Sheridan Silver Co. Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 877 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

SHERIDAN SILVER CO., INC., ETC. 877
Sheridan Silver Co., Inc ., Wilson Specialties Co., Inc. and Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-88892. Feb''uary ^?9, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 30, 1959, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Our finding is based, how-
ever, solely on the following incidents, each of which violated this
section: (a) President Caiozzo's threat to employee Metzger that he
would close the plant,' and that Metzger would lose his job if the Union
came in; (b) Caiozzo's threat to employee Raton that he would not
sign a contract with the Union, and that employees would lose their
overtime if the Union came in ; (c) Caiozzo's interrogation of em-
ployee Pontes concerning his union activities, and his implied promise
of a raise if Pontes would abandon the Union; and (d) Treasurer
Wolfson's threat in his speech to employees of loss of overtime and
steady employment if the Union won the election.
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, Sheridan Silver
' Member Bean agrees with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act in the circumstances enumerated below. However , as the record
shows that Metzger was aware of the Respondent 's financial condition , and that Caiozzo
also told him that the Respondent would not be able to meet the Union ' s demands, he
would find , unlike his colleagues , that Caiozzo ' s statement to Metzger regarding the clos-
ing of the plant was a prediction rather than a threat and , therefore , within the pro-
tection of Section 8(c) of the Act
126 NLRB No. 104.
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Co., Inc., Wilson Specialties Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in or
activities on behalf of International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its
employees, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
(b) Warning its employees in an unlawful manner to refrain from
assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization.
(c) Threatening its employees with discharge and with closing the
plant and other economic reprisals if they join or assist the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in, or
refrain from engaging in, any or all of the activities specified in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected 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 Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended :
(a) Post in its plant at Taunton, Massachusetts, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be
posted 'by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith.
2 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, we hereby notify our employees that :
SHERIDAN SILVER CO ., INC., ETC . 879
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in or activities on behalf of International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employees, in any manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
WWWE WILL NOT warn our employees in an unlawful manner to re-
frain for assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members
of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge and with
closing of the plant or any other economic reprisals if they join or
assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the ex-
tent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of that Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other
labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act of 1959.
SHERIDAN SILVER CO., INC.,
WILSON SPECIALTIES CO., INC.,
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties present , was heard before the duly designated Trial
Examiner, in Taunton , Massachusetts , on August 10, 1959 , on complaint of the
General Counsel , and answer of the Sheridan Silver Co ., Inc., Wilson Specialties Co.,
Inc., herein called the Respondent.
On March 2 , 1959, an "RC" petition was filed by International Union of Elec-
trical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party and herein
called the Union , seeking to represent the Respondents ' production and maintenance
employees . On March 17 ,1 an agreement was entered into between the Respondent
and the Union , approved by the Regional Director , and setting April 1 as the date
for the election. On March 27 , the Retail , Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Retail Union, notified the Regional Office of their desire
1 All dates are 1959 unless designated otherwise.
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be on the ballot , and pursuant to Board practice the matter was then referred to
the organizational disputes arbitrator , and the Respondent and Union were notified
that the scheduled April 1 election was indefinitely postponed . On April 22, a new
agreement for a consent election was entered into by and between the Union, the
Retail Union , and the Respondent , and so approved by the Regional Director , setting
April 28 as the date of the election . This election was held as scheduled, but on
May 29, based on the Unions' objection that the Respondent violated the Peerless
Plywood rule, the Regional Director set aside the election and directed a new election
for June 9 . The Union then filed unfair labor practice charges ( Cases Nos.
1-CA-2877 and 1-CA-2878) on June 8 , and the Regional Director postponed the
scheduled election pending investigation of these charges . On June 10 , the above
charges ( Cases Nos . 1-CA-2877 and 1-CA-2878) were dismissed and another elec-
tion was scheduled for June 15 , but on June 10 the Union again filed an unfair labor
charge (Case No. 1-CA-2882 ), and after postponing the June 15 election pending
further investigation , the complaint in this case was issued , based on the above charge
and upon which the proceedings herein were held. The issues litigated before me
were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as specified in the
complaint.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were represented by counsel? The parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to produce , examine and cross-examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues. The
Respondent was given adequate consideration and time to present its defense as
aforestated , and has been represented by counsel at all stages in this proceeding.3
On or before September 17, thorough and helpful briefs were received from both
the General Counsel and the Respondent , and have been duly considered herein.
Reserved rulings are disposed of in accordance with the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is engaged at Taunton, Massachusetts, in the manufacturing,
sale, and distribution of silver-plated hollow ware and related products. The
complaint alleges and the answer admits that in the course of its business operations,
the Respondent causes large quantities of silver, metals, and other products used by
it, to be purchased and transported in interstate commerce from and through various
States of the United States other than Massachusetts, and continuously has caused
at all times material to the complaint, substantial quantities of silver-plated hollow-
ware to be sold and transported in interstate commerce. The jurisdiction of the
Board is conceded.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
• At the initial opening of the hearing counsel for the Respondent moved for at least
5 weeks' continuance on the grounds that Henry Buchman, the law associate of Abraham
Buchman, was in Europe and that Henry Buchman was responsible for the conduct of the
case. The Respondents' motion was denied subject to renewal at the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case, and upon the renewal thereof, and after due consultation with
all parties, a 1-week continuance was granted Before the hearing resumed the Trial
Examiner was then notified by Respondents' counsel in a telegram that it could not
prepare its defense without consulting Henry Buchman and again requested a contin-
uance of several weeks, but also suggested in the alternative, that if a further postpone-
ment was not granted that the hearing be closed, and that the maximum time be given
for the filing of briefs The General Counsel and counsel for the Union objected to any
further continuance, but were in accord with Respondent that the hearing be closed,
oral argument be waived, and that briefs be filed. The Trial Examiner accepted the
Respondents' alternative motion and made an order closing the hearing, and granted
35 days for the filing of briefs.
3 Abraham H Buchman and Leonard S Kimmel, experienced labor lawyers, were
present and represented the Respondent at the hearing, and both participated fully
therein.
SHERIDAN SILVER CO.) INC., ETC.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
881
A. Introduction and issues
The complaint in this proceeding alleges that the Respondent, by its President
Joseph Caiozzo and Treasurer Harold Wolfson, interrogated its employees con-
cerning their union affiliations and sympathies; warned its employees to refrain
from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union; threat-
ened employees with discharge and with closing the plant and other economic
reprisals if they joined or assisted the Union; and offered and/or promised better
conditions and a wage increase on condition that the Union be rejected. The main
issues for determination are: (1) Did the statements of Respondent's President
Caiozzo constitute a violation of Section 8,(a) (1) of the Act?, and (2) did the state-
ments of Respondent's Treasurer Wolfson constitute a violation of Section 8 (a)( I)
of the Act? Counsel for the Respondent contends, both at the hearing and in its
brief, that the statements and interrogations of its officers were not coercive, but
rather expressions of views, opinions, and predictions which were permissable under
Section 8(c) of the Act, and therefore privileged. As noted, the Respondent pre-
sented no defense. The following recital of the testimony of the witnesses presented
by the General Counsel is credited.
B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
On behalf of the case presented by the General Counsel, employee Charles
Metzger, an active union adherent, testified that he had been called into the presi-
dent's office on three different occasions. In the first part of April, on his initial
meeting with Respondent's President Caiozzo, Metzger was asked why he hated
Caiozzo so much. Caiozzo on this occasion also made the following statements:
(a) "How come you are doing what you are doing to me," (b) "If the Union comes
in we'all have to close the place up," and (c) "I won't be able to meet the demands
you fellows want."
On April 24, Metzger was again called into the president's office and on this
second occasion Caiozzo stated: (d) "I don't know what these fellows are giving
you to drink or feed to make your mind think the way you do," and (e) "You
should think over clearly what you are doing-after all, you have a family to take
care of, and you've got your job to think about." Metzger then asked President
Caiozzo why he had never made the statement that he would close the plant if
the Retail Union came in, and Caiozzo replied, "I mean any Union." Caiozzo,
who had some keys in his hands, then tossed them on the table and stated, "that
goes for any Union." Caiozzo also told Metzer that he was once a union organizer
and that he was taking care of a few fellows and, "that all they are is a bunch of
gangsters and crooks, and they are looking for your $3 a month."
On June 2, Metzger was again called into Caiozzo's office, and on this third occa-
sion there were two other employees along with him. This meeting mainly con-
cerned a letter relative to laid-off employees and after 10 or 15 minutes Metzger
and the other two employees left.
In addition to what transpired at these three meetings, Metzger testified that he
was asked to sign a petition which read, "Did at anytime, Mr. Caiozzo say to you
that he could close the shop down?" Metzger stated that he told the petition circu-
lator, "I can't sign that because he did say that." Several days before the scheduled
election on April 28, Metzger and several other employees of the Respondent were
passing out union leaflets on the parking lot, when President Caiozzo came up in his
car and, according to Metzger, said to one of the employees, "Don't you guys ever
give up," and called them vile names and used several other words and terms of
profanity. Metzger testified that on another occasion Caiozzo told him, "You are
a communist, you ought to go back toRussia where you belong."
On cross-examination Metzger admitted that he was aware of the fact that the
Company had gone through bankruptcy; had heard rumors that the Respondent had
lost money; that Caiozzo had to borrow money to keep the operations going; and
that the Company had taken a General Motors' contract on a cut basis in order to
maintain continued employment.
Antone Katon, a union member and a former employee of the Respondent, testi-
fied that while he was employed by the Company he had been called into Caiozzo's
office at three different times, the latter part of March, April 24, and on June 4 and
5, along with two other employees. Katon testified that on these occasions President
Caiozzo made the following statements to him: (a) "He [Caiozzo] couldn't see
554461-60-vol. 120-57
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
why we wanted the Union in there"; (b) "These guys they don't care about you,
they are just after your dues"; (c) "If the Union got in there we would have to close
the plant down"; (d) "he had some friend that had connections in New York, and
he was thinking of calling them in there . . . some gangsters . and straighten
the situation [the Union] out"; (e) "The Union is just like a bunch of gangsters
and a bunch of bloodsuckers, they are after your dues"; (f) "If the Union got in he
wouldn't be able to meet the demands, and he wouldn't sign no contract"; and (g)
"If the Union got in we wouldn't get no overtime." On cross-examination it was
established that President Caiozzo had also told Katon that the Company had gone
through bankruptcy the year before, that they had to borrow money to stay in
business, and that if the Union went out on strike he would have to close the factory
down Katon testified that he voluntarily quit his job at the Respondent's plant
for a better job elsewhere.
James Mott, a former employee and an active union member, testified that he
also had been called into the president's office on three different occasions and that
Caiozzo had stated to him that he could not meet the union demands because he
had financial difficulties; and on the second meeting with Calozzo he had told Mott
that if the Union got in he would have to close the plant down because he could
not meet then demands. Caiozzo also inquired if Mott had been on strike before,
and after being informed that he had on two previous occasions, Caiozzo told him
"that if the Union gets in this will be my [Mott's] third strike, and that he would
have to close the doors because he couldn't meet their demands " On the third
meeting with Caiozzo two other employees were present along with Mott
Urbano Pontes also testified that on three occasions he had been called into the
president's office, and on the third call two other employees were with him Pontes
stated that Caiozzo had told him, (a) "what do you want a union for? If you want
a raise come in and see me," and (b) "I can't give you a raise now because you are
a union man." 4
The concluding witness for the General Counsel was Frank Texeira, an employee
of the Respondent, who testified that in the latter part of May he and Calozzo had
a conversation about the Union while he was stationed at his workbench in the Re-
spondent's plant. Texeira stated that Calozzo asked him if he was mad at him, and
that Calozzo had noticed a union button that Texeira was wearing; and that after
Texeira explained his reasons for supporting the Union Caiozzo said, "you have a
pretty good reason for joining the Union."
In addition to this testimony the above witnesses also testified as to the alleged
remarks of Treasurer Wolfson and which are discussed in later sections of this
report.
C. Analysis and conclusions
1. With respect to Caiozzo
In determining whether an employer's conduct amounts to interference, restraint,
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), the test is not the employer's
intent or motive, but whether the conduct is reasonably calculated, or tends to,
interfere with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. N.L.R B. v.
Illinois Tool Works, 153 F. 2d 811, 814 (C.A. 7). Then, too, on the issue of
whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, it is not required that
each item of the Respondent Company's conduct be considered separately and apart
from all others, but consideration must be given to all such conduct as a whole.
N.L.R.B. v. Popeil Brothers, Inc., 216 F. 2d 66, 68 (C.A. 7). If the setting, the
conditions, the methods, the incidents, the purpose, or other probative context of
the particular situation can be appraised, in reasonable probability, as having the
effect of restraining or coercing the employees in the exercise of such rights, such
activity on the part of employer is violative of this section of the Act. N.L.R B. v.
Protein Blenders, Inc., 215 F. 2d 749, 750 (C.A. 8).
In applying these facts to the evidence in this case, it is found that Respondent's
course of conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for the reasons hereinafter
indicated.
Assuming the asserted right of Caiozzo to make statements of financial difficulties
and predictions of economic hardship, as so contended by the Respondent here,
nevertheless, its right is limited by the Act to the extent that it cannot be exercised
4 The prior signed statements of each witness referred to above , were requested by
counsel for the Respondent and were so produced, and in instances used extensively for
the purposes of cross-examination . The General Counsel , citing Massachusetts authority
(Clark v Fletcher , 83 Mass 1), offered the same in evidence , and over objections were
received , but are not relied on herein for the purposes of this report.
SHERIDAN SILVER CO ., INC., ETC. 883
in such a manner as to amount to an interference with, restraint , or coercion of the
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. This is es-
pecially true in the insecure organizational period, as here, where the employer can
make a seemingly innocent question suggest his displeasure with employees who
support the Union. Such questions and statements under these circumstances, may
convey an imagined threat of reprisal, even if the employer intends neither the
threat nor the reprisal. The record in this case discloses that Respondent's Presi-
dent Calozzo systematically called a great man, if not all, of the employees into his
own office, and with predesigned plans made statements and asked questions of
them as aforestated, on an individual and group basis, and in numerous instances did
so on three different occasions. Moreover, it will be recalled that President Calozzo
stated to employees Metzger and Katon that if the Union came in he would have to
close the place up, and told Metzger that he had his job to think about. Where such
systematic interrogations and statements are so made of the employees' union activi-
ties by the topman, coupled with specific threats as these, it goes beyond the per-
missible sanctions of the Act.
It has been pointed out that in prior decisions of the Board it has been held that
a prophecy of unionization which might ultimately lead to loss of employment is not
coercive where there is no threat that the employer will use its economic power to
make its prophecy come true. In this instance, however, Caiozzo's interrogations
and statements, along with the surrounding circumstances, clearly distinguishes t e
case at hand from prior decisions, in that here the president's threats indicated with
definite certainty that the Respondent would use its economic power to make his
prophecy come true The record also clearly shows that President Caiozzo was
mainly the sole and dominant figure in the management of the Respondent, and most
certainly possessed the power and control to change prophecies into realities so that
his threats, whether couched in language of probability or certainty, tended to im-
pede and coerce the employees in their rights under the Act.
The surrounding circumstances in this case, which are singly and in combination
unfair labor practices, and upon which it is found Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1), are: (1) Caiozzo's warning to Metzger that, "If the Union comes in we'll
have to close the place up," and by making clear that he was applying this threat to
any union, (2) Caiozzo's threat to Metzger, that, "you should think over clearly
what you are doing-after all, you have a family to take care of, and you've got
your job to think about"; (3) Caiozzo's calling Katon into his office and warning
him, "If the Union got in there we would have to close the plant down," and, "If
the Union got in he wouldn't be able to meet the demands, and he [Calozzo]
wouldn't sign no contract," and Caiozzo's threat to Katon that, "If the Union got in
we wouldn't get no overtime"; and (4) Caiozzo's interrogation and threats to Pontes
by asking and stating to him, "What do you want a Union for? If you want a raise
come in and see me," and, "I can't give you a raise now because you are a Union
man."
It is found, therefore, that the conduct described above has had the effect of in-
terfering with the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 and constituted in-
terference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
2. Alleged violations with respect to Wolfson
As to this issue the record shows that on April 27, the employees were instructed
to assemble in the company shipping room at which time the plant blowers were
turned off and Respondent's treasurer, Wolfson, mounted a platform and spoke to
the employees The speech that Wolfson gave on this occasion consisted in the
reading of written letter signed by President Caiozzo, and the making of certain
extemporaneous remarks
The written letter signed by Caiozzo and read by Wolfson was introduced and re-
ceived into evidence.5 The letter and the remarks both related to the scheduled con-
sent election of April 28 between the Union and the Retail as aforestated, and
in part requested that the employees vote for neither one and continue to deal di-
rectly with the Company.
As to the remarks of Wolfson which are contended to be a violation, employee
Metzger testified that Wolfson, on the occasion in question, stated the following:
"The Company in order to keep the men going as they did, they took a cut
in a General Motors' contract."
5 The General Counsel stated in his brief that assuming arguendo that the letter read
by Wolfson was protected under Section 8(c) of the Act , it is nevertheless the conten-
tion of the General Counsel that Wolfson 's extemporaneous remarks constitute a viola-
tion of the Act.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
And, in order to give us plenty of work-overtime-which the Union would
not be able to do.
Then he also stated they borrowed $325,000 to tide them over, and I didn't
get the drift, but near the end he stated to vote for neither so that we can enjoy
steady work and more overtime.
He read the letter, and after he got done he also added a few words by
calling the Union vultures and all they are after is $3 a month, and then at the
end he dropped the letter and like I said, "Lets vote for neither so we can enjoy
overtime and steady work."
Former employee Katon also testified as to the remarks of Wolfson, and stated
that Wolfson had told the employees to vote for neither of the unions, and that "it
is the only way you can keep your overtime and your job." Katon also substantiated
the testimony of Metzger by testifying that the Company had to borrow money, and
had taken a contract without profit to keep in business.
Concerning Wolfson's remarks, Mott testified:
I remembered him telling us that he took the General Motors' contract just to
give us fellows work, and that if the Union came in-if the Union came in we
would lose our overtime and we wouldn't have as steady a job. He told us to
vote neither Union.
The appraisal of the remarks by Wolfson clearly suggests that the Respondent's
employees would lose their overtime and their steady work if either union was se-
lected as the bargaining agent, and cannot be regarded as an expression of a pre-
diction of possible future events beyond the Respondent's control.
On the record and testimony before me the extemporaneous statements by Wolfson
were not based or prefaced on a mere and routine explanation of general union
employment customs and practices which might have resulted if either was success-
ful, but on the contrary were stated in an atmosphere of coercion and with definite
certainty. It should also be noted that these remarks were not the words of a minor
supervisor nor should they be classified as isolated in character. Here was a setting
in which the employees were instructed to leave their work and to attend a meeting
under compulsory circumstances; here were arrangements where company officials
made certain that all employees could hear and see; and here were remarks by the
treasurer of the Respondent coupled with the future fulfillment of his words well
within the outward and potential control of the speaker and his scope of authority.
Based on the above I conclude that the following statements of Wolfson were
threats of reprisals and constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (1) : (a) "Lets vote for
neither so we can enjoy overtime and steady work"; and (b) "It is the only way you
can keep your overtime and your job."
it is found, therefore, that the conduct described above had the effect of inter-
fering with the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 and constituted inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.6
The complaint also alleged that the Respondent offered and/or promised better
conditions and a wage increase on condition that the Union be rejected, and over the
Respondent's objections employee Texeira stated briefly that after his conversation
with Caiozzo as aforestated, there were some changes in his working hours. The
General Counsel must sustain the allegations of a complaint by a preponderance of
the substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reason-
able mind might accept as adequate to accept a conclusion. N.L.R.B. v. Columbian
Enameling & Stamping Co., Inc., 306 U.S. 292, 299, 300. It is found that the
evidence in this case with respect to promises of better conditions and a wage increase
give rise to no more than suspicion, speculation, and surmise. Certainly, it does not
equal the substantial evidence necessary to support the allegations of the commission
of an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the allegations
of the complaint in this respect be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
N L.R.B. v. Gate City Cotton Mills, 167 F. 2d 647, 649 (C.A. 5) ; Graber Manufac-
turing Company, Inc., 111 NLRB 167.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 885
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
shall be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action which it is found necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Inasmuch as Respondent 's antiunion activities are not so extensive in manner and
scope and are not of such an aggravated character as to indicate an attitude of general
opposition to employees' rights, it will be recommended that Respondent only be
required to cease and desist from in any like manner interfering with , restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees as to their union activities and sympathies, warning
and threatening employees with economic and other reprisals for such activities,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The activities set forth in paragraph 3 above are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication. ]
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (Houston , Texas,
Plant) and Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case No. P3-RC. 1.410. Febru-
ary 29, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Howard I. Hatoff, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record 2 in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(n) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
• The Employer's request for oral argument is denied as the record , Including the
briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
426 NLRB No. 103.