The Rhyne Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 787 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 787
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the D. L. Harrison Company to
discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee in violation of
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of the
above-named Employer in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a'condition of employment,
as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act , as, modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL make whole Buford C. Kinder, Dwight Taylor, John Petty, Ray-
mond W . Craft, Robert Scheper , Theodore Watson , Eugene Warner, Kenneth
Burgess, Charles Hickey, Albert C. Kramer, James C. Turner, Hobart Hollo-
way, Alfred Leroy Walker, William Stanley, and Ralph Gulley for any loss
of pay they may have suffered,as a result of the discrimination against them.'
LOCAL 347, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
The Rhyne Company, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Local Union No . 991, Ind.
Case No. 15-CA-1903. November 28, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 4,1961, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist' therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached thereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint, and recommended that these allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board I has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
'Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated Its powers in connection
with this case to a three- member panel [ Members Rodgers , Fanning, and Brown].
The Trial, Examiner 's1 inadvertent error , in referring to "Christmas 1960" as "Christ-
mas 1961" In the fifth paragraph of the Intermediate Report entitled "Contentions of
Parties, and Concluding Findings " is hereby corrected.
8 Member Brown would reverse the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent did not
violate the Act by its president's volunteered announcements to the drivers of a wage
increase for plant workers, while advising them at the same time that similar pending
134 NLRB No. 74.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Rhyne Com-
pany, Inc., Marianna, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies,
affiliations, or activities in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Threatening its employees that it would close its plant or ter-
minate its business before it would negotiate with the Union in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening its employees with loss of employment or any other
reprisals if they join the Union or if the Respondent discovered who
had joined it in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 991, Ind., or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, to to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such right maybe affected by an agreement' requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its plant at Marianna, Florida, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
raises for them would be withheld because of "negotiations with the Union." In Member
Brown's view, Respondent may have had the right to withhold actual payment of the-
wage increase in the circumstances . But, its announcements , occurring , as they did, in
the context of Respondent's other antiunion remarks found coercive by the Trial Examiner
and the Board , were reasonably calculated to cause the drivers to believe that they were
being penalized because they joined the Union and to discourage continued adherence to
the Union . Member Brown considers such conduct clearly violative of Section 8(a) (1).
A In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court' of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 789
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their union
sympathies, affiliations, or activities, or threaten our employees
with loss of employment or other reprisals if they join Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union
No. 991, Ind., or any other labor organization, or threaten our
employees that we will close our plant or terminate our business
before we will negotiate with the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization.
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, to join or assist the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a. labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The issues in this case are whether Respondent , The Rhyne Company, Inc., inter-
rogated employees regarding their union activities , and threatened them with loss
of employment and other reprisals because of such activities , in violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, etc . (herein
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called the Act). The issues arise on a complaint issued by the General Counsel of
the Board on May 3, 1961, and answer of Respondent thereto which admits juris-
diction but denies the commission of any unfair practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the issues was held before the duly designated
Trial Examiner on June 20, 1961, at Marianna, Florida, in which all parties partici-
pated by counsel or other representative, and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and
to make oral argument and file briefs. All parties waived oral argument, but Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent have filed written briefs which have been considered
by the Trial Examiner.
Upon the consideration of the entire record in the case, and from my observation
of the witnesses on the stand, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Florida corporation with its principal office and place of business
located in Marianna, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of manufacture
and wholesale distribution of promotional furniture. In the past 12 months, Re-
spondent has made, sold, and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000
from its Marianna plant directly to points outside Florida. I find that Respondent is,
and at all times material herein has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union
No. 991, Ind. (herein called the Union), is a -labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Early in January 1961 the Union began an organizing campaign among Re-
spondent's truckdrivers. On January 11 it advised Respondent by letter that it
represented a majority of the drivers and desired recognition as their bargaining
representative. On January 18, 1961, the Union filed a petition with the Board
in Case No. 15-RC-2328 seeking certification as statutory bargaining representa-
tive of a unit composed of the drivers. Shortly after, Respondent received notice
of the filing of the petition. A hearing in that proceeding was scheduled for Febru-
ary 17, 1961, at Marianna, Florida, but was postponed and actually held on March 8,
1961, at Marianna, Florida. The representation case is still pending and undeter-
mined before the Board.'
The Union's bargaining request was received early on the morning of January
11 by Jeff S. Rhyne, president of Respondent and admittedly a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, who gives orders about deliveries daily to the drivers either
at the office or on the telephone when they call from distant points for instructions.
The letter made Rhyne "very much emotionally upset"; he was disappointed and
hurt that the drivers, whom he had always considered his "friends," had affiliated
with a union, and he felt there was some "great misunderstanding at some point,"
and wanted to find out whether he had done anything "terribly wrong" to the
drivers. Hence, when he learned that drivers Durwood F. Hill and W. Harvey Ross
had returned to the plant unexpectedly that morning after a truck breakdown, he
called them into the office individually to talk about the Union. He talked to Ross
first, telling him about the Union's letter, and asked him if "anything was wrong."
Ross' answer, if any, does not appear. Rhyne told him that, while he did not care
who joined or did not join the Union, he could not afford to pay the drivers higher
wages, regardless of whether the Union organized the plant, but that if he had to pay
more wages, he could not afford to operate and would have to close the plant.
When he called Hill in, he said he had received the Union's letter, and then asked
Hill what he knew about the Union. Hill replied that he had talked to a man who
had tried to get him to sign a union card. Rhyne said that neither the Union nor
anyone else could come in and tell him what to pay his men or how to run his place,
and before he would let that happen he would close it down. He also told Hill that
1 These facts are based on credited testimony of Rhyne and various Board witnesses,
and the Board's file in Case No. 15-RC-2328 (not published In NLRB volumes), of
which I take official notice. I '
THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 791
he had given plant employees a 10-cent an hour raise, but since "we were negotiating
with the Union," he could not give it to the drivers.
Later that morning, when driver Noel L. Gillespie telephoned the office from
New York, New York, for pickup instructions, Rhyne told him about the Union's
letter, said he was in a "lot of trouble," and asked him if "anything was wrong,"
and if Gillespie knew anything about "the union mess that was going on." Gillespie
replied "no" to both questions. Rhyne then asked him if he "knew anything" about
driver Roy C. McDowell (who was on the trip with Gillespie and standing beside
him during the telephone conversation). Gillespie replied that, as far as he knew,
McDowell had not signed a union card. Rhyne then said he considered Gillespie
one of his best men, and that "if there is anything you can find out," Rhyne would
appreciate any help Gillespie could give him. Gillespie replied that he would "do
anything I can." Rhyne also told Gillespie that Respondent could not afford to pay
the wages paid to drivers in the New York area who were members of the Teamsters,
and that if the Company was forced to pay such wages, it could not operate and would
be forced to go out of business.
When Gillespie returned from his trip a few days later, and reported to Rhyne,
the latter again discussed the Union, saying "life was too short," and that he would
close the plant before he would negotiate with a union . He commented, "You know
how the union works, they throw acid in your face." He also told Gillespie that
production workers in the plant had received a raise and he had planned to give the
drivers a raise, but he could not do it "now that the Union was in," because of "nego-
tiation withthe Union." 3
When driver Angus O'Brian returned from a trip on January 12, Rhyne told him
in the plant yard that if the drivers wanted 'a union, they should vote it in, that it was
"entirely up to them," that he could not advise them "one way or the other as to
the effect of it," but that he would liquidate the business before he would let the
Union tell him what to do and what not to do. He also said the plant workers had
received a raise, and he had planned to give the drivers a raise, but could not do so,
because "we were negotiating a contract" with the Union, and it was unlawful for
him, to raise them.3
When driver McDowell returned from a trip on or about February 1, Rhyne asked
him in the office what he thought about the Union. He replied that he did not think
"too much of it" because he had had trouble with it when he was driving a truck up
north. Rhyne told him that before he would let theUnion come in and tell him
what to do, he would close down the plant. This conversation is based on credited
and uncontradicted testimony of McDowell, which is corroborated in ,part by Rhyne's
admissions of his attempts to find out from the drivers "what was wrong," after
receipt of the Union's letter. Other testimony of Rhyne in conflict therewith is not
credited.
Hill, Gillespie, and O'Brian attended the February 17 hearing in ,the representation
case, under subpenas issued by General Counsel of the Board. Rhyne also attended
it. When it was adjourned, and the three drivers were leaving the hearing room,
Rhyne told Gillespie and O'Brian that he was "sorry you boys got pulled into this
mess," and that he "felt for them." The three drivers decided to, make it clear to
Rhyne why they appeared at the hearing and see how he reacted, so when they
got back to the plant, they visited Rhyne in a group in the office and told him
they had no choice about attending the hearing because they had been subpenaed,
and were "trying to protect our jobs." Rhyne said he knew about the subpenas.
Hill then asked if there was not some way all the drivers could get together
and "stop the Union, vote it out" by a petition or other document. Rhyne replied
that he could not advise them about that, that they should see a lawyer and get his
advice. Atone point in the discussion, Rhyne said that he did not know who was in
the Union, but if he found anybody who was connected with the Union, he would
"get rid of them." Gillespie asked how he would do that, as he would not know who
was connected with the Union. Rhyne replied that he had "ways of finding out."
Gillespie asked him if he would be "as hard on the non-union men as on the others,"
21 find the above conversations on credited testimony of Ross, Hill, and Gillespie, which
is corroborated in substantial part by admissions of Rhyne. I do not credit Rhyne '8
formal denials of certain portions of the conversations, because he was vague about the
details of each, although admitting much of what the three drivers stated
31 find this conversation from credited testimony of O'Brian, which is corroborated in
large part by Rhyne's admissions of numerous talks about the Union with the drivers in
which he discussed his inability to give the drivers a raise for the reasons stated by
O'Brian . I do not credit his general denials of the threats to close the plant.
792 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if the Union came into the plant. Rhyne replied that "it would go hard on them,
too," that "they would be all alike." 4
Contentions of Parties and Concluding Findings
In the light of Rhyne's emotional upset on receipt of the Union's letter and great
urge to find out if he had done anything "terribly wrong" to his "friends," the drivers,
"that would cause them to do it," as he testified, I am satisfied that his queries of
Ross whether there was "anything wrong," of Hill as to what he knew about the
Union, of McDowell as to what he thought of the Union, and his similar interroga-
tion of Gillespie, including questions whether he knew anything about the "union
mess" and about McDowell, with three of the inquiries following mention of the
Union's letter, and occurring in the space of a few hours after its receipt, were
clearly far from casual interrogations, but were deliberate attempts by Rhyne to find
out the drivers' reasons for affiliating with the Union, and whether McDowell at
least had joined it. I find that these questions were unlawful interrogation about
employees' union sympathies and concerted activities which were well calculated to
coerce and restrain employees in the exercise of their statutory rights, and thus
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. That the interrogation was in fact coercive
is shown by testimony of Gillespie that he deliberately lied to Rhyne when telling
him he knew nothing about the Union or McDowell's affiliation with it, that he did
this to "protect his job," and that of McDowell, as both had been among the first
to join the Union. The deliberate and illegal purpose of the interrogation is further
shown by Rhyne's attempt to persuade Gillespie to find out "anything" he could, and
thus "help" Rhyne, which was a clear request to an employee to act as informer
and report to his employer anything he learned about the union activities. Although
not alleged specifically in the complaint, this is the type of conduct which the Board
has often found violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Citizen's Hotel Company,
d/b/a Texas Hotel, 131 NLRB 834.5
Rhyne's remarks to Hill on January 11, O'Brian on the 12th, and to Gillespie a few
days later, that he would close the plant and the business before he would let the
Union tell him how to run the plant, or would negotiate with the Union, were clearly
coercive threats of reprisal against employees in retaliation for their union affiliation,
of the type which the Board has often found violative of the Act. I find that by such
remarks, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In crediting testimony of
Hill and Gillespie on .this point, and discrediting Rhyne's specific denials, I have con-
sidered Rhyne's agitated state of mind, his overwhelming desire to probe into the
reasons for the apparent union activity which induced his unlawful interrogation,
and the significant fact that he made these threats to two of the drivers after they
yielded specific information to him about the union activity in response to his
questions.
Rhyne's statements to three drivers on February 17 that if he found out who
was connected with the Union, he would get rid of them, was a clear and coercive
threat of reprisal for union activities, which was clearly violative of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
However, I find that Rhyne's remarks to Ross and Gillespie on the 11th, to the
effect that he could not operate but would be forced to close the plant, if he had to
pay union wages, were not a coercive threat to close plant and business because
of the advent of the Union, but merely a legitimate opinion as to the possible eco-
nomic consequences to Respondent (and hence to the drivers) if recognition of the
Union compelled Respondent to pay high wages. The Board has held that this type
of prophecy as to possible economic consequences of unionzation is not violative
of the Act.6
' I find the above conversation on credited testimony of Gillespie, Hill, and O'Brian, as
corroborated in part by that of Rhyne Testimony of the latter specifically denying cer-
tain of the remarks, and otherwise in conflict with the findings, is not credited , in view
of his prior remarks to the drivers found above
B Rhyne's own admissions of much of the interrogations, the reasons therefor, and his
state of mind , afford such corroboration of Gillespie and Hill on the talks, as to render
ambiguities and inconsistencies in Gillespie 's testimony on other circumstances , which are
cited by Respondent in its brief , insignificant , and insufficient to affect his testmony which
I have credited.
E Bilton Insulation, Inc, 129 NLRB 1296.
THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 793
General Counsel argues that Rhyne's volunteered announcement to the drivers
of a wage raise for plant workers, with the advice that a similar pending raise for
drivers would be withheld because of the union campaign, was coercive in that it
led employees to believe that they were being penalized because they joined the
Union. His remark to Hill on January 11 that, since "we are negotiating with the
Union," he could not give the raise to the drivers which he had given to plant em-
ployees, is susceptible of the coercive interpretation that he was withholding that
benefit from drivers because they had "associated" with the Union, and this is a fair
inference in the light of his other ceorcive remarks found above which show his hos-
tility to the Union.7 However, his remark on the subject to Gillespie a few days
later indicated that he could not (not "would not") give the raise because the Union
"was in," and because of "negotiation with the Union"; the quoted phrases, from
Gillespie's testimony, indicate clearly that Rhyne was being compelled, against his
previous desires, to withhold the raise because of the advent of the Union, and the
necessity of negotiations with it .8 He gave the same reason to O'Brian on the 12th,
using the phrase "we were negotiating a contract with the Union," and specifically
pointing out that he would violate the law by giving the raise in such circumstances.
According to McDowell, Plant Supervisor Odell Folsum told him once, while he was
warking sometime in January in the plant, that the drivers were due for a raise, like
that given plant workers, but "since this union started coming in," he did not think
"you all would get it," or "you got this union coming in, and Mr. Jeff Rhyne could
not give it to you." Both versions of Folsum's remarks are equivocal, and do not
clearly impel the view only that Respondent deliberately would not give the raise
because of the advent of the Union. The drivers' testimony on this subject must be
considered in the light of Rhyne's uncontradicted testimony that: just before Christ-
mas 1961, Rhyne had told all employees, including the drivers individually in the
office, how well Respondent's business had done, how much each employee had made,
how much Respondent was putting into his retirement account for the year, and that
Respondent hoped to do better in 1961 and felt it could give the employees a raise
shortly.9 After examining its books at yearend, Respondent concluded it could give
a raise to all employees sometime in January. The plant workers got theirs some-
time after January 11, but Rhyne refrained from giving it to the drivers, after re-
ceiving advice from counsel that such action, after a union demand for recognition,
could be and had in the past been considered an unfair labor practice. Rhyne told
this to various drivers during January and February whenever the wage raise came up
in discussion. While this testimony comes from a prejudiced source, it is corroborated
specifically as to the motive for the withholding by O'Brian and otherwise to some
extent by testimony of the drivers in which they all use the term "negotiation with
the Union," which phrase in common labor parlance refers normally to employer
negotiation with a union, not to relations between employees and a union. All of this
testimony, considered together, in my opinion constitutes substantial proof that Re-
spondent postponed the wage raise for drivers in reliance upon advice of counsel
and was motivated by a desire, openly expressed to at least one driver, to avoid pos-
sible violation of the Act, rather than a desire to penalize the drivers for their pro-
tected concerted activity. I recognize, as General Counsel points out, that Rhyne,
not the drivers, brought out the fact of postponement of the pay raise, in his talks
which included other coercive remarks found above, so that it cannot be said that he
was merely answering questions of the employees about the lack of a raise, hence it
is arguable that the reasonable effect of his remarks was to cause employees to be-
lieve their failure to get the raise was due to their affiliation with the Union, and his
remarks were reasonably calculated to discourage continued adherence to the Union.
However, giving due weight to this circumstance, along with the timing of the an-
7 At the -time of that talk, he was admittedly agitated, and had not yet had the benefit
of counsel's advice to refrain from any interrogation, threats, or promises to employees
regarding or based on their union activities. He did not receive this advice until late
that afternoon
8 On direct examination, Gillespie used the words "negotiation with the Union" ; on
cross-examination, he has Rhyne saying "on account of us negotiating a settlement for
the Union, with the Union " Both phrases are equivocal, but more consistent with the
interpretation that Respondent realized the necessity of dealing with the Union, than
with the view that the drivers were "negotiating with the Union "
8-Gillespie admitted having such a conversation with Rhyne, but could not recall all the
details.
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nouncement, Respondent's other unfair labor practices, and its clear antiunion
animus, but keeping in mind also that the Union had just requested contract negotia-
tions, and that Rhyne repeatedly used the phrase "negotiations with the Union" in
stating why he could not give the raise, and gave his reasons after receiving advice
of counsel, I am constrained to conclude from all the pertinent evidence that the
reason openly stated by Rhyne was a legitimate one, and was expressed to the
drivers in such terms that it clearly tended to advise them that Respondent was
withholding the raise, not because it wanted to, but because it desired to avoid
conduct which could be construed as a violation of the Act, and that his remarks were
not reasonably calculated to convey the impression to employees that their union
affiliation caused Respondent to withhold the raise. While the issue is a close one,
I must conclude that General Counsel has failed to sustain the ultimate burden of
proving by the requisite preponderance of proof from the record considered as a
whole that Respondent's remarks in this respect violated the Act. I shall therefore
grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraph 9 of the complaint. See Standard
Coil Products Inc., 99 NLRB 899, 902, 903; The Lux Clock Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., 113 NLRB 1194, 1199-1201; Ward Body Works, Inc., 103 NLRB 680,
710; and cf. Soerens Motor Company, 106 NLRB 652, 663.10
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 described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The above -named Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act to the extent found above , Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)( I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Respondent has not unlawfully told employees that wage benefits were being with-
held because of the Union 's organizational campaign , as alleged in paragraph 9 of
the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
10 In reaching this conclusion, I have considered carefully Western Cottonosl Company,
95 NLRB 1433, and Telechron, Inc, 93 NLRB 474, cited by General Counsel, but find
them distinguishable on the facts
I have also noted General Counsel's argument that the signing and filing of "dis-
affiliation" petitions by at least four drivers at a later date was caused by Respondent's
unfair labor practices, including its alleged coercive withholding of the wage raise. The
complaint does not allege that Respondent an fact coerced drivers to sign these documents,
and the record shows, to the contrary, from their own testimony, that some of them
brought up the subject of "voting the Union out" in talks with Rhyne. that he refused to
discuss that or advise them, and they later voluntarily took "disaffiliation" action because
they concluded that,they did not want the Union. Hence, I make no finding of an un-
fair labor practice based on their later actions, nor do I consider these facts as any sub-
stantial indication that the withholding of the wage raise had a coercive effect.