Ryon in November
1960. He was instructed by Supervisor Wiggins of the transformer department to
report to Ryon's office. He was wearing a UAW pocket holder, and had worn a
UAW inscribed bowling shirt on October 27 or November 4, 1960, during working
hours, which Ryon had ordered removed. Jones' version of the interview follows.
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 959
Ryon began the interview by first talking about the new wage evaluation program,
and then about a new plant addition Respondent was planning. He remarked that
due to work stoppages it was not going to start it right away. When Jones asked
him what he meant by work stoppages, he said "strikes," and referred to an outside
group, which he said was noted for strikes. He said there was violence during the
1946 strike at North Electric, that machine guns were used and rocks thrown. He
also said that this conduct was an example of what "those guys do " He then said,
"If that doesn't convince you about the outside group, I don't know what will."
Jones said nothing in reply. He did not recall Ryon saying anything else. The inter-
view lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes. Ryon listened and talked; he did not take notes.
On cross-examination, employee Jones stated that his bosses would not talk about
the Union. When counsel for Respondent asked him if he did not realize it was
hazardous for an employer to talk to an employee about a union, he replied that
Respondent's bosses were usually pretty friendly. He admitted that Ryon did not
warn him or threaten him. He again stated that Ryon spoke about unions to him
when he asked Ryon what he meant by work stoppages He admitted talking to
other employees and the UAW about his conversation with Ryon.
Ryon's testimony is silent with respect to his interview of Jones. He testified, as
did Tinstman and Vice President Graham, as to the reasons for the personal inter-
views conducted by Tinstman and himself.20 He testified that he became aware of
union organizational activity in June 1960, and he 'found from discussions with
employees that unions were uppermost in their minds, and as a result of this finding,
it was determined by Respondent never to introduce a question regarding a union in
the course of the interviews.
3. Sipes' interviews of employees Repp and Crissinger
Supervisor Sipes 21 interviewed employees Roxie Repp and Mary B. Crissinger
on November 1, 1960. They were interviewed in a private office, although Sipes'
desk was in the middle of the assembly room in which was housed the three depart-
ments he supervised . They were active in UAW organizational activity ; signing
UAW authorization cards, distributing these cards to other employees to be signed,
distributing UAW combs, buttons, and pencils, and attending UAW weekly meet-
ings.22 At the time of the hearing on April 18 , 1960 , Repp had been employed
81A years and Crissinger had been employed 7 years. Both were employed on the
first or day shift . Repp was in the wiring department and Crissinger in assembly
and wiring . The evidence shows that they were conscientious employees , took their
jobs seriously , and were concerned about the rumors they would be replaced by
younger people or persons from North Electric. They did not exhibit the usual de-
gree of friendliness during their organizational efforts as had been their custom.
I credit Supervisor Sipes' testimony that he asked Repp what she was unhappy
about , and Repp replied she was worried about conditions , that she might lose her
holiday pay. She said she heard one man had lost his. He said he would check
into it.23 He asked her, Repp being one of the oldest employees, if she knew of the
discontents and gripes of the employees There was a colloquy about the working
conditions in the plant . I credit Repp 's testimony that she said she supposed that
Sipes wanted to know what she thought about unions, and Sipes replied by asking
her what she thought. She told Sipes she thought that the employees should be
represented by some organization . He asked her if the organization could do more
for her than Respondent could. She said it could obtain benefits for her that Re-
spondent would not give. He asked her how she liked the music which the new
management was having piped into the plant. He remarked he thought that if the
20 This testimony , which is set out supra, is undisputed
21 Supervisor Sipes had approximately 160 employees under his supervision. He did, not
supervise them directly There were foremen directly in charge. The cable, wiring, and
assembly departments were under his supervision He had been with Respondent'10 years.
Prior to that time he had worked at North Electric
22 When questioned, employee Repp testified she did not engage in these activities on
Respondent 's time She said she wore a UAW badge and had a UAW sticker on her
lunch kit She kept the kit on the table where she worked . She used a UAW comb and.
UAW pencils. Her testimony is silent as to whether she wore the badge on her coat which
she hung in the coatroom or on her work clothes. It is also silent as to whether she wore
any UAW identification at the time she was interviewed by Sipes.
2' He checked into it He found the employee had been paid the holiday pay, but that
due to a misunderstanding in the machine accounting department , it appeared he had not
been paid it. He did not tell Repp what he found
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
new management was given a chance it would do pretty well about getting matters
straightened out. He said that at North Electric there was trouble because of a strike
there. She replied that if it "wasn't" for the Union during the war she would have
had trouble. She then said that she and others were supposed to be getting top wages
but heard there were some girls getting more than these top wages. He said that
upon his honor he did not know of this, but if he found out it was so he would let
her know. She said she would expect an answer. According to Repp, the interview
lasted a half hour or less. Sipes testified it last 5 minutes. She had never been inter-
viewed before. I find that the interview must have lasted for some time in between
the time limits indicated by both Repp and Sipes.24
When Crissinger was interviewed by Sipes she was not wearing any union identifi-
cation. She started to wear a badge in the last part of November or first of Decem-
ber. I credit her testimony that Sipes began the interview with some small talk and
then said to her that he had heard she had attended a meeting, and that he also said
he was surprised as he had heard other girls had attended meetings, but did not know
she attended. She replied that she had attended a meeting, that she had attended
two of them.25 He asked her why she seemed worried and unfriendly, and she said
she was afraid she would be replaced by someone from North Electric and lose her
seniority. He said in reply it would not happen, that North Electric was under
separate management. He asked her how long she had been working there, and she
replied 7 years. He then said that no new girl would take her job, not after 7 years.
He also said she was a good employee, steady, always at work, did not cause trouble,
and was cooperative. She had his word that North Electric girls would not take
her job. Sipes asked her if she thought any organization could do for her what the
Respondent was doing or planning to do. She answered that she did not know.
According to Crissinger, the interview lasted 20 minutes. Sipes said 5 minutes.
The interview must have lasted between 10 to 20 minutes. Sipes had never asked
her about another organization before. She had never been interviewed before, ex-
cept by personnel when she was hired. The next day at her workbench she was inter-
viewed by Donald Turner, her foreman. He asked her what her gripes were. She
said job security; she feared a new girl coming in and getting her job. He said it
could not happen. She said: "What about North Electric?" He said that North
Electric was a different company, that between the two companies there was no
seniority. This conversation took 10 minutes.26
4. Graham's interview of Shipman
a. Shipman's testimony
On November 16, 1960, Shipman, pursuant to instructions from Factory Manager
Pierce, went into Vice President Graham's office. Graham wished to talk to him.
Graham and Shipman talked for 11/2 hours. Shipman's testimony of what occurred
at the interview follows.
Graham started the conversation by introducing himself, offering Shipman coffee,
evincing interest in his family, discussing his own family, and referring to some new
telephones he had which he said were made by North Electric. He then said he had
Shipman's work record there, and was surprised at what he found in it. He said
Shipman had qualities of leadership and asked him if he had heard that before. Ship-
man replied he had, but that nothing had ever come of it. Graham then said that
he had a job in the prototype department 27 which Shipman could have, that he
could work there for a year or so, and then move to industrial engineering. He
24 The above findings are a composite of Repp's and Sipes' testimony.
25 Sipes denied he made this reference to meetings He stated he was not aware of
organizational activity until after the interviews. I do not credit this testimony. Vice
President Graham and Ryon were aware of it in June 1960, Tinstman was aware of it
in September 1960, and Tucker referred to it in his speech to assembled employees on
September 16, 1960. Vice President Graham testified that he had distributed to super-
visors the "do's" and "don'ts" prepared by the National Association of Manufacturers
with respect to what supervisors should say to employees in the course of an organiza-
tional campaign , and that he discussed such matters in meetings with management per-
sonnel in connection with the organizational campaign . Sipes as supervisor of 160
employees certainly attended such meetings.
2e These findings are a composite of Crissinger 's and Sipes ' testimony.
22 In this department , the first or original of any new product or unit is produced. It is
examined for flaws or defects. If none, it is ready for the assembly line. If there are
any, they are corrected, and then it is ready for the assembly line.
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 961
would then be made ready for any supervisory job -that would open up in the plant.
He had told Shipman about his coming up the ranks, and that Respondent wanted
to do the same thing for anybody they felt was eligible for promotion. He had a
5-year expansion program, and wanted to carry it out if the people would let him.
Shipman asked Graham what the people in the plant would think of him if he did
something like that at that time. He told Graham he engaged in union activities in
the shop.28 Graham replied that there came a time in any man's life when he was
at the crossroads. He had to make up his mind which way he wanted to go; one
way or the other. Graham then said, "It is up to you." Shipman asked him if he
wanted the answer at that time, and Graham replied that he would like him to give
his answer then. Shipman said he would like to sleep on it that night, that he did
not make decisions on the spur of the moment.
Shipman brought up the subject of unions and they had a lengthy discussion
about them . Graham said that a union could do nothing for the employees that the
Respondent could not do if it knew about it. He said that if Shipman wanted to
he would like him to get in touch with an official of the Electrical Workers Union
who lived next to him in Cincinnati and get his views about the Union. Several times
in the course of the conversation Graham said that he, Mr. Graham, could make
something out of Don Shipman if he wanted him to . At one point in the conversa-
tion , Graham said that if "this thing" ever comes to where he had to take the stand
against him there were things he was telling him which he would have to deny.
Graham also said that if the Union came into the plant Shipman might become
president of it but would be sick of it in 2 years , that he had movies of the 1947
strike at North Electric he wanted him to see, and that Michigan was in such a
state because of the unions that a'"lot" of large corporations had to pay taxes in
advance.28
On cross-examination , Shipman testified that he had had prior experience as a
worker in an industrial plant by employment on the assembly line and as kick press
operator on two different occasions at North Electric, and as a milling machine
operator on two different occasions at Hydraulic Press Manufacturing Company.
Since coming to Respondent's plant in 1957 he had inspected most of the work of
the plant up to the final assembly, by moving from one department to another. He
was also in the plan change group where he made minor changes on blueprints to
make them conform to the production of the unit . He could read blueprints, and
wrote specifications on the blueprints so engineers would make the changes. He
had taken a home-study course in basic electricity, completing a number of courses
and receiving grades in them. He had the grades placed in his personnel folder.30
He was not promoted to a supervisory position while an inspector . He received a
7-cent bonus when he transferred to the night shift and retained 5 cents of it when
he returned to the day shift. He received a wage increase 2 weeks after beginning
employment in 1957, and then after the first 2 years of employment he transferred
to the plan change group . On cross-examination , Shipman also testified that he
did not know if the prototype department unit was in the production and maintenance
unit in which the election was scheduled for April 27, 1961, and did not take the job
offered to him in the prototype department because he was engaged in union
activity.
b. Graham's testimony
Vice President Graham testified in rebuttal . His testimony follows.
During the first 90 days Respondent was North Electric 's subsidiary , employment
went from 750 to 850, and in the early fall of 1960 went to 935. With the increase
in the number of hourly wage employees , there had to be an increase in supervision.
Respondent 's policy was to promote from within where capabilities existed. He
had to have help in many of the departments. Respondent hired new management
people where the capabilities were not already present . One of the first persons
hired was Carl Tinstman who helped by interviews to determine the causes of many
of the rumors and other adverse factors in the plant . Management wished to know
them at an early date so they could be corrected.
28 He was wearing a UAW pocket holder.
s0 Tinstman had a conversation with Shipman in the last week of November 1960, in
which he said to Shipman be heard rumors that he said Graham had tried to buy him off.
Shipman replied that it was true . Shipman told him what transpired , and Tinstman said
Graham was not that kind of a person , that many company officials would not have talked
to him in view of the reprimands he had received.
80 Shipman 's personnel record also showed experience as a meatcutter and as owner-
operator of a small store.
634449-62-vol. 135-62
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He, Graham , was active in the interviews to a limited extent. He went through
the folders of many of the employees. He asked the personnel department for a
cross-section of Tinstman 's interviews that were potential for future opportunities
and development.31 They were furnished . Graham examined the folders quite
thoroughly as part of his efforts to cope with increase in growth and for require-
ments for supervision throughout Respondent 's expanding operation . In the folders
he found good solid potential for future development. Of all the folders on his
desk, Shipman's disclosed that he had the broadest experience . He had worked in
practically every operation in the plant. He was also a one-time supervisor. He,
according to his record, had been assigned to the engineering change group in the
prototype section . He was inspector in the Western Electric section, in the trans-
former section, in the metal fabrication section , and as such his entire experience
with the Company would indicate that he had moved and was anxious to move, that
he was a man looking for opportunity. To Graham, a man who is a reasonable
number of years on a job, and then moves, is a man looking for opportunity. For
these reasons , he called Shipman to his office to see what he could not read on paper.
Graham corroborated Shipman's testimony of how the interview began. Graham
asked him if he had any children , and Shipman replied he had several. He told
Shipman how in the search for management potential he had come across his folder
and had called him in to interview him because the folder showed he had "potential"
and "experience ." He then went into his past work history and noted that he had
experience in electronics , having "gone to school," and had attained high grades in
electronic theory. He then said to Shipman that it looked to him that he, Shipman,
had the background . Shipman looked at the "UAW sticker" he was wearing, and
asked him to look at it . Graham replied that he saw it , but "couldn't care less." He
further said , "I don 't even care if you belong to the Ku Klux Klan or if you wanted
to join a nudist colony . That is all right with me . I am only here to talk company
business ." Graham continued this conversation with Shipman by the statement
that many of his friends were union people,32 that one of his best friends was Gordon
Freeman , president of the IBEW-AFL-CIO in Washington, a "very fine gentle-
man." He lived next door to him in Cincinnati for many years . Graham said he
had had plants with unions and without unions. It did not make any difference.
The Respondent had a job to do . It was a growing company and expanding. He
was looking for potential and Shipman 's folder was potential . He then went into
his work history, including the story of his concern , resentment , and disappointment
at the Kroger Company, where he was a meatcutter . He asked him why he left.
Shipman said that he had been promised the managership of a meat department in
a new store, but was not given this position . His wife told him at that time that
the reason he did not get this type of opportunity was that he changed jobs "too
much " As a result he had stayed with Respondent since 1957.
They talked about the past years of Respondent before the new management.
What was wrong with it at that time. Shipman was very emphatic, and Graham
was amazed to find how far down the ranks had filtered the management problems
that were present when after President Davis ' death Respondent was run on a com-
mittee basis from the farm each morning. He knew about the problems. He
spoke about the many areas of inconsistencies he saw in the wage rates. They
talked at great length , and Shipman in this area of the conversation said he had not
been making progress even though he complied with his wife's request and stayed in
one place. He asked Graham, "Well, what are the steps to progress?"
Graham told him he had come up through the ranks . He went over his ex-
perience again with him. He told him he had covered a good portion of the plant
in experience, but to end up in management he should have some accounting, some
knowledge of industrial engineering and standards, and some knowledge of the
product as such. Graham then asked him "if he would be interested at a point in
zt Rvnn testified that because of the expansion the number of employees'was spread
thinly in some areas, and that they were interested in selecting men and women whose
experience and background they felt could be better used elsewhere than where they were
assigned He testified that Graham asked him to furnish certain personnel information,
and that in resnonse to the request he asked that a search of the personnel folders of the
employees group be made, and there be sent to him the folders of the employees who had
"wide, varied and long experience, either in our company or outside," if it was felt that
these employees could be better used He received approximately 12 or 15 folders, in-
cluding that of Donald Shipman They were sent to Graham. Tinstman testified that
after the October 17 and 18 interviews he told Shipman he felt that Ryon and Graham
should hear Shipman's side of the matter involving the reprimands he received Later he
said that he talked to Ryon, and Shipman would be interviewed by either Ryon or Graham.
as "On this," Shipman's "eyes opened up."
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 963
promotional opportunity ." Shipman replied , "well, it is evident , I'm interested."
But he then referred to the UAW "sticker" and said, what about this. Graham
replied as he had previously , that he could not care less about it. On cross-
examination , Graham testified that he gave Shipman the steps to management, not
an offer of a job in prototype , in response to Shipman 's question . Since he was in
inspection the next step was prototype , then industrial engineering, and then finance,
costing, and estimating . And then he was ready for supervision.33
c. Credibility resolution
An analysis of Shipman's and Graham's testimony shows no basic conflict with
respect to the issues in this proceeding. I find that on November 16, 1960, Graham
did not offer Shipman a specific job in the prototype department. The testimony of
Graham and Shipman shows that Graham said that Shipman was management poten-
tial and asked him if he was interested in "promotional opportunity." He told him
he had what it takes to be an executive. He then cited the experience and other nec-
essary background he already had (supra), including his technical background as
evidenced by his technical school grades and working experience in the Respondent's
various departments, and the experience he still needed. According to Graham, he
needed some accounting, some knowledge of industrial engineering and standards,
and some knowledge of the product. He told Shipman that his additional steps to
management were first the prototype department, then industrial engineering, then
finance costing and estimating. Graham testified that he appointed only to the
management level that reported to him.
I find that Graham offered Shipman a job at the management level that reported
to him, to be enjoyed as soon as he took the steps that Graham outlined he had to
take to complete the necessary qualifications. Shipman had to decide whether he
wished to be placed on the roster of future executives and to start his final training
as outlined by Graham. Graham said he had to decide whether he would avail him-
self of the opportunity; that he was at the crossroads where he had to decide whether
he would remain at the level where he was an hourly wage employee and could engage
in union activity, or abandon it and become a member of management. Shipman
said to Graham that he wished to sleep on the question. He elected not to accept the
offer of Graham to earmark him for promotional opportunity, and to start him up
the ladder to the high level of management , the first rung of which was the prototype
department, but instead spread the rumor that Graham tried to "bribe" him to aban-
don his union activity.
Graham's testimony that promotions were made to the foreman level in the in-
spection department after he talked to Shipman is not evidence against the offer I
have found he made to Shipman. Graham said that Shipman had had enough exper-
ience in the inspection department, and if he elected to be earmarked for management
he. was to go to the prototype department. A job there would be found for him to
give him the background necessary for him to move up to the industrial engineering
department . So a foreman's position in the inspection department was not
contemplated.
I credit Graham's testimony as showing that Respondent had to develop manage-
ment potential at the level that reported to him.34 However, the question to be
decided is whether Graham offered to Shipman management opportunity, starting
with a transfer to the prototype department, to meet the need for new executives at
the level that reported to Graham, or whether in fact Graham made a promise of
benefit to Shipman to lure him away from his organizational activity on behalf of
UAW, or whether it was for both objectives.
5. The bowling shirts
At 6:30 p .m. during - the second shift on October 27 or November 4, 1960, eight
employees in the transformer department then supervised by Supervisor Wiggins 35
ss On cross -examination , Graham testified that he did discuss a union handbill with
some employees . It was distributed by the Machinists and'purported to show the 1958'
and 1959 earnings of North Electric . The figures differed from the annual report. The
employees with whom he talked were stockholders in North Electric They asked him
about the difference. He told them the Machinists' handbill was a false statement, that
the authentic figures were contained in the annual statement which was prepared by
Price, Waterhouse , an accredited accounting firm
34 Graham testified he Interviewed the other employees whose folders he had. How-
ever, except for this conclusionary statement, the record is silent on this matter
ss There were approximately 60 employees working in the transformer department under
the supervision of Wiggins on the night this incident occurred This department was
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were ordered by Industrial Relations Director Ryon to remove the bowling shirts they
were wearing . The shirts had the letters UAW, 21/z to 3 inches in size, across the
back of the shirts at the shoulders . Ryon refused to furnish an explanation for the
order, other than to state he wanted them removed . The employees had the election
of removing the bowling shirts and working in T shirts or other wearing apparel,
obtaining other apparel at their homes and returning to work on their own time, or
"clocking out" and not returning . They removed the shirts . They were not worn
again during working hours 36 The eight employees had worn the shirts without any
comment from Wiggins or other supervisory personnel from the beginning of the
shift 3:30 p.m. until 6:30 p .m. when they were asked by Wiggins to go with him to
Ryon's office . Nothing was said to them during the 15 minutes they were in the
transformer department prior to the beginning of the shift . As stated , the second
shift ended at 12 p.m.
Respondent claims its defense shows that Wiggins who supervised the transformer
department complained to Industrial Relations Director Ryon about the wearing of
the UAW bowling shirts , and Ryon forbade the wearing of the bowling shirts, be-
cause the wearing of the shirts was causing complaints by employees , unusual talking,
inattention to work , and walking around the assembly room , with resultant interfer-
ence to production and discipline.
Analysis of the evidence offered by Respondent shows that only 8 to 10 employees
out of 60 employees in the transformer department were represented by Respondent
to have been disturbed in any way by the wearing of the shirts . These 8 to 10
located in a large room 60 or 70 feet in length running from east, the rear of the room,
to west, the front of the room The employees were divided into sections or groups. The
room was separated from other departments by a partition at the front The employees
entered at the rear, the southeast corner, from the cloakroom where the timeclock was
located. There was an aisle down the center of the room The groups or sections were on
both sides of the aisle. The group closest to the front of the room, the west side, was
the coil winding section Sixteen employees were working in this section at the time of
the incident under Leadman Lloyd Betts, an hourly wage employee The remaining em-
ployees, approximately 44, were distributed in sections that did the wiring, assembling,
laminating, and varnishing. According to Wiggins and Ryon, the employees wearing the
shirts were located in the eastern part of the room, which was the rear of the department.
80A bowling league was formed by Respondent's male and female second- or night-shift
employees in September 1960. This shift began at 3.30 p.m. and ended at 12 p in. At a
meeting in September, they decided to ask Respondent to sponsor the league. Respondent
was sponsoring at the time two bowling leagues of day-shift employees. One was for
male employees and the other was for female employees. Sponsorship included the fur-
nishing of bowling shirts with the name of the donor affixed thereto There were about
32 employees in the second-shift league. Employee Jim Jones, then president of the
second-shift bowling league, and two other second-shift employees met with Industrial
Relations Director Ryon the same week the decision was reached to ask Respondent to
sponsor the league . They asked Ryon for Respondent 's sponsorship. Ryon replied that
he would discuss sponsorship with the league representatives after it was clear that the
league was established. According to Ryon, he was not certain at the time that the
league would last. The weekly bowling which was after the second shift on Friday, did
not start until 12:30 a in., and did not finish until 3:30 a.m. The league members then
decided to ask DAW to be a sponsor. Rosemary Carver, a second-shift employee active
in UAW organizing activity, made the request to UAW. UAW agreed to furnish bowling
shirts Frank Donley, UAW International representative, testified that they were fur-
nished for advertising purposes. Some of the shirts were received on Thursday preceding
the Friday they were worn. Others were received at different times in October. Rosemary
Carver and Jim Jones informed other bowling league members that they were going to
wear the shirts to work on the bowling night of Friday, October 27, or November 4, 1960.
Respondent decided to sponsor the second-shift bowling league about December 15, 1960.
The sponsorship included the furnishing of bowling shirts with Respondent 's initials
"PECO," and "Night Owls," the name of the league, affixed thereto, financing the entrance
of league members in tournaments , donating trophies , and furnishing assistance in the
preparation and holding of the annual banquet. The league members received the shirts
shortly after Christmas 1960. The letters were the same size as the letters on the UAW
shirts. Some employees wore the shirts furnished by Respondent to work but did not
wear them during working hours. Ryon testified that when he discussed sponsorship
with the representatives of the league on or about December 15, he was satisfied that the
league was established. There were isolated instances of shirts inscribed with the names
of companies other than Respondent being worn by employees during working time.
Respondent did not object to the wearing of these shirts.
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 965
employees were part of the group of 18 employees in the coil winding section under
Leadman Betts, an hourly wage employee, which was farthest away from the
shirt wearers.37 There is no evidence that the remaining employee groups, which
included the 36 employees closer to the 8 shirt wearers, were affected. The silence
in Respondent's evidence about this factor warrants the inference that Supervisor
Wiggins went to the location of the remaining employee groups and found no dis-
turbance, or that in making his inspection he saw no disturbance, except some unusual
activity in the coil winding section. So he visited Betts and talked to him. Ryon
did not know whether there was any drop in production in the transformer depart-
ment that evening. Neither did Supervisor Wiggins who reported the shirt-wearing
incident to Ryon. Leadman Betts on whom Wiggins relied for information relating
to a commotion or disturbance during the shirt wearing did not know if there was a
production drop in the coil winding section.
Ryon testified that between 5 and 6 p.m., on the evening the shirts were worn,
Supervisor Wiggins informed him that the wearing of them was causing excessive
talking, the moving about of employees, and work stoppages in some instances. He
stated that when he suggested to Wiggins that some other factor may have been
causing the disturbance, the latter said that it was being caused by the shirts, and
not something else. According to Ryon, Wiggins also said to him that the employees
wearing the bowling shirts were in the east end or rear of the assembly room, and
that the employees who were facing the west end or front were turning about and
following the movements of the shirt wearers. He also testified Wiggins told him
that there were employee complaints about the shirt wearing. Ryon thereupon asked
Wiggins to bring the employees to his office.38 Wiggins complied with this request.
Ryon then instructed the eight employees to remove the shirts.
Ryon further testified that he did not feel that it was necessary to enlarge on the
statement he made in response to the request for an explanation for the order to
remove the shirts, namely, that they were to be removed because he wished them
removed, since he considered the wearing of the shirts to have been designed to
aggravate and antagonize him or management. He also testified that there were
three groups organizing at the time, and it would not be fair to allow the wearing of
shirts furnished by one group and not allow the wearing of shirts furnished by the
other two groups.
Wiggins testified he complained to Ryon partly because of a complaint against the
wearing of the shirts made to him by coil winder Helen Warren as well as the informa-
tion received from Betts. However, she testified that she did not talk to Wiggins
about the shirts on the evening they were worn. She talked to Betts about them the
night before they were to be worn, and complained to Wiggins 2 or 3 nights later
about their being worn. At the fatter time she told Wiggins she thought the wearing
of the shirts was terrible and out of place. Wiggins also testified that at 5:40 p.m.
he went to the front of the plant principally to keep an appointment with Tinstman
that he was not able to keep earlier that evening because Tinstman was engaged, and
also to report to him the shirt-wearing incident. The shirt wearing was not disturbing
enough to warrant special or individual action or a report to higher authority until it
could be included in a report on some regularly scheduled matters.
Leadman Betts could not recall the 8 or 10 who were distracted or who the 2 of the
8 or 10 were who complained about the wearing of the shirts. Employees Warren
and Hackworth were the only coil winding employees who testified in Respondent's
defense. Warren claimed she left her machine to talk to Hackworth and Harris
who operated machines on the row in front of her, although she ordinarily did not
leave her machine, and that instead of leaving her machine the customary 20 minutes
during the first 3 hours of the shift she was gone 1 ih hours. She testified she was 10
to 15 minutes at Hackworth's machine and 20 minutes at Harris' machine. Hack-
worth came to her machine to talk to her, staying 10 to 15 minutes. It was not
unusual for other employees to visit her at her machine. She said her production
was low by three units, but she could not recall whether the slowdown in her work
was during the first 3 hours or the last 3 hours.39
87 There was evidence that in a few instances a UAW shirt wearer performed duties in
the area between the coil winding section and the front wall of the assembly room in
which the transformer department was located. It was not necessary for the coil winders
to turn around to see these employees
38 The conversation with Wiggins began while he was walking to his office upon return-
ing from an outside appointment and continued in his office until he asked Wiggins to
bring the employees to his office. Tinstman and Tucker, a special assistant to Vice
President Graham, were also present
'B Warren got into the record gratuitously the defense of the Respondent's action of
ordering the removal of the shirts that it did not ban the shirts to impede UAW's
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hackworth testified she talked to three employees about the shirts. They were
Harris, Warren, and Marie Daum. She talked to Harris and Warren at their ma-
chines. She spent 10 to 15 minutes with Harris. She could not recall the length
of time she stayed with Warren. It was between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. Marie Daum
had the machine next to her. She customarily talked to her during the whole
8 hours of the shift. While Hackworth heard more than the usual amount of con-
versation, she saw nothing unusual during the time the shirts were being worn. She
did not see any employee leaving his or her machine more than the average two
times.40
D. Analysis and concluding findings
From analysis of my evidentiary findings, I conclude and find that Respondent dis-
closed, by the speech of Tucker on September 16, 1960, it did not favor unions and
would pursue the objective of defeating any unions' efforts to organize its employees
to the extent the law permitted it to do so. Nothing said by Tucker or Graham, in
their speeches of September 16, 1960, was illegal.
I further conclude and find that Tinstman did not violate Section 8 (a)( I) of the
Act in the interviews of employees he conducted from September 5 through Decem-
ber 1960. General Counsel's evidence failed to show that in the interviews of Wipert,
Carver, Jones, Shipman, Watt, and Borck, Tinstman made any statements about
unions or union activity that were threats or promises of benefits 41 I reach the
same finding and conclusion with respect to Ryon's interview of Jones.
I conclude and find that Supervisor Sipes interrogated employee Crissinger with
respect to her union activity, in his inquiry to her with respect to her attendance
at a union meeting, and, therefore, violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 4a
I conclude and find that Vice President Graham made a promise of benefit to em-
ployee Shipman to defeat UAW's organizational activity. I make this concluding
finding in view of the time at which it was made, which was after UAW filed its
petition for certification, and the fact that Shipman was reprimanded and threatened
with discharge for spreading rumors characterized by President Tucker as malicious
and reprehensible, and after Tucker and Vice President Graham characterized the
employees who spread the rumors as "Benedict Arnolds." In ordinary circumstances,
Respondent would not have considered Shipman as executive material because of this
conduct. It could be that Vice President Graham was willing to bring him into the
management fold in spite of his rumor spreading. If he did, it was because it meant
Shipman's departure from the organizational efforts of UAW. In that case although
a legal object is present, an illegal object is also present.43 Respondent, therefore,
violated Section 8(a) (1) by this conduct 44
I also conclude and find that Respondent 's defense does not rebut the General
Counsel's prima facie showing of a violation of Section 8(a)(1) by Industrial Re-
lations Director Ryon's order to remove the UAW inscribed bowling shirts, and not
wear them again during working hours under the threat of discharge . Respondent's
organizational efforts as it had permitted the wearing of other UAW Insignia. Respond-
ent had not interfered with the wearing of UAW inscribed combs, pocket holders, badges,
or pencils " Warren's testimony shows that her interest in the shirt-wearing incident was
more than interest affected by the unusual- or unexpected As stated supra, she knew
they were to be worn beforehand, as the night before she talked to Betts about the
information that they were to be worn the next evening
40 Respondent also offered evidence that Respondent banned all advertising except when
approved by Respondent, that union solicitation- had been banned by Respondent since
the time of the. deceased president, L J Davis, and there were dress regulations for
women employees banning the wearing of blouses or other apparel that would expose the
employee to safety hazards. The wearing of union insignia including the wearing of
bowling shirts is protected activity except to' the extent it interferes with production or
discipline Kimble Glass Company, 113 NLRB 577, 578-581, enfd. 230 F 2d 484, 485
(CA. 6), cert denied 352 U S 836. There is no evidence that the shirt or blouse worn
by Rosemary Carver, Patricia Goldman, or Betty Decker was a safety hazard I, there-
fore, do not consider it necessary to give further consideration to these defenses
41 See Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc (Los Angeles-Seattle
Motor Express) v. NLRB., 365 U S. 667, 679 (Harlan J , concurring).
42 Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591 ; N.L R B v. Firedoor Corporation of
America, 291 F. 2d 328 (CA. 2)
43 See Moore-McCormick Lines, Inc., 113 NLRB 668; N L.R B. v. Jamestown Sterlsnq
Corp, 211 F. 2d 725, 726 (C.A. 2)
" See Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co, 128 NLRB 184; Rural Electric Company, Inc,
130 NLRB 799.
POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 967
evidence shows no substantial interference with production or discipline. The only
disturbance shown was generated or caused by employee Warren because of her
interest in siding with Respondent in opposition to the organizational effort.
For the above reasons, I conclude and find that by this conduct Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act 45
I also find the peremptory refusal of Ryon to furnish an explanation to the eight
shirt wearers for his order to remove the shirts or not work to be violative of Sec-
tion 8 (a)( I) of the Act. The request for an explanation was reasonable, and tem-
perate, and since the conduct forbidden was protected activity, Ryon should have
furnished an explanation. His failure to do so in view of the evidence leads me to the
conclusion, and I so find, that he did not have a good-faith belief at the time that there
was interference with the production and discipline in the transformer department.
In any event his conduct tended to defeat the employees' activity protected by Sec-
tions 7 and 8(a) (1) of the Act. Since it had that foreseeable consequence, the motive
is neither controlling nor material.46
Nor do I find any merit in Ryon's testimony that he also forbade the wearing of the
shirts because two other unions were organizing at the same time, and that the shirts
were being worn to irritate him. There is no evidence that the other unions were
denied the opportunity to have their shirts worn by their supporters by reason of the
wearing of the UAW shirts, or that their employee supporters even wished to wear
their shirts, or that there was a disturbance because all three unions were not wearing
them. The wearing of the UAW shirts without any assistance from Respondent
could not be construed as evidence of any preference by it for UAW rather than
Machinists or the Independent Employees Union. No evidence was offered to show
that the wearing of the shirts was intended to irritate Ryon. On the other hand, the
evidence shows it was merely a part of the UAW organizational program.
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 set forth in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes threatening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce , it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act . Specifically, I have
found that Respondent in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, interrogated an
employee with respect to her union activity , made a promise of benefit to another
employee to lure him away from union organizational activity , and to interfere with
and impede employees' rights with respect to union activity and membership, ordered
employees to remove bowling shirts with the initials of the International Union,
United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, inscribed thereon, and threatened them with discharge if they wore them
again during working hours . I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from engaging in such conduct.
As an affirmative remedy, `I shall recommend that Respondent be required to
post a notice to its employees to the effect that it will cease and desist from engaging
in the above unfair conduct and to notify the Regional Director when it takes such
action.
-' Since General Counsel has not proved the allegations of the complaint that Trainin&
Director Tinstman and Industrial Relations Director Ryon violated Section 8(a) (1)
by interrogating employees concerning their union membership , activities, and sympa-
thies, I shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint insofar as it relates to these
allegations . I shall also recommend its dismissal insofar as it alleges that Super-
visor Sipes interrogated employee Repp with respect to union membership , activities,
and sympathies.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
4Himble Gla88 Company, 113 NLRB 577, enfd 230 F 2d 484, 485 (CA 6), cert
denied 352 U S 836; Stewart Hog Ring Company, Inc, 131 NLRB 310; Republic Aviation
Corporation v. N L R B , 324 U S 793, 802 ; Boeing Airplane Company, 103 NLRB 1025,
1026, enfd. with mod. 217 F. 2d 369 (CA 9) ; Mayrath Company, 132 NLRB 1628
46 Exchange Parts Company, 131 NLRB 806.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce and International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization, all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By ordering employees to remove bowling shirts with the union donor's name
inscribed thereon to interfere with employees ' rights to engage in union activity and
embrace union membership , by interrogating an employee with respect to her attend-
ance at union meetings, and by promising a better position to an employee to lure him
away from anion organizational activity and union membership , Respondent engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
4. Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by Training Manager
Tinstman's interviews of employees Wipert, Jones, Shipman , Borck, Watt, and Carver,
Industrial Relations Director Ryon's interview of employee Jones, and Supervisor
Sipes' interview of employee Repp.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Tulsa Hotel Management Corporation and Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union AFL-CIO,
Local #135, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-2784. February 8, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis L. Vasse, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, which operates a 350-room hotel in Tulsa, Okla-
homa, contends that its operations do not affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that the Board should therefore not assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Employer receives gross an-
nual revenues in excess of $500,000, of which more than 75 percent is
derived from transient guests. In addition, direct out-of-State pur-
chases amount to less than $5,000 a year, of which the largest single
annual purchase amounts to $1,000 to $1,500. We find that the Em-
ployer's hotel operations affect commerce within the meaning of the
Act,' and meet the Board's jurisdictional standards for the hotel
industry? Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
i Catalina Island Sightseeing Linea, 124 NLRB 813; Southwest Hotels, Inc (Grady
Manning Hotel ), 126 NLRB 1151.
a Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 NLRB 261; Tulsa Hotel Management Corporation,
132 NLRB 1484 -
135 NLRB No. 105.