Tennessee Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC. I
Tennessee Plastics, Inc. and Local Union 464, Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-
CIO. Case 10-CA-9611
April 19, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
KENNEDY
On December 20, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings and findings of
the Administrative Law Judge, but we adopt his con-
clusions I and recommended order only to the extent
consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
Respondent discharged employee Evelyn Reece, a
prominent union organizer, on the day of the repre-
sentation election in Respondent's plant, at least in
part because of her union activities, and not solely
because she had threatened that morning to cut off
employee Norma Jean Dye's hair if Dye did not vote
for the Union that afternoon. Respondent excepts to
this finding, and we find merit in its exceptions.
The essential facts are not in dispute. Reece made
herself well known in Respondent's plant as a leading
adherent of the Union during its organizational and
preelection campaigns. She did this while at work in
the plant by means of slogans lettered on her shirt and
her pocketbook. Respondent was aware of her activi-
ties, and, as part of its campaign to defeat the Union,
went so far as to place antiunion posters, in which
Reece was personally depicted, around her work sta-
tion, in an admitted effort to counteract her influence
among the employees.
On the morning of May 26, 1972, the day of the
election, Reece was handbilling outside the plant as
the employees arrived. She handed a pamphlet to Dye
as she arrived for work and told Dye that if she or
anyone else did not vote for the Union, Reece would
cut their hair off. Plant Superintendent Leon Baker
learned of this incident, and spoke with Dye, who
1 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Administra-
tive Law Judge's dismissal of the complaint 's 8(aXl) allegations.
confirmed that Reece had made the threat to her.
Baker immediately discharged Reece, as he had an-
other employee some months before when the em-
ployee had threatened to slash the tires of a fellow
employee. Baker promptly posted a notice to the em-
ployees informing them of Reece's discharge and the
reason therefor, and admonishing that such behavior
was impermissible and would be dealt with in the
same manner as in the case of Reece . The election was
thereafter held that afternoon, and the Union won.
In reaching his conclusion that Reece's threat to
Dye was seized upon by Respondent as a pretext for
discharging her for her union activities in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1), the Administrative Law Judge
attempted to distinguish the instant case from that of
P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc., 199 NLRB No. 145, on
the ground that the instant case arises in the context
of an organizing campaign , while Berland did not. For
support of his pretext finding, he relied upon
Respondent's placing of antiunion posters around
Reece's work station, and its prompt posting, before
the election, of the notice to its employees announcing
her discharge.
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find
no evidence of pretext in Reece's discharge. Clearly,
Respondent posted its notice of Reece 's discharge in
an attempt to dissipate the effect of Reece's threat on
those employees who might have wished to exercise
their statutory right to vote against the Union in the
election held later that day. Furthermore, in placing
the posters around Reece's work station, Respondent
was merely exercising its right to express its noncoer-
cive views on the subject of unionization . Reece, hav-
ing made herself the focus of the Union's campaign,
was therefore a legitimate object for Respondent's
countercampaign. Finally, the Administrative Law
Judge, in distinguishing Berland, supra, from the in-
stant case, makes a distinction without a difference,
since a discharge for cause is just as lawful in a case
where the union is organizing as in one where it is not.
Star-News Newspapers, Inc., 183 NLRB 1003.
Reece's threat to Dye to cut off Dye' s hair unless
she voted for the Union is firmly established by credi-
ble evidence. There is no evidence that any similar
threat of personal violence has ever been condoned by
Respondent, or that Reece's discharge because of the
threat resulted from any unlawful considerations. On
all of the evidence, we find that Respondent dis-
charged Reece for cause. Star-News Newspapers, Inc.,
supra; P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc., supra.
Accordingly, inasmuch as all other allegations of
the complaint have been dismissed by the Adminis-
trative Law Judge without exceptions being taken, we
shall order the entire complaint herein dismissed.
203 NLRB No. 2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN. Administrative Law Judge: The
charge in this case was filed on May 31, 1972,' and amended
on June 15. The complaint was issued on July 10. The
hearing was held on September 6 and 7 in Johnson City,
Tennessee.
When the hearing opened, the complaint alleged, in addi-
tion to independent violations of Section 8(axl) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the constructive
discharge of William Ferguson and the discharges of Jimmy
V. Cole and Evelyn Jeanette Reece as violations of Section
8(a)(3) and (1). Over objection of the General Counsel, I
approved a settlement between Respondent and the Charg-
ing Party with respect to Ferguson and Cole. However, I
permitted counsel for the General Counsel to introduce
such evidence as they saw fit with respect to the termina-
tions of Ferguson and Cole for the purpose of establishing
Respondent's antiunion animus. I have made no findings of
fact with respect to those terminations because, in my opin-
ion, the evidence presented did not establish animus. In any
event, as is more fully developed below, the admitted facts
surrounding the discharge of Mrs. Reece so clearly establish
Respondent's antiunion animus that such evidence would
be cumulative at best. As a result of my ruling, the principal
issue litigated was Respondent's motive for discharging
Mrs. Reece. For the reasons set forth below, I find Respon-
dent discharged Mrs. Reece on May 26 in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, especially by observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
briefs filed by Respondent and the General Counsel, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent , a Tennessee corporation , manufactures
heating and air-conditioning equipment in Johnson City.
During 1971, a representative period, it sold and shipped
finish, td products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located outside the State of Tennessee . Respon-
dent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Charging Party is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I All dates are 1972
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Credibility
There are three facts in this case which are beyond argu-
ment . Mrs. Reece has red hair . Mrs. Reece was the most
visible and vocal member of the Charging Party's in-plant
organizing committee . Mrs. Reece is tough . My resolution
of the crucial credibility conflict in this record hangs on the
latter fact.
Mrs. Reece was discharged for allegedly threatening an-
other employee, Norma Jean Dye, as Mrs. Reece was hand-
billing one of Respondent's plants a few hours before a
Board-conducted representation election . Mrs. Reece testi-
fied that she did not . Her version of the event was that Mrs.
Dye drove past her into the parking lot with her car win-
dows closed and did not take one of her leaflets . Mrs. Reece
testified that she said nothing to Mrs . Dye. Mrs . Dye testi-
fied her car window was open, she paused long enough to
take a leaflet , and, as she did so, Mrs. Reece said to her that
if she or anyone else did not vote for the Union, Mrs. Reece
would cut their hair off. There were no other witnesses to
the incident. There is no dispute about any of the other
details surrounding the circumstances of Mrs . Reece's dis-
charge.
My finding that Mrs . Reece is "tough" is based in large
measure , of course , on her demeanor on the witness stand.
The two parts of the record on which I have relied in addi-
tion are the sort which I would normally find significant in
resolving a credibility conflict in favor of a witness, for they
reveal Mrs. Reece's candor in a situation where a less forth-
right person might be impelled to be evasive or resort to
euphemisms. One relates to her testimony about an alterca-
tion which took place outside a bar in Johnson City the
evening of the day she was discharged. Mrs. Reece testified
that Robert Dennis , one of the owners of Respondent, told
her she had been discharged for union activities. While
there were several witnesses to the incident, Mrs. Reece said
these particular words were spoken when only she was with-
in earshot . Dennis denied that he spoke them . His testimony
was corroborated by Frank Chandler, Respondent's mar-
keting manager. During the course of cross-examination of
Mrs. Reece about the incident, the following exchange oc-
curred:
Q. On the evening of May 26th, 1972, did you call
Mr. Bob Henry [Respondent's other owner] a grey-
haired son-of-a-bitch?
A. No, I called him an old grey-headed son-of-a-
bitch.
The other relates to words spoken between Mrs. Reece
and Anthony Leggio, counsel for Respondent, when Mrs.
Reece returned to the plant to vote several hours after her
discharge . On cross-examination this exchange took place:
Q. And when he [the union organizer who was with
Mrs. Reece at the time] said, "Keep your cool," what
did you say?
A. Do you want me to tell you what I called you?
Q. Yes.
A. I called you an ugly dago.
Q. Didn't you say, "How can I keep my cool when
I am looking at an ugly dago?"
TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC. 3
A. That's right.
To credit Mrs. Reece over Mrs. Dye I would have to find
Mrs. Dye invented the entire incident while Mrs . Reece was
handbilling , presumably as part of a plot with officials of
Respondent to get rid of the Union 's leading adherent as a
last minute warning to others not to vote for the Union.
Nothing in Mrs. Dye's demeanor or testimony arouses any
such suspicion in my mind . Since , in the total context of
what happened , the fact that Mrs. Reece threatened Mrs.
Dye seems to me more inherently credible than that she did
not, I have credited Mrs. Dye over Mrs. Reece. For the same
reason , I have also credited Dennis over Mrs. Reece.
Several days before her discharge , Mrs. Reece was in-
volved in a conversation with Bob Rose , general foreman of
the plant in which Mrs . Reece worked, which the General
Counsel contends is a threat to discharge . The key quote is
"you won 't be around next week to see the fireworks."
Rose's version of the conversation was that he was merely
checking with Mrs. Reece reports he had received from
various employees that Mrs. Reece was planning to quit
after the election. According to Rose , the thrust of the con-
versation was that Mrs. Reece would be moving on after the
election because she would then have accomplished what
she came to the plant to do, namely, organize it. Rose de-
nied that he had threatened or coerced Mrs. Reece in any
way.
Unlike the credibility conflicts involving Mrs. Reece al-
ready considered , this one presents a two on one rather than
a one on one (or , as in the Dennis incident, a one on two)
situation , for Mrs . Reece's version of her conversation with
Rose was corroborated by another employee who was
present at the time . Because her testimony is corroborated,
I have credited Mrs. Reece over Rose as to this incident.
B. The Discharge of Mrs. Reece
1. Facts
Local 464 began a campaign to organize Respondent's
three plants in February or March . It filed a petition for an
election in Case 10-RC-9176 on May 1. The Regional Di-
rector approved a stipulation for certification upon consent
election agreement on May 17. The unit agreed to by the
parties was a production and maintenance one. More than
500 employees fell within it. The election was scheduled for
the early afternoon of Friday, May 26.
Mrs. Reece took a prominent part in the Union's organi-
zational efforts from the outset . Her role as a leader was
known throughout the plant , among both employees and
management personnel.' In the closing stages of the cam-
paign she carried a pocketbook and wore a shirt which bore
legends urging employees to back Local 464.
Respondent waged an active campaign against the Union
and took special pains to offset Mrs. Reece 's prounion ac-
tivities . Among the posters which Respondent utilized was
one which , just above the word "or," depicted a woman
labeled "union steward" and flanked by a pocketbook bear-
ing the legend "464," similar to the pocketbook Mrs. Reece
carried. Just below "or" were depicted three smiling male
figures labeled "your personal friends of many years." The
complete message of the poster , reading from top to bottom,
was "To whom do you want to tell your personal problems?
And from whom do you expect to get help? Union steward?
Or your personal friends of many years? Vote no union."
One copy of this poster was specially prepared by col-
oring the woman 's hair red. Bob Rose placed it at Mrs.
Reece's work station a day or two before the election and
called attention to it thereafter by returning to dust it off.
On the morning of election day, May 26, Mrs. Reece and
several others handbilled Respondent 's plant 1, the plant in
which Mrs . Reece worked . Mrs. Reece handbilled from ap-
proximately 6:30 a.m. to 6 : 55 a.m . The first shift began
work at 7 a.m. Employees arrived at plant 1 by car. Mrs.
Reece stood in a roadway linking a highway which runs past
plant I and the employees ' parking lot and handed leaflets
to those employees who chose to take them as they rode by.
Just before Mrs. Reece stopped handbilling in order to go
to work, Mrs. Dye arrived for work in her car . Mrs. Dye
stopped and took a handbill . As she did , Mrs. Reece said
to her that, if she and anyone else did not vote for the
Union, Mrs. Reece would cut their hair off.
Mrs. Reece encountered Mrs. Dye again at the timeclock
as they were clocking in. Mrs . Reece commented on Mrs.
Dye's attire-white shorts-by asking if she was cool. Mrs.
Dye said she was not. Mrs. Reece said , "They look nice on
you." Mrs . Dye thanked her for the compliment.
Sometime between 7 and 9 a .m., Mrs . Dye told Mamie
Stanton what "the redheaded lady" had said to her as sh'
drove into the plant. Miss Stanton had been selected by
Respondent as one of its observers in the election to be held
that day. She went to the personnel office a few minutes
before 9 a.m. to be briefed on her duties at the preelection
conference She told Bob Carter , Respondent 's personnel
manager, what Mrs. Dye had told her about the "redheaded
lady." Carter relayed the information to Leon Baker, man-
ager of all three plants.
In the meantime, Mrs. Dye had gotten to the first aid
room in plant 1 by a circuitous route . As she had been on
a couple of days in the recent past, Mrs. Dye was sick at her
stomach on the morning of May 26. Her illness was not
caused or aggravated in any way by what Mrs. Reece had
said to her . Mrs. Dye went to the lady' s room sometime
prior to 9 a .m. There she encountered Toby Morrison, the
plant nurse , who observed that she was ill . Nurse Morrison
took her to the first aid room and had her lie down.
As soon as Baker received Carter's report that Mrs. Reece
had threatened Mrs. Dye, he went to find Mrs . Dye, picking
up Rose on the way. When they entered the first aid room,
Baker pulled up a chair and sat down beside Mrs . Dye. He
asked what was the matter . Mrs. Dye said she had been sick.
Nurse Morrison said she thought Mrs. Dye might be preg-
nant . Baker asked Mrs. Dye if that was right . Mrs. Dye said
she hoped not. Baker said, "Is there any other problem?"
Mrs. Dye said, "No."
Baker said , "Have you been threatened in a,iy shape,
form , or fashion?"
Mrs. Dye said , hesitantly, "No."
Baker said , "Are you sure?"
Mrs. Dye said that the redheaded lady who was handing
out leaflets had told her if she did not vote yes, the redhead-
ed lady would cut her hair off.
Baker said , "Do you mean Evelyn Reece?"
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mrs. Dye said, "Yes, I do."
Baker asked Mrs. Dye if she would sign an affidavit to
that effect . Mrs. Dye said she would . Baker sent Nurse
Morrison for paper and a notary public . He prepared an
affidavit and read it to Mrs. Dye . Mrs. Dye agreed that it
was accurate and signed it. It was witnessed by Baker, Rose,
and Nurse Morrison and notarized by Fran Deason. It
read:
While coming to work on 5/26/72 Norma Jean Dye
was told by Evelyn Reece that if she and everyone else
did not vote for the union in the election they would
get their hair cut off.
Baker decided immediately to discharge Mrs. Reece. As
soon as he left the first aid room , he picked up her timecard
and carried it to the accounting department . He ordered her
final checks to be prepared , based on a termination as of
9:30 a .m. He ordered Rose to bring Mrs. Reece to the
personnel department.
Mrs. Reece arrived at the personnel department at 9:15
a.m. Baker told her she was being discharged as of 9:30 a.m
for threatening a fellow employee . Mrs. Reece asked which
employee she was supposed to have threatened. Baker re-
fused to tell her . He escorted her out of the plant.
Baker immediately prepared and had posted the follow-
ing notice:
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This morning it was necessary for your company to
discharge Evelyn Reece because she threatened an-
other employee with physical harm if that employee
did not vote for the union . Your company cannot and
will not tolerate such behavior and we will take appro-
priate action toward any employee who threatens his or
her fellow worker in connection with the day's election
or anything else relating to our company.
The election was held as scheduled. Mrs. Reece returned
to the plant to vote , presumably 1 of the 31 challenged
ballots cast that day. In any event , the votes which were
counted showed a result of 299 for and 212 against Local
464. Respondent filed objections on June 5. The Regional
Director recommended that the Board overrule them and
certify Local 464 on July 12. The Board did so on October
5.
Around 7:30 p.m on May 26 Mrs . Reece was driving past
an establishment in Johnson City called The Cat's Paw with
her husband when she spied Frank Chandler, Respondent's
marketing manager, on the sidewalk about to enter. She
called out to Chandler and asked him if the outcome of the
election had suited him . He said it had not. Mrs. Reece
asked where Dennis and Henry, Respondent's owners,
were. Dennis happened to be standing at the bottom of a
flight of stairs which leads from the sidewalk to The Cat's
Paw. Apparently he overheard Mrs. Reece 's question, for he
came up the steps and spoke to her. Mrs. Reece told Dennis
she was put in his plant to organize it. Dennis said he was
aware of that . Mrs. Reece told him not to underestimate the
power of a redhead . Dennis told her that she had won a
battle but not the war . At this point Leggio, Respondent's
attorney , came out of The Cat's Paw and suggested to Den-
nis that he would be wiser not to talk to Mrs . Reece under
the circumstances.
The conversation between Mrs . Reece and Dennis was of
the affable , no-hard-feelings type . However , when Henry,
Respondent 's other owner, came out of The Cat's Paw, the
mood changed . There was an altercation in which harsh
words were exchanged by both sides.
Baker has , on one other occasion , discharged an employ-
ee because of a report he received about that employee's
alleged misconduct without giving the employee an oppor-
tunity to explain . On that occasion, apparently unrelated to
any union or protected activities being engaged in by the
employees , two witnesses reported to Baker that the em-
ployee in question had threatened to slash the tires on the
car of one of them . Unlike the case of Mrs . Reece, Baker
did not take an affidavit from the threatened employee or
his supporting witness at that time.
2. Analysis and conclusions
Since I have found that Mrs. Reece did speak the words
she was discharged for speaking and since those words,
considering the context in which they were spoken, consti-
tuted a serious threat and not a jest, the issue is whether
Baker seized on them as a pretext to get rid of Mrs. Reece
or whether he was, in fact, solely motivated by them when
he decided to discharge her. In that respect, this case is not
unlike P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc., 199 NLRB No. 145.
In Berland, the incident which triggered the discharge was
the disclosure that the alleged discriminatee, Robbins, was
carrying a loaded gun when he was arrested for a traffic
violation. Robbins' supervisor, Berland , learned of the ar-
rest and gun while Robbins was at the police station. Ber-
land harbored considerable animus toward Robbins
because Robbins had joined the union despite being hired
as a potential management employee. He had demonstrated
that animus by trying to discharge Robbins on several occa-
sions , only to be thwarted by the union. When Berland
learned of Robbins' arrest, he decided to discharge him.
When Robbins next came to work, Berland did so, on the
ground that he regarded Robbins as "too dangerous." In
reversing the Administrative Law Judge's Decision that
Berland's ostensible reason for discharging Robbins was a
pretext masking a motive discriminatory within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Board said:
... it is fair to assume that the Respondent entertained
a desire to get rid of Robbins, whose union activities it
resented , and was pleased to have an opportunity pre-
sent itself for doing so. But that alone is not enough to
establish that the discharge was in violation of Section
8(aX3). The mere fact that an employer may want to
part company with an employee whose union activities
have made him persona non grata does notper se estab-
lish that a subsequent discharge of that employee must
be unlawfully discriminatory . If the employee himself
obliges his employer by providing a valid independent
reason for discharge-i.e., by engaging in conduct for
which he would have been discharged anyway-his
discharge cannot properly be labeled a pretext and
ruled unlawful.
TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC. 5
Save where the reason itself is unlawful , it is not for
the Board to substitute its judgment for that of man-
agement as to what constitutes proper cause for dis-
charge . Unless the ground advanced is inherently
implausible, is unsupported by credible evidence, or is
proved by the record to have been used disparately on
the basis of unlawful considerations , its rejection by the
Board is unwarranted.
Here, the ground advanced for discharging Mrs. Reece is
not inherently implausible , and it is supported by credible
evidence . If "disparately" is taken to mean that all other
discharges in Respondent's history were handled different-
ly, the incident of the employee who threatened to slash the
tires on another employee's car may well bring this case
within the Board's third criterion also. Nevertheless, I find
that Mrs. Reece was discharged in violation of the Act. In
my opinion, the ground advanced is proved by the record
to have been used by Respondent on the basis of unlawful
considerations . In other words, I find Baker did seize on
Mrs. Reece 's threatening Mrs. Dye as a pretext and his real
reason was her union activities.
The essential distinction between this case and Berland
supra, is the fact that this case arose in the context of an
organizing campaign and Berland did not . Baker got maxi-
mum advantage out of the golden opportunity presented to
him just a few hours before Respondent 's employees were
to decide whether they wanted to be represented by a union,
a decision vital to Respondent 's interests , by quickly notify-
ing them that the leading adherent of unionism among them
had lost her job. I am persuaded that Baker seized that
opportunity to strike a blow for Respondent by those parts
of the record which bear on Respondent 's treatment of Mrs.
Reece just prior to May 26 . The person Respondent intend-
ed to depict as a union steward to be shunned by the em-
ployees on the poster described above was obviously Mrs.
Reece, as the use of her pocketbook as a symbol proves. To
make the message doubly obvious in the vicinity of Mrs.
Reece's work station , the area where her prounion influence
would be strongest , Respondent colored the cartoon figure's
hair red on one copy and placed it near her, giving it special
attention thereafter so that she and the employees she
worked with would be constantly reminded of it. While
Rose , the man who placed the poster and paid it special
heed, denied that he did so to annoy Mrs. Reece , it is ob-
vious that his orders came from higher up. The idea of
painting the hair red did not originate with him . And, in any
event , the crucial motive is not Rose's but Baker's, for it was
Baker alone who decided to discharge Mrs. Reece without
further investigation as soon as he heard Mrs. Dye 's story.
While it relates not to the discharge but to the poster, I find
the following excerpt from Baker's testimony while on
cross-examination especially revealing:
Q. Didn't you tell Bob Rose during this whole peri-
od to keep a close watch on Evelyn?
A. We kept a close watch on everybody; we've got
about 650 people ; yes, sir.
Q. That wasn't the question . Didn't you tell him to
keep a close watch on Evelyn and watch her?
A. No, sir.
Q. To see what she was doing and who she was
talking to?
A. No, sir.
Q. Post posters around there and get her annoyed
and hope she would do something?
A. We posted posters, yes, sir.
Q. Right around her table.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why?
A. To counteract her signs , the votes that she had
and so forth.
Q. Weren't you just trying to get her annoyed so that
she would say something?
A. Possibly, yes, sir; not to fire her but to counteract
her situation with her no vote signs , or vote yes signs
and the pocketbook ; yes, sir . [Emphasis supplied.]
I rely on it especially in finding that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act on May 26 when Leon
Baker discharged Evelyn Jeanette Reece because of her
union activities as a whole and not solely because she had
threatened that morning to cut off Norma Jean Dye's hair
if Mrs . Dye did not vote for the Union that afternoon.
C. Section 8(a)(1) Allegations
1. Threat of discharge
On the afternoon of Tuesday , May 23 , while the employ-
ees were on break , Rose followed Mrs . Reece as she walked
toward Fannie Mae Nelson . When Mrs. Reece got to Mrs.
Nelson she asked her whether she and another employee
were going to "ride up the hill" with her that day. Mrs.
Nelson said , "Yes."
Rose said, "It's a pity you won't be around here after
Friday."
Mrs. Reece said , "I will be around."
Rose said, "Oh , no, you won't , you are quitting."
Mrs. Reece said, "No, I am not quitting . I may be fired,
but I am not quitting."
Rose said , "Oh, you are quitting , all right , you won't be
around next week to see the fireworks, what a pity."
The General Counsel relies on this incident to support the
allegation that Respondent , by Rose, "threatened employ-
ees with discharge for engaging in union activities ." In light
of the evidence of various employees , which I credit, that
they had reported to Rose conversations in which Mrs.
Reece indicated that she was planning to leave
Respondent's employ once the election was over , I see noth-
ing coercive even in Mrs . Reece 's version of her conversa-
tion with Rose. I, therefore , find that Respondent has not
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by threatening its em-
ployees with discharge.
2. Impression of surveillance
Jimmy Cole worked on the second shift at Respondent's
plant 2 . Budd Adams is general foreman on that shift. James
Frank Pendleton is a departmental foreman. On Wednes-
day, May 17, Cole went to supper with two organizers at a
nearby restaurant , as he had on prior occasions . On one of
those occasions Adams had been in the same restaurant at
the same time.
After supper on May 17 Cole's work happened to take
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him past Adams and Pendleton. Adams said, "We know
about you."
Cole said, "What do you know about me?"
Adams said, "We know about him, don't we, Frank?"
Cole said, "What do you know about me?"
Adams said, "Your activities."
The General Counsel relies on this incident to support an
allegation that Respondent, by Adams, "created an impres-
sion of surveillance of its employees' union activities." I
think it is too ambiguous to support such a finding. I, there-
fore, find that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by creating an impression of surveillance of its
employees' union activities.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Tennessee Plastics , Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local Union 464 of Sheet Metal Workers' Association,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Evelyn Jeanette Reece on May 26,
1972, in order to discourase the union activities of its em-
ployees , Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening its employees
with discharge and creating an impression of surveillance of
their union activities have not been sustained.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is neces-
sary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
the unfair labor practice found and remedy it . I will recom-
mend the usual remedy of reinstatement and backpay com-
puted on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per
annum , as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716. I will also recommend that Respondent be required to
post appropriate notices.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]