South Coast Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 677 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

SOUTH COAST INDUSTRIES , INC. 677
South Coast Industries , Inc. and South Atlantic and
Gulf Coast District of the International Long-
shoremen's Association, AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-
3626
June 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On December 30, 1970, Trial Examiner Max Rosen-
berg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in and
was not engaging in certain other unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint and recommended that the
complaint be dismissed as to those allegations. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed limited exceptions and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, South Coast Industries, Inc., Houston,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended Order.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part:
Contrary to my colleagues, I would find that the
Respondent's discharge of employee Rumaldo A. Sala-
zar was in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. I cannot agree with my colleagues' finding that
there is no evidence that the Respondent had knowl-
edge, prior to Salazar's discharge, that he was in any
way connected with the Union's organizational cam-
paign.
In my view, the inference of Respondent's knowl-
edge of the part played by Salazar in the organizational
campaign is inescapable when viewed in the light of the
Respondent's vigorous opposition to the Union as
clearly demonstrated by the numerous violations of
Section 8(a)(1) which have been adopted herein. In-
deed, it is quite apparent that several of these unlawful
remarks clearly reveal the Respondent's knowledge of
the organizational campaign and its knowledge of those
employees involved therein. Thus, Plant Superinten-
dent Bevill threatened to discharge the union support-
ers once he learned their identity, and thereafter Fore-
man Jones told employee Watson, a leading union
proponent who was subsequently discriminatorily dis-
charged, that he "knew" the names of the employees
who had signed union authorization cards. Finally, Be-
vill told other employees that he was "aware" that the
men were attempting to obtain collective representa-
tion by the Union and that he "knew the identity" of
the most ardent union activists.
Such unlawful statements, when considered with the
fact that the instant proceeding was generated by the
termination of the two union ringleaders, Watson and
Salazar, completely dispel any doubt as to the Re-
spondent's awareness of Salazar's connection with the
Union prior to his discharge. But if any doubt should
remain, it is completely dispelled by the credited tes-
timony regarding the unlawful threats made by Bevill
to Salazar 2 days after his discharge that if he "ever did
something to the Company that would mess up the
Company about this union ... that he would fix me up
real bad, too," and that if he "ever did something to the
Company that the Company would fight me all the
way."2
' On June 7, 1971, a joint motion was filed by the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Charging Party requesting permission to withdraw the
outstanding exceptions filed to the Trial Examiner's Decision in this case
and requesting that the case be disposed of as if no exceptions had been
previously filed As this motion was filed after the Board had made its
determination in this matter, and as the majority opinion in this matter
adopts the Trial Examiner's Decision and thus, in effect, rejects the excep-
tions filed thereto, and as granting the motion at this time would not appear
otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act, the joint motion is hereby
denied.
2 The Trial Examiner concluded that Bevill's statements might have been
aimed at thwarting Salazar's future assistance to the Union because of his
dissatisfaction with his treatment at the Respondent's hands. In the circum-
stances of this case, particularly those unlawful statements set forth above
which clearly show that the Respondent had knowledge of Salazar's union
connections prior to his discharge, I cannot accept any such reasoning.
Rather, I deem it as being hardly likely that the Respondent would have
resorted to such threats if it had not known that Salazar was in some way
connected with the Union.
191 NLRB No. 133
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The reason assigned by the Respondent for Salazar's
termination was that he quit rather than work overtime
as requested. While it is undisputed that the Respond-
ent maintained and enforced a rule making it manda-
tory for employees to work overtime upon request, this
rule was not an inflexible one and employees could be
excused upon proper application and presentation of a
valid reason. As to the, application of the rule to other
employees, there is record testimony that, about 6
weeks prior to Salazar's discharge, two employees were
terminated for refusing to work overtime upon request.
It is clear that in these instances both employees knew
of the rule and voluntarily left with full knowledge that
it meant their being terminated. In Salazar's case, how-
ever, he made a request of his foreman not to work
overtime because he wished to search with his wife for
a house; that he had to complete this search before the
end of the week; and that his foreman replied, "Ray-
mond, I can't hold you. I can't stop you." Such a reply
can hardly be considered as an outright rejection of
Salazar's request to be excused from overtime work.
Rather, it would seem that Salazar properly construed
the foreman's reply as an expression of consent to leave.
In any event, the circumstances surrounding the failure
of Salazar to work overtime can hardly be equated with
the two employees leaving with full knowledge that it
meant termination and their leaving with that under-
standing.
In the final analysis, I would find that Salazar was
not in violation of any rule when he departed work; and
that the Respondent's attempt to so place him in viola-
tion of such rule amounts to nothing more than a pre-
textual afterthought to conceal its unlawful motivation
in ridding itself of a known union adherent. If the
Respondent had in good faith relied on the overtime
work rule, it would seem that Salazar would have been
so warned prior to his leaving. The absence of any such
warning amounts to a clear departure from the Re-
spondent's past policy, as given to the two other em-
ployees, supra, that termination would be the conse-
quence of Salazar's decision not to work overtime. The
failure of the Respondent to give such a warning is
sufficient grounds for,a finding that Salazar was treated
in a disparate manner. Accordingly, I would find that
the Respondent's discharge of Salazar was motivated
not by the reason stated, but by its hostility to his union
activities as alleged in the complaint, and that the Re-
spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner: With all parties repre-
sented, this proceeding was tried before me on September 17
and 18, and October 7 and 8, 1970, in Houston, Texas, on an
amended complaint of the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board and an amended answer filed thereto
by South Coast Industries, Inc., herein called the Respond-
ent.' The issues raised by the pleadings relate to whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended,,by the acts and conduct to
be chronicled hereinafter. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the parties waived oral argument. Briefs have been received
from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have
been duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, including
my observation of the witnesses who testified on the stand, I
hereby make'the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent, a Texas corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Houston, Texas, has at all material
times been engaged in the service of bulk storage and com-
pounding and packing of various customer products. During
the annual period involved herein, Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, received in excess of
$50,000 for services performed for other employers who were
directly engaged in interstate commerce and who met the
Board's jurisdictional standards for nonretail enterprises. The
complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District of the International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that, between March 26, 1970,2 and
June 17, Respondent, through various supervisors, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees by numerous acts
which transgressed on their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. The complaint further alleges that Respondent
discharged employees Rumaldo G. Salazar on April 29 and
Mancel Burnett Watson on May 14 because they joined and
assisted the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3). Respond-
ent denies the commission of any labor practices proscribed
by this Federal statute.
At the Houston operation, Respondent provides the cus-
tomer service of packaging dry bulk materials and lube oil
products which are destined for ocean-going shipment. Re-
spondent's employees, who are primarily warehousemen,
break down and containerize the substances for shipment.
Because of the vagaries of oceanic shipping schedules, which
frequently require overtime work on an emergency basis,
' The complaint, which issued on August 11, 1970, is based on charges
and amended charges filed on May 1 and May 14, 1970, respectively, and
served on May 4 and May 15, 1970, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1970.
SOUTH COAST INDUSTRIES, INC. 679
Respondent also utilizes the services of contract labor which
is supplied by local, private manpower agencies.
On or about October 21, 1969 , Mancel Burnett Watson
was hired at Respondent 's warehouse by Plant Superinten-
dent Jim Bevill as a forklift operator in the dry bulk section
of the operation , although he generally performed laborer's
work. His immediate supervisor was Foreman D. I. Jones. In
late December 1969 or early January , Jones was sufficiently
pleased with the calibre of Watson's work performance and
the regularity of his attendance to recommend Watson's ele-
vation to a supervisory position . However, Bevill declined to
implement the recommendation because this would have en-
tailed promoting him over more senior employees.
In mid-January, while stacking oil drums on a shipping
pallet , Watson experienced a sharp pain in his side. This
prompted him to seek medical attention at the Settegast
Medical Clinic located in the Houston environs , which he did
a few days later. On January 19, the attending physician
diagnosed the condition as a hernia. The doctor instructed
Watson to refrain from working and advised that he would
operate on the rupture as soon as a bed and room could be
obtained at the Ben Taub Hospital in the city . The operation
took place in the latter part of January . Watson was hospital-
ized for 9 or 10 days. His physician then ordered Watson to
recuperate at home until he was given a medical release to
resume work. It is undenied and I find that , before Watson
visited the Clinic on January 19 , he telephoned Foreman
Jones and apprised the latter of his injury and of his intention
to consult a doctor. Jones told Watson "to go ahead and take
care of it and when I got a release , you know , to bring him
a release, you know , get released from the doctor ... which
I did." While Watson was incapacitated , he telephoned either
Jones or Bevill every other day to report on the mending
progress .' During his convalescence, which terminated on
March 16 , Watson was carried on Respondent's time sheets
as "Off Sick" or "Off Sick in Hosp." While he was hospital-
ized, Watson received a basket of flowers from Respondent.
Watson returned to work on March 16 . In accordance with
Jones' previous instructions , Watson gave Jones a medical
release which permitted him to perform light duties. A few
days later, Watson and his fellow employees embarked on a
discussion of various grievances concerning their conditions
of employment with Respondent . Specifically , the men com-
plained about the excessive overtime which they were re-
quired to work, a circumstance which intruded on their per-
sonal lives . Watson was asked whether he knew of any,labor
organization which might be of assistance in correcting the
situation, and he volunteered to investigate the matter. On
March 20 , Watson telephoned the Union, which had gar-
nered jobs for him on the waterfront in the 1940 's, and was
referred to C. N. Heaton, the Union 's staff representative.
Watson explained the problem to Heaton , who agreed to visit
the men at the plant during the lunch hour on the following
day. At noon on March 21, Heaton drove to the installation
where he met with 8 to 10 of the employees , including Wat-
son, across the street from the plant. Heaton turned over
approximately 20 blank union authorization cards to Wat-
son, who then distributed them to the assembled employees.
Rumaldo Salazar , one of the alleged discriminatees herein,
fluent in both Spanish and English , was called on by Watson
to explain the meaning of the cards to the Spanish -speaking
employees . In all , Watson received signed designations from
12 to 14 of the men on and after March 21 which he relayed
to Heaton.
I Jones was not called as a witness in this proceeding by Respondent. No
reason appears on this record for its failure to do so.
Bolstered by the executed designations, Heaton visited the
Board's Regional Office in Houston on March 23 and filed a
petition for a representation election in Case 23-RC-3427,°
a copy of which Respondent received on March 25 or 26. I
find, based on Watson's uncontradicted testimony, that on
March 25 or 26, while working at a conveyor belt, Foreman
Jones approached and said that "he knew everybody that
signed cards and those that didn't sign the cards...... Wat-
son confessed to Jones that the former had executed a desig-
nation in favor of the Union. Jones inquired whether Watson
had a card which Jones might sign . Watson replied that he
could not engage in union activities during working hours
and suggested that Jones get in touch with him at the end of
the shift. When the shift ended, Watson sought out Jones and
gave him a blank authorization for signature. However, Jones
refused to sign it. Sometime thereafter, Jones again broached
the subject of the Union with Watson when the former asked
what the employees thought they could gain by collective
representation. Watson answered that "the men asked me to
get them help and that is what I was doing."
Continuing Watson's testimonial narrative, I find that, on
or about April 3, he suffered another industrial accident. On
this occasion, he and employee Harold West were engaged in
dumping Versene acid powder into barrels when one of the
containers broke, causing some of the powder to blow into
Watson's eyes. C. J. Marbley, whom the General Counsel
asserts was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, ob-
served this happenstance.' Watson immediately doused his
eyes with water to remove the substance-and remained at
work until quitting time. At the conclusion of his trick, he
drove to the law offices of Brock and Williams in Houston to
process the claim, occasioned by his hernia injury in January,
with the Industrial Accident Board under the Texas Work-
men's Compensation Act.' The next morning, which was
Saturday and a nonwork day, Watson awoke to discover that
his eyelids had become completely shut and that his eyeballs
were inflammed. Watson thereupon telephoned the Settegast
Clinic to report his affliction and was directed to arrive for
an examination on Monday, April 6. It is uncontroverted and
I find that, on the morning of April 6, Watson placed a call
to Foreman Jones in which he apprised the latter that he had
suffered an eye injury and had been told to visit the Clinic.
Jones agreed that Watson should obtain medical consultation
and aid and reminded Watson to bring a release with him
when he was again cleared for work. On the same date,
Watson's legal counsel dispatched a letter to the Industrial
Accident Board in Houston, with a copy to Respondent, in
which counsel submitted Watson's claim for compensation
based on his earlier hernia disability.
° On April 21, the parties signed a stipulated consent agreement provid-
ing for an election on June 17. The tally of ballots showed that eight em-
ployees cast their ballots for, and one against, the Petitioner, while seven
ballots were challenged. Following an investigation of the challenges, the
Regional Director for Region 23, on August 21, recommended that the
challenges to three of the ballots be sustained and that the Union be certified.
On September 1, Respondent filed exceptions to the Director's recommen-
dations with the Board. By an unpublished decision dated October 29, the
Board adopted the Director's findings and recommendations and issued a
certification to the Union on that date.
' While not critical to a determination of the issues presented herein, I
find, based on Rumaldo Salazar's undemed testimony, that Marbley granted
time off to Salazar during Foreman Jones' absences from the plant, that
Marbley is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
6 The firm of Brock and Williams represented Watson personally. The
firm is also counsel for the Union, an association known by Respondent to
have existed.
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Watson was treated by the Clinic until April 8. At this
juncture, he was- referred for further treatment to an eye
specialist at the Ben Taub Hospital. The treatment was con-
tinued until he was given a release for work on May 12.
During this period, he received a visit from Marbley and,
according to Watson, he telephoned Jones and Bevill on each
occasion when he consulted with his doctor. Meanwhile, on
April 10, Watson returned to the warehouse to pick up a
paycheck. When he arrived at the installation, he was met by
Jones who ordered Watson to accompany him to Bevill's
office. Present in the office were General Operations Manager
Paul Allison and Plant Superintendent Bevill. According to
Watson, Bevill opened the conversation by accusing Watson
of filing "a suit against the Company that day there," an
apparent reference to the claim which Watson had lodged
with the Industrial Accident Board on April 6 seeking com-
pensation for his hernia condition. Becoming angry, Bevill
inquired whether Watson intended to file "another suit"
against Respondent because of the injury to his eyes. At this
point, Allison joined the discussion and charged Watson with
possessing three or four insurance policies on which the latter
expected to collect for his disabilities. Watson assured his
superiors that he had no intention of "suing" Respondent and
expressed his belief that the filing of his accident claim would
redound to the financial disadvantage of the insurance carrier
rather than his employer. Turning to Jones, Bevill asked
whether the former knew anything about the earlier rupture.
Jones confessed that he was aware of the accident about 3
days before Watson entered the hospital in January. Bevill
became enraged at this response, whereupon Jones changed
tack and stated that he was ignorant of the hernia problem
until sometime later. Bevill then retorted that Respondent
had received no notice that Watson had injured his eyes.
Watson rejoined that Respondent must have known of this
accident because Marbley had visited Watson's home during
the period of convalescence, and Watson had telephoned
Jones and Bevill once or twice a week to report on his condi-
tion. So far as appears on this record, Bevill made no mention
of any retributive action that would be taken against Watson
because of his alleged failure to apprise Respondent of the eye
injury.
On May 12, Watson received a medical release from his
doctor and, the following day, he visited the Clinic to com-
plete some medical forms.' On May 14, he returned to the
warehouse and, upon reporting for work, gave the release to
Marbley. According to Watson's testimony, he accompanied
Marbley to a nearby telephone where the latter placed a call
to Bevill. Marbley read the contents of the release to Bevill,
after which Marbley instructed Watson to proceed to Bevill's
office. When he arrived, Bevill barked, "I guess you know
that I can't take you back here." Watson pressed for a reason
behind this personnel action, and Bevill replied, "one thing,
you have got a suit against us, your activities against the
Company are keeping the men, all mixed up, plus you have
been laying off so much." Watson was then instructed to turn
in his work clothes and, after accomplishing this task, he left
the warehouse. While doing so, he observed approximately
four or five new men working at the plant who had been
obtained from a local labor pool. On the same day, May 14,
Bevill addressed a letter to Watson's personnel file. This
document read:
This is to advise that Mancel B. Watson reported back
to work this morning . He had been off an extensive
period of time and had not reported to his supervisor, or
anyone connected with this company, the reason he had
been off.
Mr. Dave Jones, Mr. Watson' s immediate supervisor,
called me and advised that Mr. Watson was back with
a doctor's release and ready to go to work. I told Mr.
Jones to tell him that, since he had not called in or given
any reason why he was off, for this reason only he had
been replaced by another person.
I reminded Mr. Watson that he had sued our company
and apparently did not want to work for us any longer.
Thereafter, Watson applied for unemployment compensa-
tion. He testified that, when he filled out the final application,
he saw a notation on the form which indicated that he had
been "laid off" or "replaced" by Respondent on April 15.
Adolph Trejo worked for Respondent for more than 2
years and, since January, was employed in the lube oil depart-
ment with 6 or T fellow warehousemen. He signed a union
card outside the plant on March 21 which he received from
Mancel Watson.
Trejo testified that, a week or two after March 21, Plant
Superintendent Bevill summoned the lube oil employees to a
meeting. When they arrived, Bevill "said he knew we were
trying to get a union in and that he knew more or less, you
know, who it was that was involved." Bevill went on to state
that Respondent had been very solicitous of its employees'
needs and, yet, some of the men whom it had aided "were sort
of like stabbing the Company in the back." Bevill warned
that, if the employees voted for the Union, Respondent would
withdraw such existing benefits as payments for uniforms and
safety shoes. Bevill also cautioned that the men would proba-
bly "take a reduction in pay" in the event of a union victory
at the polls, and "then if we did that, like the ILA would
strike the thing, the Union, if they did, if we did vote for it,
they were going to close the plant down and they could
outlast us, if they did close it. He said we would be out weeks
and they could last, they could take it and we couldn't." One
of the men in the group did not understand English and
Bevill, adverting to this individual, accused the English-
speaking employees of duping the Spanish-speaking ware-
housemen by failing to explain fully the implications of
unionism to them.
Trejo further testified that, on or about April 21, Bevill
conducted another meeting at which he read a letter from the
Board announcing that an election had been agreed on and
that it would be held on the plant premises.' Bevill repeated
that the men would suffer a reduction in wages and lose other
benefits if they cast their lot with the Union? Bevill then made
the statement that "he more or less knew who it was that was
getting us all together for this union , he said that some one
that's suing the Company." He added that he would not
mention the name of the individual involved, but that it was
the "same one that is doing that is bringing you all on this
union thing." Trejo averred that he knew that the miscreant
was Watson because "The only one that had a suit on them
was Buddy [Watson]." Trejo was firm in his assertion that
both Watson and' Salazar were still in Respondent's employ
at the time of this meeting. Trejo also testified that, in a
private conversation with Bevill, the latter informed Trejo
that he would experience a reduction in pay if the Union won
the election and that the plant would be closed to the em-
ployees and run by supervisors if the men selected the Union
to represent them.
0 It should be noted that, on April 21, the parties executed the consent
election agreement which paved the way for the June 17 balloting
The parties stipulated that, on May 11, Jones left Respondent's employ ' On cross-examination, Trejo declared that President Anthony Wilson
and Marbley succeeded to his position. made these statements in a speech.
SOUTH COAST INDUSTRIES, INC. 681
It is Trejo's testimony that, about a month before the elec-
tion, Bevill introduced Ron Thompson to the men in the lube
oil department and informed them that Thompson-was their
new supervisor." In doing so, Bevill remarked, "Fellows, I
want you all to meet your new supervisor. Whatever he says,
it's just like if I say it. And if you all have any questions you
all go to him first, and if he can't give you any satisfaction,
you come to me, and if we can't do it, like that, we will go
on up the ladder."
Trejo had been seeking a wage increase from Bevill for
about a year prior to the appointment of Thompson to his
supervisory position. In late May, according to Trejo's tes-
timony, this subject came to Thompson's attention. Thomp-
son called Trejo into the former's office, asserting that he
wished to have a private conversation with Trejo. When the
men arrived at the office, Trejo asked whether the confronta-
tion related to a wage raise. Thompson answered, "'Well, I
know you all are going to vote on the Union.' He told me that
if I voted it down he would get me anywhere from a thirty-five
to forty-five cent raise." When asked whether be believed that
Thompson possessed the authority to effectuate the increase,
Trejo replied that "Well, he is closer to it than I am, so I
listened."
When queried as to whether he had ever called Trejo into
his office prior to the June 17 election and promised him a
wage increase, Thompson responded in the negative. How-
ever, Thompson allowed as how he had summoned Trejo to
his office before the balloting on "numerous occasions, and it
was in regards to the raise." Thompson explained that "Every
time a man asked me something that I feel should not be
discussed around other people, I take the man into my office
and explain to them the company policy and that I don't have
any authority to give any raises." Thompson denied that the
subject of the Union arose in these discussions and denied
that he promised Trejo any wage increments if he or the
employees voted against collective representation.
On cross-examination , Respondent's counsel sought to
show that Bevill's reference to the closing of the plant and the
reduction of wages and benefits during his talks to the em-
ployees related solely to the circumstance that the Union, as
a "strike-happy" organization, could cause a work stoppage
which would force the plant to shut down, that no wages
consequently would be forthcoming during the work stop-
page , and that wage rates and benefits might be increased or
decreased depending on the outcome of contract negotiations
between Respondent and the Union. In this connection,
counsel introduced into evidence a written speech which Be-
vill delivered to all employees on April 21. Respondent con-
tends that Bevill did not deviate one iota from the written
word when he spoke to the men on that date. It might be well
at this point to set forth the address at length. It reads:
April 21, 1970
TO ALL EMPLOYEES:
With our permission, the National Labor Relations
Board, an impartial Federal agency , will conduct a se-
cret ballot election in our.. . Coffee Shop between 4:30
p.m. and 5 :00 p.m . on the afternoon of Wednesday, June
17, 1970.
All of our production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding our warehousemen, our plant clerical em-
ployees , our shipping clerks and our lab technicians will
be eligible to vote in the June 17 election.
10 Respondent concedes that Thompson is a supervisor within the pur-
view of the Act.
While we do not welcome the prospect of having our
plant, our work and you disrupted by union propoganda,
we cooperated with the National Labor Relations Board
and offered to have the election on June 17th. We wel-
come the opportunity to have an election to clear the air
of the union's smokescreen of big talk and big promises.
We are hopeful and in fact confident that, when you hear
both sides of the story, you will reject unionism.
In our opinion, the so-called [Union] and its paid bosses,
like Heaton, have neither the competence nor the inter-
est to adequately represent you. Your Company is
whole-heartedly against this strike-happy union. The
ILA is not a charitable organization, it is a business. The
ILA union wants your money, it wants you to pay initia-
tion fees, and it wants you to be saddled with monthly
union dues for the remainder of your working days.
South Coast will fight the ILA union by every legal
means. During the pre-election campaign, you will be
able to see how the ILA's union propoganda and its mere
presence on the outside of our plant creates dissention
and strife, and turns one employee against another. If the
ILA union can cause so much trouble and unpleasant-
ness here in our small plant before the election, what
would it do after an election if the majority of our em-
ployees are fooled into voting for and giving up all of
'their individual rights to a bunch of outsiders?
Let's keep the ILA and unionism where they belong-
OUT !!1
A NO vote on June 17 means NO UNION !!!
Sincerely yours,
If, as Respondent urges, Bevill's mention of the closing of
the plant and the loss of wages and benefits had reference to
possible strikes which the Union might call and that wage
decreases would result from future negotiations with the
Union, there is certainly nothing in Bevill's speech of April
21 to substantiate this assertion for even a most cursory read-
ing of the address hardly suggests that this was the context
of his remarks on those subjects.
Rumaldo Salazar worked for the Respondent for approxi-
mately 18 months before his separation on April 29. During
his tour, he was employed in the dry bulk department
together with ten other employees, under the immediate
supervision of Foreman D. I. Jones. In addition, between two
and five men who were retained from the local labor pool
supplier worked daily in his department. Salazar testified that
C. J. Marbley, whom he characterized as the acting foreman,
took over Jones' duties during the latter's absence from the
plant, and Marbley granted time off to Salazar during his
employment.
Salazar recounted that, about 2 months before he left Re-
spondent's employ, the employees discussed the possibility of
obtaining collective representation . On March 21, he assem-
bled with approximately five of the warehousemen on the
street adjacent to the plant where Watson gave him a blank
union authorization card and explained its purport, where-
upon Salazar signed it . At Watson's urging, Salazar inter-
preted the content of the designations to the Spanish-speak-
ing employees in attendance. So far as Salazar could discern,
none of Respondent's officials observed him engage in any
union activities.
At 4 p.m. on April 29, Salazar told Jones that the former
preferred not to work the scheduled overtime that evening
because he wished to search for a house with his wife. Jones
made no reply. When the normal quitting time of 5 p.m.
arrived, Salazar mentioned to Marbley that he intended to
leave work. Marbley instructed Salazar to telephone Jones in
the front office before his departure. Salazar did so and, in his
words, "I told him [Jones] if I could leave, that I had to do
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this , you know, what I was going to do , and he said that he
couldn't let me go because he needed me" badly . Salazar
remonstrated that he had to complete his search for a home
before the week ended , to which Jones replied, "Raymond, I
can't hold you . I can't stop you," a statement which Salazar
construed as expressing consent . According to Salazar, Jones
added , "it was O . K., I can go ." Thereupon, Salazar quit
work . Salazar acknowledged that all other employees worked
overtime that evening until 2 a .m. on an emergency order
unloading a tank of powder. He further acknowledged his
awareness of a company rule which made it mandatory to
work overtime if so requested and that an employee is deemed
to have quit his employment if he refused to comply with the
request." Salazar admitted that he personally knew of em-
ployees who had been severed from Respondent's payrolls for
failing to work overtime without prior approval . On cross-
examination , Salazar remembered that he had been sus-
pended from his job for 2 days for having agreed to work
overtime but failing to report for duty, although he could not
pinpoint the dates . The General Counsel and Respondent
thereupon submitted into evidence a joint exhibit which con-
stituted a warning letter dated April 20 , 9 days prior to
Salazar's termination which was addressed from Bevill to
Salazar, showing that the latter had failed to report for over-
time duties on April 11 and 12.
The following morning , April 30, Salazar reported for
work and was told by Marbley to proceed to the front office
because Plant Superintendent Bevill wished to speak to him.
Salazar approached the office and was met by Bevill and
Jones. Bevill asked Salazar why he had failed to work,over-
time on the previous night. Salazar responded that he had
received permission from Jones to leave early . Bevill stated
that he had learned from Jones that the latter had not given
Salazar permission to absent himself . Jones, who was stand-
ing nearby , insisted that he had not given Salazar approval to
depart at 5 p.m. Turning to Bevill , Salazar stated that "he
[Jones] did let me go, that he said that he couldn 't hold me,
but it was O. K., I could go." At this juncture , Bevill in-
structed Salazar to go home. In an affidavit which he gave to
a Board agent Salazar reported that "Bevill told me that I had
quit because I left work the day before."
The next day, Salazar reported to the plant and conversed
with Bevill . Bevill again inquired as to why Salazar had left
the plant without permission and Salazar once more pro-
tested that he had cleared his absence with Jones before his
departure. Bevill reiterated that Jones had denied Salazar's
statement in this regard and Bevill told Salazar that he "was
going to be fired ." Salazar informed Bevill that he had earlier
learned from friends in the plant that morning that he would
be discharged . Angered by this intelligence, Bevill demanded
to know who so informed Salazar, but the latter declined to
divulge the name. With this , Bevill "escorted Salazar into the
plant proper where he, assembled the ' warehousemen and
asked who had told Salazar that his discharge was impending.
Receiving no response from the men , Bevill took Salazar back
to the office area where Bevill inquired about Salazar 's treat-
11 Employee Catarino Villarreal also testified that Respondent main-
tained a policy which required that the men must work overtime when
directed unless they advanced a persuasive reason for being excused . In this
connection , it is undisputed and I find that , by memorandum dated August
26, 1968, and addressed to all employees, Respondent advised that "All
employees will work overtime when told as this is what maintains all of our
jobs.. , You are , therefore , directed to work overtime whenever told to do
so or seek other employment Failure to work overtime when directed or
failure to show up for work will be automatic resignation of employee unless
there is a death in the immediate family, or employee brings a statement
from his family doctor stating that employee was physically unable to per-
form his workload."
ment from Marbley . After Salazar related that he liked Marb-
ley, Bevill informed Salazar that he was discharged and in-
structed him to return the next day to pick up his paycheck.
As Salazar proceeded to enter his car in the street, according
to his testimony ,, Bevill stopped him and "told me that if I
ever did something to the Company that would mess up the
Company about this union , you know, that he would fix me
up real bad, too."12 The following afternoon , Salazar visited
Bevill's office for his pay . In an ensuing discussion regarding
the accuracy of Respondent 's computation of his paychecks,
Bevill remarked that "he didn 't want the Company to owe me
no money because I wasn't worth for the Company to owe
me money." Bevill added that "if [Salazar] ever did some-
thing to the Company that the Company will fight me all the
way." Rounding out Salazar 's testimony , he stated that he
never informed any supervisor that he had joined the Union,
signed an authorization card , or had any interest in the
Union.
Catarino Villarreal was employed by Respondent in mid-
1969 and in January came under the supervision of Foreman
Jones. He testimonially recalled that he had signed a union
designation at the behest of Mancel Watson on March 21
while standing across the street from the plant. About 2
weeks thereafter, Plant Superintendent Bevill ordered all ma-
chines stopped and gathered the six warehousemen in his
office. According to Villarreal, he opened the dialogue by
stating that "there was some union talk about , you know, the
atmosphere , in the air, and that , well, you know, he didn't
care for that sort of thing because , he says, something about
a union, you know, this is a packaging plant ... I don't know
where he got the information from , but he said that the
Longshoremen 's Union was entirely different from ours.
... "Bevill continued that "if anybody was dissatisfied, they
could get another job, you know, find themselves another job.
... " and noted that Respondent was paying its men $2.50
per hour which exceeded the local union rate in the area.
However, Bevill did not explicitly mention decreasing wage
rates in the event of a union victory at the polls.
Villarreal further testified that, a few weeks later, Bevill
mentioned to Villarreal and two other employees that "It
would be best for you to look for another job because the
plant is going to be, you know, closing down in the near
future." Villarreal related that, during this discussion , Bevill
did not advert to the presence of the Union as a basis for the
closure. Rather, he mentioned that "they weren 't making
enough money and what have you . A lot of times they were
going in the red , you know . Instead of making money they
were going under. So he said the' best we could do for our-
selves is .to get another job."
Villarreal recalled another conversation with Bevill which
took place around April 21. In this discourse , Bevill stated,
"Hey, Cat, what are you for? Are you for the Union or for
the Company?" Bevill also observed that "I have been hear-
ing that you are leading the pack , leading the pack in the
Union, you and Miles. And I have been noticing everything
else." Villarreal replied, "Look, Jim, I don 't care about the
Union . I don't care about anything else. I just care about my
job, you know, my job , that is all I care about ." Bevill re-
sponded that "a couple of people have already told me that
you tell the men how to vote and where to vote and the Union
is very good and this and that ." Villarreal protested that he
merely discussed the pros and cons of unionization with the
12 Salazar , a youthful man, had received a 5-year sentence by a Texas
court for the possession and use of marijuana He served 2 years of the
sentence and was placed on parole for the remainder of the term, which
ended in January . Respondent was aware of Salazar's parole status because
it excused him periodically from work to report to his parole officer.
SOUTH COAST INDUSTRIES, INC. 683
men and did not attempt to persuade them one way or the
other. Bevill concluded the conversation by exclaiming that
"I don't care who the hell you tell, but it's your word against
mine , and if I do know who is leading the pack I will run him
off."
It is Villarreal's further testimony that, on the morning of
the election of June 17, he and employee Martinez were
engaged in fabricating drums when Bevill approached them
and inquired into the whereabouts of employee Jesse Gon-
gora. Villarreal answered that Gongora was away from the
plant looking for another job in accordance with the sugges-
tion which Bevill had made to the men in April. Bevill stated
that he had not given this advice to Gongora and asked for
Gongora's address . Villarreal was unable to supply it, where-
upon Bevill inquired whether Martinez knew where Gongora
lived. Martinez replied in the affirmative . In company with
Bevill, Martinez then proceeded to Gongora's home while
Villarreal continued to work. Sometime later , Bevill returned
to the plant with Martinez and Gongora. Bevill walked over
to Villarreal and reported that he had interrogated both Mar-
tinez and Gongora regarding Villarreal's union sympathies
and had learned from them that Villarreal was not an advo-
cate of collective representation. Bevill lamented, "I am
sorry, but you know, I thought for sure ... that you were
leading the pack.... I made a mistake . Anybody can make
a mistake ." Villarreal accepted Bevill's apology with the com-
ment, "No sweat."
Shortly before the conduct of the election on June 17,
Villarreal received a call from Bevill on the interplant com-
munications' system . Villarreal testified that Bevill began the
conversation by stating that "I thought you told me you
didn't want to have nothing to do with the Union." Villarreal
assured Bevill of the correctness of his assumption. Bevill
retorted that Union Representative Heaton , who was in the
warehouse, desired to see Villarreal proceeded to Bevill's
office in a nervous state and, together, they set course for the
coffeeshop where the potential voters and Heaton , in addition
to the Board agent in charge of the balloting , were assembled.
As they entered the coffeeshop, and in Villarreal's words,
"everybody was giving me a dirty look, you know, like I don't
know what, you know. And scared and everything else, the
first thing came to mind is stick to the federal man," an
obvious reference to the Board agent. Villarreal was informed
that he had been selected as the Union's observer for the
election and, at his request , the Board agent showed him the
applicable regulations for holding the election . Following the
balloting, Villarreal met Bevill in the general office and the
latter stated , "Hey,Cat, now we can talk about ' it. When did
you ever make your mind to go for the Union?" Villarreal
rejoined, "Just a little while ago."
Harold West was hired by Plant Superintendent Bevill in
early 1968 and toiled in the dry bulk department. He testified
that D. I. Jones had been his foreman, that C. J. Marbley was
next in command, and that West took orders from both.
During his employment, and particularly since the beginning
of 1970, six or seven employees worked in the department,
regularly supplemented by three or four labor pool workers.
West signed a union designation card outside the plant on
March 21 which he received from Mancel Watson.
West testified without contradiction and I find that, about
a week or two after he executed the card, Foreman Jones
approached him and "said a union wouldn't work and it
wouldn't be any good." West further testified that, a few
weeks after the card signing , Plant Superintendent Bevill
summoned the six employees in the dry bulk department and
announced "That the Union wouldn't work. And before that
they would let a union in there they would close down the dry
bulk department and some of the wages would be cut, and the
Union just wouldn't work." Bevill also warned that "he
would like to know who started it [enlisting the Union's
support], and if he did he would fire them." West also averred
that, toward the end of April , Bevill held another meeting in
which he said "The same thing , that the Union wouldn't
work, and before that he would let one, the Company let one
come in , that they would shut down the dry bulk depart-
ment." West denied that Bevill made any mention of declin-
ing revenues as the predicate for closing the warehouse at
either of these gatherings. Furthermore, at the latter meeting,
Bevill cautioned that "some of the people 's" wages would be
cut. Approximately a month before the election, Bevill en-
tered into a private conversation with West in which the
former inquired "if I think it [the union situation] would
work.... " When West feigned ignorance , claiming "I didn't
know what he was talking about," Bevill retorted, "Yeah, you
know what I am talking about. You know." Concluding
West's testimony , he recalled that a similar inquiry was put
to him and Watson by Foreman Jones prior to the election.
I credit the testimony of Watson, Salazar, Trejo, Villarreal,
and West, not only because they impressed me as witnesses
who were unsophisticated in the art of exaggeration' or
deception and who earnestly attempted to utter the truth
while on the stand , but also because I deem the testimony of
Respondent's witnesses , particularly that of Bevill, to be so
contradictory or implausible as not to warrant its credible
acceptance.
Bevill testified that, shortly after Respondent received a
copy of the Union's election petition on March 25 or 26,
General Operations Manager Allison called a meeting of his
supervisory personnel and ran through a list of the "do's and
don'ts" pertaining to their conduct vis-a-vis the Union's
drive. However , Allison instructed Bevill and the other super-
visors to keep their "eyes and ears open." Bevill acknowl-
edged that he learned that the Union was attempting to or-
ganize Respondent's employees about a week after receipt of
the petition when he heard rumors from some employees to
this effect. However, by inadvertance, Bevill blurted that he
learned of the campaign "after the employees had met with
their union representatives and signed cards," although he
professed that he did not know who had met with Heaton on
March 21 or who had signed cards . Bevill also claimed that
he had no conversations with employees concerning the
Union between the reading of his speech on April 21 and the
election date of June 17. Upon rehabilitation by Respondent's
counsel, he then reversed his stance and admitted that the
topic of the Union cropped up in discussions with Villarreal.
According to Bevill, Villarreal came to him one day and,
spontaneously, remarked, "Look, Jim, I don't care about the
Union really . All I want is a good place to work and a place
to make a good living," to which Bevill replied, "Fine." On
other occasions, Villarreal pointed out the advantages and
disadvantages of unionization and the two men would then
discuss these issues . With regard to the incident related by
Villarreal in his testimony regarding Gongora and Martinez
on the morning of the election, Bevill claimed that the subject
of the Union never arose in the course of the incident. Ac-
cording to Bevill, he asked Villarreal why Gongora was not
at work that morning and Villarreal answered that Gongora
had said he was quitting his employment. Surprised at intelli-
gence , and desirous of informing Gongora that Bevill had
arranged for a requested 2-week vacation for him, Bevill
enlisted the aid of Martinez who knew where Gongora lived
and together they drove to Gongora's home. Bevill denied
that he had extracated any information from Martinez or
Gongora during their journey concerning Villarreal 's union
sympathies. When asked whether the topic of the Union
cropped up during their ride, Bevill stated that "The only
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thing that was said, that Jesse [Gongora] said to me when I
went to get him, to find out why he wasn't coming to work,
he said, 'Mr. Jim, me don't want no trouble.' " When Bevill
inquired into the type of trouble which Gongora anticipated,
Gongora responded that "I don't want my tires cut." I deem
it implausible, if not incredible, that Gongora would have
expressed such a concern if the only subject of conversation
which was touched on related to his impending vacation or
having quit his job.
Rather, I am persuaded and find that, prior to the election,
Bevill informed Villarreal and other employees that he was
aware of the Union's endeavors at the plant and expressed his
displeasure over this intrusion. I further find that, around
April 21, Bevill interrogated Villarreal concerning his union
activities and accused Villarreal of being the leader of the
Union's campaign drive. I find that, on the morning of the
election of June 17, Bevill sought out Martinez and Gongora
and interrogated them regarding Villarreal's union sympa-
thies. Upon learning from Martinez and Gongora that Villar-
real was uncommitted, I find that Bevill conveyed this infor-
mation to Villarreal with his apologies about believing that
Villarreal was the stalwart in the union movement. I also find
that, after the election, Bevill questioned Villarreal as to when
he decided to throw in his lot with the Union.
Based on West's credited testimony, I find that, a few
weeks after the men signed the union cards on March 21,
Bevill informed the warehousemen that the "union wouldn't
work" and that Respondent would close the dry bulk depart-
ment and cut wages because of the advent of the Union and
further told the men that he would discharge the ringleaders
when he identified them. These warnings were again repeated
by Bevill toward the end of April.
I credit the testimony of Trejo and find that, a few weeks
after March 21, Bevill gathered the men together in the lube
oil department and stated that he was aware of the Union's
election campaign and the active union adherents, warned the
men that they would suffer a reduction in pay and other
benefits, and cautioned that the Respondent would debar the
men from the plant and operate it with supervisors if they
voted for the Union. I also find that, on April 21, he informed
the men that he knew who the leader of the Union's drive was
and mentioned that it was the "one that's suing the Com-
pany." Although Bevill did not mention any name in this
connection, I am convinced and find that he had reference to
Watson as the "one that is doing that is bringing you all on
this union thing." I am fortified in this conclusion by Bevill's
own testimony in this proceeding. Thus, Bevill acknowledged
that, in a meeting with Respondent's officials shortly after
receipt of the Union's representation petition, he was in-
structed by Allison to keep his "eyes and ears open" regard-
ing the election campaign and he admitted learning of the
drive "after the employees had met with their union repre-
sentatives and signed cards" and after hearing rumors of this
in the plant. During his examination, Bevill initially related
that he first became aware of Watson's severance from Re-
spondent's payroll by replacement on May 14 when the latter
returned from convalescence for his eye injury. Upon prod-
ding by his counsel, he changed tack and averred that he had
learned from Allison as early as April 13, that Watson had
been replaced for failing to notify Respondent of the injury.
That Trejo truthfully recounted in his testimony that Bevill
knew Watson was the leading union adherent in the plant is
buttressed by the curious letter which Bevill placed in Wat-
son's personnel file on May 14. In this document, Bevill noted
that "I reminded Mr. Watson that he had sued our company
and apparently did not want to work for us any longer."
Moreover, in his haste to contrive a legitimate excuse for
Watson's separation by the alleged replacement, Bevill also
noted that D. I. Jones had notified the former on May 14 that
Watson had returned to work when, in fact, Jones had left his
employment at the plant 3 days earlier.
In sum, I am persuaded and find that, in late January,
Watson sustained a hernia injury which incapacitated him
until March 16. I find that Respondent was fully aware of this
accident and unequivocally excused Watson's absence from
work. I further find that, following the execution of the au-
thorization cards by the men on March 21, Foreman Jones
obtained the names of all the employees who signed the cards
and knew that Watson was the solicitor on behalf of the
Union when he asked Watson for a blank designation on
March 25 or March 26. I find that, on April 6, counsel for
the Union mailed a copy of Watson's compensation claim to
Respondent, and Respondent was again reminded that he
was in league with that labor organization by enlisting its
support in "suing" the company. Based on Watson's un-
denied testimony, I find that he telephoned both Jones and
Allison to report his eye accident on April 6, was advised to
seek medical attention, and was told to bring a medical re-
lease with him on his return to work." When Watson visited
the plant to claim his paycheck on April 10, I find that
Respondent was patently apprised of the eye affliction and
made no protest over its asserted lack of notification of the
injury. Although Allison insisted that he had replaced Wat-
son on April 13 when he failed to appear for work, Respond-
ent made no effort to substantiate this claim by its personnel
records. I credit Watson's testimony and find that, during the
span between April 10 and May 14, he telephoned Jones
and/or Bevill after each visit to his doctor to inform them of
the progress of his recovery. I further find that, upon entering
the plant on May 14 and proffering the medical release to
Bevill, the latter stated that Watson was, no longer employa-
ble because "your activities against the Company are keeping
the men all mixed up," a reference which I find related to the
fact that Watson was the "one that is doing that is bringing
[all the employees] on this union thing. Accordingly, I find
that Watson was discharged by Respondent on May, 14, not
because he was absent due to an eye injury without notifica-
tion to Respondent, but because he was the known, most
active supporter of the Union in the plant.
The case of Salazar's termination of employment poses a
sterner question. It is undisputed and I have heretofore found
that, at all times material herein, Respondent maintained and
enforced a rule which made it mandatory for employees to
work overtime upon request unless they presented a persua-
sive reason for their absence. It is also uncontroverted and I
have found that Salazar was well aware of the consequences
of violating this rule, as evidenced by his testimony that one
or two employees had been terminated for its infringement.
On the afternoon of April 29, Salazar asked Jones for permis-
sion to be excused from overtime work that evening in order
to search for a home to rent, a search for which there admit-
tedly was no urgency. Jones replied that he needed Salazar's
services badly. When Salazar persisted, Jones remarked that
`I can't hold you. I can't stop you," statements which Salazar
interpreted as implying consent to leave. Salazar acknowl-
edged that all of the men performed overtime duties until 2
a.m. the following morning in filling an emergency order.
While it is true that Salazar assisted Watson on March 21
by interpreting the contents of the authorization cards to the
Spanish-speaking employees, he conceded that, so far as he
knew, no official of Respondent was aware that he had en-
gaged in any activities on behalf of the ' Union. Moreover,
" Allison claimed that Watson indicated he would probably return to
work "m a couple days," although he could not be certain whether he so
informed Jones or Bevill about this.
SOUTH COAST INDUSTRIES, INC. 685
unlike the case of Watson, none of Salazar's fellow employees
testimonially reported any utterances or activities by Re-
spondent's officials which could fairly attribute to them any
knowledge that Salazar had joined the Union's ranks. The
only evidence tending to bear on Respondent's unlawful
motivation in separating Salazar is contained in a conversa-
tion which Salazar reported as having with Bevill 2 days after
the termination of his employment. According to Salazar
Bevill stated that if Salazar "ever did something to the Co;;-,
pany that would mess up the Company about this union
. that he would fix me up real bad, too," and that if Salazar
"ever did something to the Company that the Company will
fight me all the way." Even though I credit Salazar's tes-
timony in this regard, I am not convinced that these state-
ments preponderantly establish that Respondent singled
Salazar out for termination 2 days earlier for discriminatory
reasons. As indicated above, there is nothing on this record
to show that Respondent knew, prior to April 29, that Salazar
was in any way connected with the Union's organizational
endeavors. For aught that appears, Bevill's statements might
have been aimed at thwarting Salazar's future assistance to
the Union because of Salazar's dissatisfaction with his treat-
ment at Respondent's hands. While the statements, as I here
find, are otherwise violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and
while the issue is not entirely free from doubt, I am unable
to find that they afford the mainstay for a conclusion that
Salazar was selected for separation on April 29 because he
joined the Union. I shall therefore recommend that the com-
plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent
offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in its
dealings with Salazar on that date.
Based on the testimony which I have heretofore credited,
I find and conclude that Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by the following misconduct:
(1) Jones' creation of the impression of surveillance by his
comments to Watson on March 25 or 26 that Jones knew the
names of the employees who had signed union authorization
cards and those who had not.
(2) Bevill's creation of the impression of surveillance when,
in early April, he informed Trejo and the lube oil employees
that he was aware that the men were attempting to obtain
collective representation by the Union and he knew the iden-
tity of the most ardent union activists.
(3) Bevill's creation of the impression of surveillance about
April 21 by his statement to Villarreal that Bevill had heard
that Villarreal was the leader of the union movement.
(4) Bevill's statement to Villarreal and other employees in
early April that the employees should leave Respondent's
employ if they did not cease their activities on behalf of the
Union.
(5) Bevill's interrogation of Villarreal on or about April 21
regarding the latter's union sympathies and his activities on
behalf of that labor organization.
(6) Bevill's threat to West and the employees in the dry
bulk department in April that Respondent would close the
plant or cut the wages of some employees if the Union was
successful in its bid'to represent the men.
(7) Bevill's threat to West and other employees that he
would discharge the union supporters once he learned their
identity.
(8) Bevill's interrogation of West in May concerning
West's union desires.
(9) Bevill's threat to West at the end of April that Respond-
ent would terminate its dry bulk operations if the Union
succeeded in the forthcoming election.
(10) Bevill's interrogation of Martinez and Gongora on
June 17 as to Villarreal's union sympathies.
(11) Bevill's interrogation of Villarreal on June 17 as to
when the latter had cast his lot with the Union.
(12) Bevill's threat to Salazar on April 30 that Respondent
would take repressive measures against him if he assisted the
Union in its election drive.
(13) Thompson's promise to Trejo in May that Respondent
would award the employee a wage increase if he voted against
the Union.
Upon the basis of testimony previously credited, and
findings heretofore made, I conclude that Respondent vi-
olated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Mancel Bur-
nett Watson on May 14.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent discharged Mancel Burnett
Watson on May 14, 1970, because he gave assistance to and
engaged in activities on behalf of the Union. I will therefore
recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation practiced against him, by payment to him of a sum
equal to that which he would normally have earned from the
date of the discrimination to the date of reinstatement, less
net earnings during said period, if any. The backpay provided
herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's
formula set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum
computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor prac-
tices engaged in by Respondent, which evince an attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act in general, I deem it
necessary to recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from in any other manner infringing on the rights of em-
ployees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions and the entire record in the case, I hereby make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Mancel Burnett Watson because he as-
sisted and supported the Union, thereby discriminating in
regard to his hire and tenure of employment , in order to
discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the
Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER"
South Coast Industries, Inc., of Houston, Texas, its offic-
ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other
labor organization, by discharging employees or otherwise
discriminating in respect to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment.
(b) Creating the impression that Respondent is surveilling
the union activities of its employees.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union sympathies and activities and the union sympathies
and activities of their fellow employees.
(d) Threatening to close the plant if the employees select
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
(e) Instructing employees to leave their employment if they
did not cease their activities on behalf of the Union.
(t) Threatening to discharge employees who joined and
supported the Union.
(g) Threatening to reduce the wages of its employees in the
event the Union was successful in the election.
(h) Promising wage increases to its ,employees for voting
against the Union.
(i) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals if they
voted for the Union.
(j) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any
labor organization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Mancel Burnett Watson immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position and make him whole for
any loss of pay, he may have suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination practiced against him, in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Mancel Burnett Watson, if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
ascertain any backpay due under the terms of this recom-
mended Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Houston, Texas, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 23, after
being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices 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.
'(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing,
within 20 days of date of the receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, except as hereina-
bove found, all other allegations in the complaint be dis-
missed.
" In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
16 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from joining
or helping South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District of the
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
or any other union, by discharging them or otherwise
discriminating in respect to their hire or, tenure of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are spy-
ing on the union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their union sympathies and activities or the
union sympathies and activities of their fellow em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant because our
employees select the Union as their bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to leave their
jobs if they do not stop helping the Union in our plant.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire our employees for join-
ing or supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to reduce the wages of our
employees if the Union wins an election among them.
WE WILL NOT promise wage increases to our em-
ployees for voting against the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals
for voting for the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, or
to join or assist South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District
of the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
SOUTH COAST INDUSTRIES, INC.
CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, or
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Mancel Burnett Watson immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position and
WE WILL pay him for any wages lost when we dis-
charged him for joining and assisting the Union.
WE WILL notify Mancel Burnett Watson , if presently
serving in the Armed Services of the United States, of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from be-
687
coming members of the above-named Union or any other
labor organization.
Dated By
SOUTH COAST
INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 6617
Federal Office Building , 515 Rusk Avenue , Houston, Texas
77002 , Telephone 713-226-4296.