The Visador Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 1552 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work described in
paragraph B, supra, in a manner inconsistent with the determination
set forth in that paragraph.
The Visador Co. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1878,23-CA-
1938, 23-CA-1981, and 23-CA-2019. April 8,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1965, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mend ttions of the Trial Examiner, subject to the modification set
forth below.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
i At the hearing the General Counsel orally amended the complaint to allege that Fore-
man Monk Wallace had interrogated employees regarding their union activities and
presented evidence to support the allegation through employee Alton Kelley. At the
conclusion of Kelley's testimony, the Respondent reserved its right to cross-examine until
it had an opportunity to investigate this allegation of the complaint . Subsequently, when
Respondent expressed a desire to cross-examine Kelley, it was discovered that he was
no longer available . We therefore do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that Fore-
man Monk Wallace interrogated employee Alton Kelley in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act. However , as there were numerous other instances of illegal interrogation of
employees by Respondent 's officials and supervisors , we find it unnecessary to modify
our Order.
157 NLRB No. 114.
THE VISADOR CO. 1553
Respondent, The Visador Co., Jasper, Texas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Encouraging or discouraging membership of any of their
employees in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO,-or any other labor organization, by discharging or in
any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to
hire, tenure, or any terms or condition of employment.
(b) Discharging, or in any other manner, disciplining any super-
visor because he has failed or refused to discharge any employee, so as
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employees in the exercise of
such rights.
(c) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by engaging
in the conduct set forth herein.
(d) 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 the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Cledis C. Weatherford and Joe W. Low for any
loss of pay because of the discrimination against them for the period
from January 4, 1965, to the date when they were rehired on Jan-
uary 6, 1965, as set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Offer to W. B. Roberts, Carl Forward, James Edward Williams,
and Cledis C. Weatherford immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for
any losses they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the section. entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Offer to Gordon Pendergast, Jr., immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any losses he may have suffered by reason of his unlawful
discharge, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to reinstatement
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the backpay due.
(f) Post at its plant in Jasper, Texas, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 23, shall, after being signed by a rep-
resentative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice is not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith?
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our
employees, or in any manner discriminating in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten employees concerning their
interests in, and intentions with respect to, joining the above-
named or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
IVE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to their or other employ-
ees' union attitudes, affiliations, and activities.
WE WILL NOT warn employees that if their union efforts are
unsuccessful, their wages will be reduced and that they must
succeed in their efforts to organize.
THE VISADOR CO. 1555
WE WILL NOT promise employees promotions if they refrain from
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to move the plant to a new site in the
event of a successful union organizing campaign.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant in the event of union
activities.
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 or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities.
WE WILL offer to W. B. Roberts, Carl Forward, James Edward
Williams, and Cledis C. Weatherford, immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL make whole Cledis C. Weatherford and Joe W. Low
for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of their illegal dis-
charges on January 4, 1965.
WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstatement to Gordon
Pendergast, Jr., to his former or substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of his
unlawful discharge.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becom-
ing or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor
organization.
THE VISADOR CONMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Serv-
ice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948,
as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
221-374-66-vol. 15 7-9 9
1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Hous-
ton, Texas, Telephone No. 228-4722.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
Phil Saunders during various dates in June and July 1965 in Jasper, Texas, on the
complaint of the General Counsel,' and the answer of The Visador Company, herein
called the Respondent or the Company. The issues presented by the pleadings and
litigated at the hearing were whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging certain of its employ-
ees-W. B. Roberts on July 9, 1964, Carl Forward on November 4, 1964, James
Edward (Red) Williams on November 4, 1964; Joe W. Low on January 4, 1965,
and Cledis C. Weatherford on January 4 and again Weatherford on March 31, 1965;
and violated 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging one of its supervisors, Gordon
Pendergast, Jr., on January 26, 1965. The complaint, as amended, further alleged
that the Respondent coerced and restrained certain of its employees by engaging in
acts of interrogation, warnings and threats on various dates in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.2 At the close of the hearing the parties waived oral argument
but thereafter submitted briefs which were given careful consideration.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, and with due consideration being given to the arguments advanced by the
parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a partnership com-
prised of Robert J. Hall, managing partner, and others, maintaining its principal
office and place of business at Jasper, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of woodwork. During the past 12 months, which period is
representative of all times material herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and shipped products valued in excess
of $50,000 from its Jasper, Texas, plant directly to points outside the State of Texas.
During the same period, Respondent purchased goods and materials in an amount
in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped directly from outside
the State of Texas to Respondent's plant at Jasper, Texas. I find, therefore, that the
Respondent is engaged in "commerce" and in operations "affecting commerce" as
those terms are defined in Section 2(6) and (7), respectively, of the Act, as amended,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the
Respondent.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
'The original charge In Case No. 23-CA-1878 was filed on August IT, 1964, and an
amendment to this charge was filed on September 8, 1964. The original charge in Case
No. 23-CA-1938 was filed on November 9, 1964, and an amendment to this charge was
filed on December 2, 1964 The original charge in Case No 23-CA-1981 was filed on
February 15, 1965, and the original charge was filed In Case No 23-CA-2019
on April 5, 1965.
2 The refusal-to-bargain allegations and issues, 8(a) (5), originally raised in Cases Nos.
23-CA-1878 and 23-CA-1938, were dismissed by the General Counsel at the hearing
However, certain testimony produced in relation with the Union's organizing campaign
in 1964 on the basis of which the demand and request for bargaining was made, and the
Respondent's reactions thereto, will be referred to In properly setting forth the entire
background events, and sequence of this proceeding.
THE VISADOR CO
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1557
A Introduction and background
In June 1963 the Union began an organizational drive in an effort to become the
bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of the
Respondent In September 1963, the Respondent and the Union entered into a
consent-election agreement with the approval of the Regional Director of the Board
An election was then held sometime later in September Thereafter, the parties
agreed to rerun election which was conducted by Regional Director in early Decem-
ber 1963, but the Union failed to receive a majority of the votes cast Following the
rerun election, and as reflected by General Counsel's Exhibits 20 and 21, a formal
settlement stipulation was entered into by and between the Respondent, five indi-
vidual employees as Charging Parties, and the General Counsel This settlement
stipulation provided the basis for the Board's Decision and Order issued in those
cases on May 15, 1964, in which the five discrimmatees therein involved were ordered
reinstated with backpay The Respondent was further ordered to cease and desist
from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights granted them in Section 7 of the Act The Board's Decision and Order was
enforced by a decree entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit on April 29, 1965
This record shows that the new and the latest organizing campaign was begun by
the Union at the Respondent's plant on or about July 27, 1964, when Union Repre-
sentative A C Shirley met with employees Carl Forward, Cledis Weatherford, John
R Mayo, Joe Basil Clark, Joe W Low, Belton Cunningham, Archie Langley, and
one or two others constituting an organizing committee The employees signed
authorization cards and obtained cards from others, and also held meetings with
Shirley periodically On August 7, 1964, the Union requested recognition as the
exclusive bargaining representative and made further requests, but all were denied
by the Company
Since September 1, 1964, Robert J Hall has been the president of the Company,
and the status of the other top level hierarchy of the Company was subject to certain
changes on January 1, 1965 B D Davis had been the head of manufacturing and,
as such, exercised supervisory authority over all production operations On Janu-
ary 1, 1965, Davis was transferred to the position of head of engineering , and Billy
Don Foster became the head of manufacturing Prior to this time Foster had been
the Respondent's personnel manager and purchasing agent Until early March 1965
Marcus Allen had been assistant plant superintendent, and then voluntarily quit his
employment with the Company At this time Delton Parker was given the job pre-
viously handled by Allen During the relevant periods of this proceeding before
me-Dennis Hyden was the foreman in the assembly department, Gordon Pender-
gast , Jr, was the foreman in the miter saw department, Buford Horton was the
foreman in the shipping department, John Hext was the foreman in the maintenance
department, Willie Moore Traylor was the foreman in the ripsaw department, and
Billy Joe Knight was the foreman in the El Dorado department Elmer McDonald
was also a foreman at all material times, and Monk Wallace was foreman of the
lumberyard department
In further laying the background and foundation for consideration of the specific
allegations in this proceeding involving the Union's latest attempt to organize the
Company, as aforestated, it should be noted in passing that in September 1963, the
then managing partner, J D Hall, in a letter to employees (General Counsel's
Exhibit 30), emphasized better and bigger jobs to employees, but at the same time
admonished employees that "one of the first things the Company looks for in a man
is complete loyalty " A few weeks later the above communication was followed by
another letter (General Counsel's Exhibit 31) in which, after warning the employees
of the consequences of affiliating themselves with an "outside Union," J D Hall
again exhorted his employees in the following words "Here is hoping each of you
will always be LOYAL to the company you work for in the fullest sense of the
word " Robert Hall testified before me that there have been no changes in the
Respondent's labor relations policies since he succeeded to the presidency on Sep-
tember 1, 1964, and in a communication to supervisors at a meeting on September 10,
1964, President Robert Hall informed them that they could listen to employees talk
about union activities but not to say anything or discuss such activities-then Hall
specifically instructed his supervisors, "If you hear anything at all about union
activities or NLRB activities, write down all the details you can possibly think of
1558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and turn it in to me . This is very important ." 3 President Robert Hall further testi-
fied that in a subsequent meeting with supervisors he informed them that the Company
would fight the Union "tooth and toenail as long as it was legal, fair, and right."
B. Alleged coercion and restraint-findings and conclusions
There are about 15 separate allegations contained in the complaints , including
3 allegations made by way of oral amendment at the hearings, of independent
8(a)(1) violations . These allegations specify interrogations , threats, warnings, and
promises of economic benefits. The Respondent admits, in its amended oral answer,
that on June 3 and 14, 1965, Foreman Horton interrogated employees as to their
union affiliations and activities , and the Company also admits that on or about
October 29, 1964, Foreman Horton informed or warned an employee that if the
Union did not come in the Respondent would reduce the wages of the employees.
W. B. (Red ) Roberts credibly testified that in March 1964, Superintendent B. D.
Davis asked him to report on the union activity in the plant , and that sometime later
-Davis again made the same request of him . Roberts also stated that every time
Davis came through the plant he would stop and want to know if Roberts had heard
.anything about the Union . Davis' testimony was that he had discussed Roberts'
-feelings toward unions with him during the time that Roberts was a night foreman
an 1963, but that he had not had any discussions with Roberts thereafter in which
he had requested Roberts to take any action with respect to the Union or to keep
him advised of any union activities . I have credited Roberts' testimony not only on
the basis of the witness' demeanor, but also because Roberts had admittedly made
it clear to Davis that he had opposed the Union in the two prior elections in 1963,
as aforestated , and therefore , it follows that Davis would again rely on Roberts for
continual information about the Union . Davis admitted that Roberts told him
employee Harvey was still "pushing" the Union, but testified that he then informed
Roberts that he did not want to hear anything more about it.
Employee Joe Clark credibly testified that in November 1964 Davis informed him
that he had talked to the Respondent 's President Robert Hall about Clark , mentioned
that Clark had a "high potential" with the Company , that Davis was not referring
to a "little old supervisory job," but that he was talking about a job paying $600 or
$700 a month . As the record clearly shows , Clark was one of the mainsprings in
the 1964 campaign and continued his active participation in support of the Union.
The record also shows that Davis and Foreman Buford Horton were well aware of
this at the time Davis explained what the Company had in mind for Clark. Davis'
version of this incident , in its total aspects, was actually an admission of this con-
versation as related by Clark.
James Williams credibly testified that around the last of July or the first of August
1964 Assistant Plant Superintendent Allen asked him "Did you find Belton Cunning-
ham, your union buddy. " When Williams then asked what had happened to Cun-
ningham-Allen replied that the Company had fired him. Williams stated that Allen
subsequently asked him about his "union buddy" on three or four other occasions.
Joe Clark and Cledis Weatherford credibly testified that in August 1964 Foreman
Gordon Pendergast told them , "You better make damn sure you get that union in-
the Company has got a master plan ." Cledis Weatherford also testified that Fore-
man Pendergast told him that he had been informed by Davis that the Company
would move to Canada if the Union came in. Foreman Pendergast openly admitted
in his testimony that he informed employees that the Company had a master plan,
and that the Company-according to information Pendergast had received from
Davis-had purchased a building in Canada and planned on moving there. The
fact that Pendergast was later discharged (January 26, 1965 ) does not destroy the
impact of these threats and warnings which Pendergast admittedly conveyed to
employees when he was foreman in the miter saw department.
During the hearing , the complaint was amended to allege that on or about May 31,
1965 , Foreman Monk Wallace told employees that Personnel Manager Foster had
inquired as to their union membership and/or allegiances and interrogated employees
as to their union membership and/or allegiances , and that on or about May 31, 1965,
Foreman Wallace interrogated employees as to their knowledge of union activities.
Employee Alton Kelley testified that Wallace asked him in late May 1965 whether
he was union and that Foreman Wallace told him that Billy Foster had asked Wallace
if Kelley was union . Wallace told Kelley that he had told Foster he would find out.
General Counsel 's Bxhlbit 34
THE VISADOR CO. 1559
Wallace testified that he never discussed the Union with Kelley, but then admitted
that he had discussed the "labor situation" with him. Wallace further admitted that
on May 31, 1965, he informed Kelley that if anyone came around with a card or
petition during working hours to ignore it.
The complaint alleged that Billy Primrose was an agent of the Respondent within
the meaning of the Act, and that Primrose engaged in acts of interrogation on July 29
and August 7 and 10, 1964, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Primrose was a main-
tenance man who worked generally under the supervision of Maintenance Foreman
John Hext. Superintendent Davis and Hext testified that in May or June 1964, they
decided to place Primrose in-the miter saw and assembly departments for the pur-
pose of trying to iron out certain mechanical problems on the miter saws, and stated
that they gave no instructions to Primrose relating to the Union. Davis testified that
he also discussed this matter with the foreman in the miter saw department, Pender-
gast , and advised him that Primrose was being placed in his department to help get
the saws in running shape. Primrose stayed in his new assignment until January or
February 1965, and according to Davis and Hext did a good job in correcting and
redesigning many of the saws. Davis stated that he was asked to remove Primrose
from this assignment by the head of the manufacturing department, Billy Foster,
because Primrose was "agitating on the Union," and he was then transferred back
to the machine shop. Employee John Mayo testified for the General Counsel that
Foreman Pendergast called a meeting of his department, and informed employees
that Davis had sent Primrose to his department "to pimp and what he is going to
do is check your wood and your work, and if he doesn't like it and goes to Mr. Davis
you are long gone." Foreman Pendergast credibly testified that he thought Primrose
was assigned to his department "for more than one reason," and that two of his
employees told him that Primrose was asking them questions about the Union.
Employee Bob Faucher credibly testified that Primrose told him that Davis knew
that he and Joe Clark were for the Union, that Primrose asked Faucher to see one
of the union cards, that Primrose had informed him that he had been sent down
to find out which employees were doing their jobs, and that Primrose stated if the
Union came in the plant would be shut down. Clarence Williams' testimony cor-
roborated that of Fancher in most respects, but Williams further credibly stated that
in December 1964 Primrose told him that Davis had sent him down to find out who
was for the Union and who was not. Employee Belton Cunningham credibly testi-
fied that during the last organizing campaign and while Primrose was working in the
miter saw department, that Primrose approached him and asked how the Union was
going. After that, Cunningham asked Primrose to sign a card but Primrose declined,
saying that he would have to learn more about it before signing one. Cunningham,
gave Primrose information about the organizing campaign in attempting to persuade
Primrose to sign a card. Thereafter, Primrose again questioned Cunningham about
the Union's progress, and Cunningham once more solicited Primrose's signature to
an authorization card. Primrose refused this time on the ground that he had too
good a job to try to get the Union in at the plant. On another occasion Cunningham
saw Primrose talking to Superintendent Davis, and Cunningham then asked Primrose
if he had told Davis how many cards had been signed. Primrose replied that he did
not need to tell Davis, that Davis knew as much as the employees about the cards
being signed.
The complaint alleged that Tom Grigsby was an agent of the Respondent within
the meaning of the Act, and that on August 3, 1964, Grisby threatened employees
with loss of their jobs if the Union was successful in its organizational drive. The
only witness who testified in any relation to Grigsby was Carl Forward, and he gave
some testimony of certain events that took place at the meeting of Negro employees
at a local ballpark during the organizing campaign. According to his testimony
Grigsby was having a discussion about the Union and mentioned the possibility of a
strike and that the Company would leave in event the Union was successful in its
campaign.
The credited and reliable testimony above shows that Primrose had been assigned
to the miter saw and assembly departments by Superintendent Davis to ascertain the
union sentiments of employees as at least part of his assignment. It is obvious that
the Company made use of Primrose to gain knowledge about its employees' union
sympathies and activities and to discourage union adherence. Under the circum-
stances established here the employees had cause to believe that Primrose was acting
for and on behalf of the Company, and the Respondent must now accept Primrose
as their agent and assume the liability for his conduct. It is well established by the
Board and courts that authority to act as agent in a given manner will be implied
whenever the conduct of the principal is such as to show that he actually intended
1560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to confer that authority. Carl Forward's testimony, however, in relation to the
meeting held by Grigsby offered no evidence to warrant any finding that Grigsby was
an agent of the Company. I hereby dismiss the allegation of the complaint in refer-
ence and in respect to Grigsby.
It is well settled by the Board and courts that in determining whether an employer's
conduct amounts to interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), the test is not the employer's intent or motive, but whether the con-
duct is reasonably calculated, or tends to, interfere with the free exercise of the
rights guaranteed by the Act. If the setting, the conditions, the methods, or other
probative context can be appraised, in reasonable probability, as having the effect of
restraining or coercing the employees in the exercise of such rights, then his activity
on the part of the employer is violative of this section of the Act. N.L R.B. v. Protein
Blenders, Inc., 215 F. 2d 749, 750 (C.A. 9). This is especially true in the insecure
organizational period, as here, where the employer can make some seemingly inno-
cent question or remark suggest his displeasure with employees who support the
Union. The foregoing instances that have been credibly attributed to the Respond-
ent and admittedly include unlawful interrogations to ascertain employees in the
Union, interrogations and inquiries into union affiliations, attitudes, activities, and
sympathies of employees, promising an employee a higher position in the Company,
warnings that the Company would reduce wages and that the employees would have
to be successful in their organizing campaign, and threatening the moving and plant
shutdown because of union activities. This conduct on the part of the Respondent
constitutes violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and I so find.4
C. The alleged discharges and layoffs-findings and conclusions
1. W. B. (Red) Roberts
Roberts was discharged on July 9, 1964. At the time of his termination, he was
working in the assembly department and his job was stocking special clamps. He
had been working in this position for approximately 1 month, and Dennis Hyden was
his immediate foreman. The record shows that on two prior occasions Roberts had
been the night-shift foreman and had continually opposed the Union in the 1963
elections but then changed his mind during the Union's 1964 organizational cam-
paign in question here.
The decision to discharge Roberts was made by Plant Superintendent Davis. Davis
testified that prior to this termination he held a meeting with Foremen Hyden and
Pendergast and informed them that Roberts was failing to order material properly,
misplacing orders on purpose, that Roberts had been agitating between the colored
and white employees-such as telling that the Company had financed a home for a
colored employee Grigsby but would not do so for white employees, and that Rob-
erts was 'going into the miter saw department and telling employees that Foreman
Pendergast did not know how to do his job. Davis then told Foreman Hyden to
make out the transfer slip on Roberts and to state as the reason for discharge "agi-
tating between the colored and white." Hyden then asked Davis about a replace-
ment for Roberts and suggested Joe Clark for the position. Davis further testified
that Foreman Hyden had complained to him that Roberts did not have the proper
material to nail , and that Foreman Pendergast had complained that Roberts was agi-
tating between the colored and white employees and had been telling employees that
Pendergast was a "greenhorn." According to Davis other employees and foremen
had also complained about Roberts' agitation between employees and stated that four
employees had quit because of it. Davis also testified that Assistant Plant Superin-
tendent Allen and Foreman Hext had lodged complaints against Roberts with him
and requested that he keep Roberts out of their departments, and Davis stated that
the day before Roberts' discharge, he heard Roberts holler out in the plant "if you
don't work with vigor, you will be replaced with a nigger." Davis testified that
he had previously reprimanded Roberts about his agitating between colored and
white on three occasions, and also stated that Roberts was an average worker when
he was not engaged in "horseplay." 5
4There is also an 8(a)(1) allegation in Case No. 23-CA-2019, that on or about
January 4, 1965, President Hall coercively interrogated employees in his office at the plant
concerning protected concerted activities engaged in by them and concerning such ac-
tivities engaged in by other employees. A detailed discussion of this allegation will be
set forth in a subsequent section herein.
5Davis testified that Roberts "chunked things" at employees, punched them rode their
backs, shot them with staples, and that Roberts would sometimes hide back of boxes and
you would then hear a "rooster crowing "
THE VISADOR CO. 1561
Foreman Dennis Hyden testified that Roberts did good work, that he did not engage
in "horseplay," that Roberts did not agitate between the colored and white employees
and that Roberts did order his material correctly.° Hyden stated that Davis told him
to write on Roberts' termination or transfer slip that Roberts was agitating between
colored and white employees, and that a week later Personnel Manager Billy Foster
told Hyden he had not turned in a good termination slip on Roberts-that the Com-
pany had to consider all in the past and the fact that Roberts had stirred up trouble.
Foreman Hyden testified that before he delivered the termination slip on Roberts he
had considered the possibility of contacting the Union's representative, A. C. Shirley.
Foreman Pendergast testified that Davis talked with him about Roberts on several
occasions and told him that Roberts was agitating between the colored and white
employees, and suggested that he write up something on him to put in his files as
did Personnel Manager Billy Foster.? Pendergast also stated that after the second
election (December 1963) he overheard Davis tell Roberts that the Company was
going to replace white employees with colored employees because they could handle
them better, and that later he had heard Roberts say "work with vigor or you'll be
replaced by a nigger."
Assistant Plant Superintendent Allen testified he also had taken occasion to repri-
mand Roberts about spreading rumors about the racial situation. According to the
testimony of Allen, about 2 or 3 weeks before his discharge Roberts told him that "I
hear they are going to replace us, all of the white men, with niggers." Allen stated
that he informed Roberts that this was nonsense, and that the personnel department
was hiring whoever they could get and that if the Negroes were applying and the
white men were not, they were going to hire the Negroes. Allen also explained to
Roberts that if he knew any good white men that wanted to go to work, he should
send them out to the plant and they could get a job quick. Spencer Bradshaw testi-
fied that about a month before the discharge of Roberts he had heard him talk about
Negroes, and that Roberts had said that the way things were going at the plant even-
tually all the employees would be Negroes.
Roberts testified that about 3 months prior to his discharge Davis had inquired of
him about his remarks around the plant that colored men would be hired, and Rob-
erts then denied to Davis the making of such statements. Roberts stated that a few
days later he contacted J. D. Hall about the above incident, and told Hall that he did
not appreciate Davis accusing him of something he had not done, and that Davis
later that day then apologized to Roberts and stated it was someone else who had
started the rumor. Roberts further testified that about a week or 10 days prior to
his July 9, 1964, discharge Davis told him that he needed someone on the "clamps"
who wanted to work, and that employee T. J. Foshee did not want to work. On the
same day Davis made this remark, Foshee quit his job and that a few days later
Roberts then had a discussion with Davis about this incident. Roberts stated that
in this discussion Davis also wanted to know what talk there was about the Union-
and that in reply to this inquiry Roberts informed Davis that while he had fought
the Union in the two prior elections in 1963, he had now changed his mind.8 Roberts
further testified that after his discharge Foreman Hyden told him that Davis had
instructed Hyden to get rid of Roberts, and to put on his termination slip that he was
agitating between colored and white employees. Roberts stated that he tried to work
with all the employees and that he had no trouble with the colored men and that they
were good friends. Roberts also testified that the saying "work with more vigor or
you'll be replaced with a nigger" was a common phrase around the plant during the
Kennedy administration, and that on occasions he may have repeated it. Roberts
admitted that he had engaged in some "horseplay" while employed by the Company,
but stated that other employees and even foremen had also engaged in such horseplay.
Belton Cunningham testified that he had never heard Roberts make any remarks
against colored employees nor had he displayed any prejudice against them. This
record shows that employee Archie Langley quit his employment in July 1964, as
he did not want to work next to colored employees. Langley testified that Roberts
had nothing to do with it, but that other employees made comments to him about
6 Hyden quit his employment with the Company in April 1965.
7 Subsequent to Roberts' discharge Pendergast did write a short memo on Roberts (Gen-
eral Counsel's Exhibit 29). This was then shown to Davis and Davis told Pendergast
that it looked good. Pendergast stated in the hearing before me that all his statements
in this memo were incorrect
8It is clear from the record that Roberts thought Davis had unjustly criticized Foshee,
and that while Foshee could not get out his work or units the assembly department was
getting cons ) lerable quantities of bad molding material.
1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working next to a colored man and this agitated him a little. Langley stated that
he heard the expression "work with more vigor" from a number of employees
in the plant.
It is clear from the evidence in this record that the reason given by the Company for
Roberts' discharge is purely pretextual, and that in actuality Roberts was terminated
for having announced to Davis that hence forward he would not continue his fight
against the Union. Briefly summarized Foreman Hyden produced evidence that
Roberts was a good employee, that he did not engage in horseplay or the agitation
between employees as claimed by the Respondent. Nor, according to Hyden, did he
seek Roberts' discharge. Hyden testified, and Davis agrees, that Davis supplied the
reason for Roberts' discharge. The testimony by Foreman Pendergast also shows
that Davis and Foster were continually in pursuit of Pendergast to draft some sort
of a document or memorandum to support Roberts' discharge, and after yielding to
such demands Pendergast did so, and then repudiated his memorandum at the hear-
ing before me, as aforestated. So in the analysis here we have two of the foremen
actually testifying that the Respondent's reason for the discharge was without any
basis. It appears to me also that the Respondent's reason for the discharge becomes
improbable by the fact that 3 months before the termination Davis had inquired of
Roberts about his remarks that colored people would be hired. However, when the
real facts were ascertained it was learned that some other employee had started the
rumor, and Superintendent Davis ended up apologizing to Roberts or at least ex-
plaining to Roberts his mistake. It is also obvious from this record that Davis and pos-
sibly others in management had made statements that colored employees would be
hired because the Company could control them better, and therefore, if there were
any serious subsequent agitations between white and colored employees it is quite
likely that they sprang from the Respondent's own pronouncements. What is even
more obvious, however, is that Roberts did nothing to seriously aggravate any agi-
tation between employees, and that his participation or engagement in repeating the
slogan or phrase going around the plant, as aforestated, was no more vocal than'
several other employees. The Respondent points out that there was no union activity
in existence at the Respondent's plant at the time Roberts was discharged-that the
present and latest campaign here under consideration did not start until July 27, 1964,
and Roberts was discharged on July 9, 1964. The short answer to this contention is
that in 1963 the Company had been involved in two elections, and were well aware
of pending and future efforts by the Union. The background evidence clearly shows
that the Respondent's official labor policy was to be continually on the alert for any
and all information about the Union, and that Roberts had been a constant and reli-
able source of information to them. Roberts then suddenly switched his attitude as
previously pointed out, and the Company thereafter fired Roberts because of it and
then repeatedly attempted to beef up a legitimate reason for it.
From my observation and demeanor of the witnesses, and for the other numerous
reasons given here, coupled with the antiunion statements and threats credibly attrib-
uted to the Company, as aforestated, it is accordingly found that W. B. Roberts was
discharged by the Respondent on July 9, 1964, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
2. Carl Forward
Forward was employed on the day shift in the miter saw department and was ter-
minated on November 4, 1964. Pendergast was Forward's immediate supervisor.
Superintendent Davis testified that several weeks prior to Forward's layoff, he had
complained to Pendergast that he should do something about Forward talking so^
much during working hours, and that Forward was "laying around" on other employ-
ees' saws. Pendergast stated that he had observed Forward talking more than he
should, and so he informed Davis that he would check into it and Pendergast then
mentioned this complaint to Forward. Pendergast testified that about 2 weeks prior
to Forward's layoff, another employee, Segrest, also complained to Pendergast about
Forward. Segrest's complaint was that Forward was not keeping his work up and
was not getting his material to him fast enough. After Segrest's complaints, Pender-
gast noticed that material had piled up at the station where Forward was working.
However, Pendergast explained that usually two men do this work (putting material'
on a table or belt) but only Forward was on duty or doing this work at the time
so Pendergast helped him out. Pendergast further testified that about a week before
Forward's termination Davis pointed a finger at Forward and then stated to Pender-
gast that Forward "was a smart-aleck little nigger and that I [Pendergast] should get
rid of him at the first opportunity." Pendergast further related that in the same week
he discharged Forward-Davis told him that if he did not get rid of Forward it would
"hurt" Pendergast and also informed him that Forward was for the Union. Pender-
THE VISADOR CO. 1563
gast then testified that the reason for Forward's discharge-that he talked too much-
and the reason he put down on the termination or transfer slip (General Counsel's
Exhibit 26) were not correct as he was "pushed into doing it."
According to Davis, a.few days prior to Forward's layoff, he instructed Pendergast
to reduce his department by two • employees. Davis denied that he made any rec-
ommendation as to who Pendergast should select for layoff. Pendergast testified that
Davis told him to reduce his force by two employees and stated that if he had any-
one giving him any trouble, then was the time to get rid of them. Pendergast further
related that on a number of occasions Davis had informed him of certain employees
he wanted laid off.9
Forward testified that Pendergast told him that Davis had been after Pendergast
to get rid of him. Forward admitted that there was a possibility he talked too much
while on the job, but had no recollection of any warning about it.
While this record shows that there may have been some dissatisfaction with For-
ward's work performance, and that Pendergast told Forward what would happen to
him if he did not improve, the overall aspects of this record make it abundantly
clear that antiunion motivation was the overriding and moving cause in the discharge.
Union Representative Shirley's testimony, as well as that of Forward, reflects that
Forward was one of the key figures in the 1964 organizing campaign as he was on
the organizing committee and secured authorization cards. It is apparent from the
testimony of Pendergast, that Forward's activities were known to Superintendent Davis
and that Davis finally forced Pendergast to get rid of this unwanted union proponent
in the November layoff. It is also clear that Superintendent Davis conducted a cam-
paign of harassment against Pendergast to get rid of Forward because of his union
adherence, and that Davis, after his repeated discussions and suggestions to Pendergast
was successful in his mission. The evidence in- this phase of the case shows that
Forward was considered by Foreman Pendergast to be one of his better employees.10
Further, the facts also show that when Forward was behind in his work the circum-
stances justified his lagging behind in that only one employee was doing the work
where two employees normally performed. In certain respects considerable empha-
sis is made by the Company on the affidavits given by Pendergast, and introduced into
this record. Pendergast testified that one of his statements in an affidavit, to the
effect that he would not rehire Forward, was untrue; and stated in his testimony that
he would rehire Forward. Pendergast testified that the Respondent's personnel direc-
tor, Foster, also talked to him about the discharge, and requested that Pendergast
"write up things" on Forward to put in his file. Foster admitted that he asked Pender-
gast to make up a statement on Forward and that he may have helped Pendergast
with the wording of these statements as Forward had indicated that he was going to
file unfair labor charges. While it is true that in some respects there might be dis-
crepancies between the affidavits and testimony of Pendergast on the above incidents
and others, it is nevertheless apparent that the Company was continually attempting
to beef up its records on Forward through Pendergast, and that his initial resistance
may have resulted in a few discrepancies in his prior statements. However, they in
no way destroy or affect the reliable and credited testimony Pendergast gave at the
hearing before me, and especially so when considering the explanations that Pender-
gast was a very young and new foreman in the miter saw department, and was obvi-
ously hesitant and confused during the initial cross fires in which he found himself.
It appears to me also that the Respondent's defense to this discharge becomes
somewhat inconsistent. The reason advanced in one stage of this proceeding is that
Forward talked too much-then it is suggested that he was laid off due to the normal
0 This record shows that the Respondent's operations do not remain at a level pace
year round due to the fact that the Company is a supplier to the construction industry all
over the United States. The Respondent's business is better in the late spring and early
summer and even into the early fall, because of the existence of favorable weather con-
Altions. Then , during the winter season, there is normally a drop in production require-
ments. Normally this decline begins around the middle of November, and incline begins
to appear in April. The normal procedure for laying off employees during the slack
winter season is that the higher level of supervision determines the total complement of
employees or machines needed to render the required amount of production , and the
department foremen are advised to reduce the number of employees or the number of
operating machines in their departments to that number , and again in normal circum-
stances the foreman makes his own choice as to which employees will be laid off. It
appears that a total of 10 employees who worked on the day shift were laid off during
October 1964, and the 7 employees were laid off in November 1964.
}0 Pendergast testified that he had just one employee equal to Forward.
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drop in production during the winter months, as aforestated. Even though both
supposedly intertwine each other, I am actually being asked to pick one, and if I
do not like it to pick the other one. I have rejected both. In reference to the layoffs
it is clear that the Company does have slack periods as heretofore indicated, but it
is also equally clear that under normal circumstances several considerations enter
into the foreman's decisions as to which employees will be laid off. In this layoff
situation during October and November 1964, several employees in the miter saw
department were laid off and several were also transferred to other departments as
Pendergast so testified, and had normal conditions prevailed there is no question
but that Forward would have been transferred as he was considered an acceptable
employee by his immediate foreman. The termination slip on Forward makes no
mention of a drop in production. It is also interesting to note that if this was merely
a routine layoff during the winter slack season and not a termination of employment,
as also contended by the Company, then one must look into a possible recall or an
application for employment by Forward when the Respondent's business operations
admittedly picked up in April and May 1965. Here we find no evidence whatsoever
that Forward was recalled or that he even attempted to apply for employment in
the spring of 1965 when at least 20 new employees were hired. As Pendergast
stated, Forward was discharged and was not laid off.
In concluding here the Respondent's suggestion for the discharge cannot be sup-
ported in view of their own foreman's testimony and other factors mentioned herein,
proving this allegation of the complaint, and it is unnecessary to further belabor this
issue. From my observation and demeanor of the witness, and for the other numer-
ous reasons given here, coupled with the antiunion statements, threats, and warn-
ings attributed to the Company, as aforestated, it is accordingly found that Carl
Forward was discharged on November 4, 1964, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
3. James Edward Williams
Williams was employed on the night shift in the beauti-mold department and was
also terminated on November 4, 1964. Delton Parker was Williams' immediate
supervisor. Prior to working on the night shift Williams had worked in the beauti-
mold department on the day shift and his immediate supervisor during that time had
been Marcus Allen. During the period of time that Williams had worked in the
beauti-mold department on the day shift, his primary duty was counting lineal foot-
age and placing it in plastic bags for shipment.
Marcus Allen testified that at the time Williams worked for him, his only criticism
was that Williams would not stay on the job and engaged in "horseplay." According
to Allen he talked with Williams and employee Armstrong in March 1964 about
these problems, that later Armstrong told Allen that Williams would not leave him
alone, and that Allen then transferred Armstrong to another department but Wil-
liams failed to improve. Allen stated that Williams then asked him to be trans-
ferred to the night shift, and that Williams' request was not conditioned on being
able to return to the day shift later. Allen testified that Foreman Parker was short-
handed on the night-shift crew in August 1964 and as a result Williams was then
transferred after Allen had informed Parker of the previous difficulties he had encoun-
tered with Williams.
Foreman Parker testified that Allen told him that there would have to be a layoff
of two employees on the night shift, and that he then selected Williams as one of the
employees to be laid off. According to Parker he selected Williams for layoff because
Williams required constant supervision to keep him working, but that he had no prob-
lem with the quality of Williams' work, it was simply a matter of getting Williams
to perform his work. Parker stated that in the latter part of August he discussed
Williams' problem with him and that he explained to Williams that when he finished
one job, he should move on to another job, but after a few days, Williams was back
to his old habits. Parker further stated that when he informed Williams of the
pending layoff Williams replied that he now wished he had voted for the Union, and
that Williams told him that Allen had promised him that he could go back to the
day shift. Allen testified that a few days following this layoff Williams asked him
why he was laid off as Parker had not told him, and Allen then informed Williams
that in his opinion he required too much supervision and that he engaged in talking
and horseplay.il
On Williams' termination slip made out by Parker (Respondent's Exhibit 7), the
reasons given were cut in production and that Williams would not work unless there was a
supervisor with him.
THE VISADOR CO. 1565
Williams testified that in October 1964 he had a conversation with Foreman
Parker regarding the layoff of another employee on the night shift, Prentis Lakey.
Williams stated that during this conversation he told Parker that he would hate to
be in his shoes and have to lay off Lakey because Lakey had such a large family,
and that he also told Parker that if the employees had the Union, he did not think
that Lakey would have been laid off, and to which remark Parker replied that a
union would not have helped Lakey. Parker denied that Williams made any such
remark.12 Williams further stated that at the time of his termination Parker told
him that Allen had instructed him to lay off Williams, and that he then inquired of
Allen about it and was informed by Allen that Parker had laid him off. Williams
attempted to return to the Company on two later occasions , but was told in April
1965 that no one was being hired.1-3
In my conclusions as to Williams it is first noted that he signed a union authori-
zation card during the Union's 1964 organizing campaign, and also secured the card
of one other employee and attempted to get three other employees to sign authori-
zation cards.14 Williams was identified by the Company in 1964 as an adherent for
the Union by Superintendent Allen inquiring about the whereabouts of Williams'
"union buddy" Belton Cunningham, as aforementioned, by telling Foreman Parker
that if the Union was in the plant they would not have laid Lakey off, and by asking
Parker if the Union was holding up a pay raise. The Company, theretofore, had
specific knowledge of his activity for the Union and it is therefore obvious to me
that Williams was another employee selected for permanent termination because of
his sentiments and voicing his regard and trust in the Union.
The Respondent's pretextual reason for selecting Williams for a permanent layoff
on insistence that he needed constant supervision cannot be supported by this record.
Supposedly Superintendent Allen had troubles keeping Williams on his job when he
worked on the day shift and spoke to him about it, yet when Foreman Parker needed
extra men on the night shift Allen granted Williams' request that he be transferred
to the night shift. At this time Parker was also supposedly told of Williams' short-
comings, yet he accepted him. It is noted that the personnel record of Williams
(General Counsel's Exhibit 33), shows that Williams was employed in September
1962, at the rate of $1.25 per hour and that he had progressed to the top rate of a
saw operator by September 16, 1964. Further Williams had not previously been
laid off in the seasonal economic layoffs, which recur each winter, and this fact belies
the Respondent's claim voiced through Respondent witnesses Allen and Parker that
Williams had always been a laggard employee given to avoiding work. Another
factor noted is the difficulty Williams encountered when he attempted to ascertain
why he was terminated. Williams was initially informed by Foreman Parker that
Allen had laid him off, and then when Williams confronted Allen he was told that
Parker had laid him off, and to top it all off, so to speak, Allen then ventured his
opinion as to why Parker had so acted. It is further noted that in April 1965, at a
time when admittedly the Respondent has an increase in production, Williams was
still denied employment. Certainly if the Company had temporarily laid Williams
off due to a cut in production-as stated on his termination slip-this situation was
no longer present in the spring of 1965.
In the final analysis here it appears clear to me that even if there had been some
dissatisfaction with Williams' work habits-the overall aspects in this record again
make it clear that antiunion motivation was the controlling and moving cause in the
termination of Williams. In accordance with the above, and upon my observation
and demeanor of the witnesses, it is accordingly found that James Edward Williams
was discharged on November 4, 1964, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
A Williams related also that he had another conversation with Parker 2 or 3 weeks
before his layoff and this conversation involved the possibility of the employees obtaining
a night premium. During this conversation, Williams asked if the night shift was going
to receive the premium, and Parker told him that he did not know yet because they were
checking on some legal question. According to Parker, Williams then asked if it was
possible that the Union was holding up the raise, and Parker replied that it was possible.
13 This record shows that during the busy season the Respondent operates a night shift.
This shift normally operates until October or November, when it is eliminated, but the
night shift is not normally eliminated abruptly Rather, employees are laid off or trans-
ferred back to the day or first shift gradually, as production orders decline
14 In the two prior elections in 1963 Williams merely signed his own authorization
card, and there is no evidence that he in any other way participated in these elections.
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Cledis Weatherford and Joe Low
The complaint in Case No. 23-CA-2019 alleges that on or about January 4, 1965,
Respondent discharged employees Cledis C. Weatherford and Joe W. Low, and
subsequently reinstated them on or about January 7, 1965; and that on or about
March 31, 1965, Respondent discharged employee Cledis C. Weatherford.
As to the incidents and circumstances bearing on the January 4, 1965, discharges,
this record shows that on Christmas Eve of 1964, the employees worked only' half
of the day, and then a vacation period began which lasted until Monday, January 4,
1965, at which time- the employees reported back to work. On the morning the
employees reported back to work after this vacation period, Weatherford and Low
were discharged and the facts surrounding these discharges involved incidents which
had occurred prior to the employees beginning their Christmas vacation. Early on
the morning of Christmas Eve, Low bumped his back on a saw table and caused a
cyst on his back to start draining. Previously, Low had complained of his cyst
bothering him because of swelling. Low then went to Weatherford and requested
that he ask their foreman, Pendergast, to take him to the doctor. Weatherford went
to Pendergast and explained the situation and asked Pendergast whether he wanted
to take Low to the doctor. Pendergast replied by telling Weatherford that he was
busy and for Weatherford to go ahead and take Low, and nothing was said as to
where they would go. Weatherford and Low then left the plant at approximately
8:30 a.m. without punching out their timecards. After they had gotten into the car
and started to leave, Low asked Weatherford if it would be all right to go to his
family doctor in Newton, Texas, and Weatherford then agreed to take Low to New-
ton. The record shows that these two employees then went to the doctor 's office in
Newton and Low went in and talked to the receptionist. The doctor was not there
and the receptionist telephoned him and then told Low that the doctor advised that
he should take some of his pills and come back later. From Newton they then went
to Burkeville, where Low lived, and picked up the pills, and then returned to Newton,
to leave a message for Low's sister-in-law. They returned to the plant in Jasper
between 10 and 10 : 30 a.m.
During the Christmas vacation, Davis had reported to Foster that he had noticed
that Weatherford and Low had left the plant without punching out, and suggested
that Foster might want to check into the matter. Davis also mentioned that he
might want to check on another employee, Alfred Collier, because he had left the
plant early that day too. Foster testified that he then checked this matter with other
employees and was told by one of them that Weatherford and Low had gone to a
doctor. Foster stated then that he telephoned Dr. Stockdale and the Richardson
Hospital, the two locations which had been designated previously as the appropriate
places for injured employees to be taken, but they did not have any records indicat-
ing that the two employees had been there and Foster then also checked the other
doctors and hospitals in Jasper. Foster then pulled the timecards of Weatherford
and Low, as well as Collier, and testified he also had a conversation with President
Hall about this matter. On January 4, 1965, Weatherford and Low discovered their
timecards were gone and so advised Pendergast. Pendergast was then called into
Foster's office, and Foster's testimony of the conversation which ensued was as fol-
lows: Foster asked Pendergast why these two employees had been absent, and
Pendergast replied that Low was having trouble with his back and that they had gone
to*a doctor. Foster then explained that he had checked with every doctor in Jasper
and that the employees had not been there. Pendergast stated that he did not know
what doctor they had visited and that he would check into it. Pendergast then left
and upon his return said that the employees had gone to a doctor in Newton. Foster
then telephoned the doctor in Newton and talked to the receptionist and was told
that these two employees had been there on the morning of Christmas Eve, but that
they had not seen the doctor. Foster said that he had supposed that the injury had
been a company accident, and yet no accident report had been made out as it should
have been. Foster next inquired of Pendergast as to why the employees had not
punched out their timecards if this was not a company injury, and also wanted to
know why the employees did not go to one of the designated doctors in Jasper if this
was a company accident and also why Weatherford had taken Low. Pendergast
then explained that he had merely advised them that they could go to the doctor.
Foster informed Pendergast that this was a matter that he should check into, that the
incident appeared to be too serious to overlook, and that he wanted something done
about it. Pendergast then asked what he should do and Foster stated that this was
Pendergast's job and that as a foreman he should know how to handle it. Pendergast
then asked Foster if he wanted him to fire the employees. Foster replied, "No, that
is your decision to make. I am not going to tell you to fire them." Foster further
THE VISADOR CO. 1567
explained to Pendergast that as a foreman he needed to know how to handle such
cases, but that he did feel that something needed to be done. Pendergast then
brought their timecards in.15
Foreman Pendergast testified that in this conversation with Foster about Weather-
ford and Low, Foster told him that these two employees had gone to Newton and
that Foster wanted him to get rid of these men. Pendergast stated that he then
informed Foster that Newton, Texas, was the town where Low's doctor practiced,
but that Foster kept insisting that Pendergast get rid of Weatherford and Low, and
that Pendergast -did not need them in his department. Pendergast testified that after
he asked Foster about what reason he should pass on their transfer or termination
slip, Foster replied that "they went to the wrong doctor," and that this reason was
the one Pendergast put on their slips when they were'discharged.
This record shows that as Weatherford and Low were leaving the plant, after their
discharges, they saw President Hall and later the same morning (January 4, 1965),
returned to the plant and met with Hall, Hall told them that he did riot know all the
facts surrounding their discharges and that he would be willing to hear what they
had to say about it. Weatherford and Low then explained the circumstances of their
absence on Christmas Eve day. In addition to pointing out chronology of events,
they explained that this was not a workmen's compensation case'and that no claims
would be filed. Hall explained that if this was the case, the employees should have
punched out their timecards before leaving. During the meeting, Hall further
explained that the foremen had been given instructions on various occasions that
there were only two places that injured employees should be taken, either Dr. Stock-
dale or the Richardson Hospital, and that by going to another doctor they had,vio-
lated company policy. In reply the employees explained that Pendergast had given
them permission and that the doctor in Newton was Low's family doctor. During
this meeting the subject of a petition distributed among the employees on the day
before Christmas Eve was also discussed briefly. According to Hall, Weatherford
brought up the subject and Hall explained that the Company could not let the
employees off from work on Christmas Eve morning, because the Company needed
the production. Weatherford testified that Hall asked him who had gotten the peti-
tion up and that he replied "we" did. Hall then inquired who "we" were, and
Weatherford replied, "We, the men." Hall then told them that he would investigate
the matter further.
On January 5, 1965, another meeting was held, and Hall, Foster, Weatherford, and
Low were present. During this meeting, Hall had the employees explain in detail
the places they had gone during the morning of Christmas Eve and the time expended
at each location. During the meeting it was emphasized that apparently the fore-
man, Pendergast, had been at fault in the matter: Weatherford then brought up the
petition again . He complained that Foster had advised the employees earlier that
if they had any complaints or requests they should put them in writing and that this
is what they had done when they got up the petition, but that it now appeared that
the Company was "trying to hang them" for doing so and that Davis had made the
statement that if he knew who had made up the petition they would be fired. Hall
concluded the meeting by telling the employees that he would check into the matter
further and be in touch with them later. Hall and Foster then held a meeting with
Pendergast and asked him to explain the whole story. Pendergast testified that Hall
asked him if he would take Weatherford and Low back, and that in reply he stated:
"If left to me [Pendergast] they never would have been discharged " Pendergast
also stated that on this occasion Hall told him that his job was to let him know what
was going on and "about the Union," and that Hall also stated that he would like to
know who was for the Union. During this meeting Hall told Pendergast that he
wanted him to prepare a written description of what he considered his job to be and
turn it in the following day. Pendergast further testified that foremen had been
informed in a prior meeting to get an employee in each department for assistance
in first aid, and that when a man was injured this employee would take the injured
person to the doctor, and that the man so designated in his department was
Weatherford.
To complete the testimony and evidence in this phase of the case it is necessary
to also discuss briefly some additional ramifications of the petition heretofore men-
tioned. This record shows on or about December 23, 1964, several employees dis-
cussed the possibility of circulating a petition for the purpose of requesting off from
work all day Christmas Eve, rather than merely half a day. At the request of Low
Is Allen was also present during Poster's conversation with Pendergast, and generally
agreed in his testimony with Poster' s version.
1 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Weatherford, Segrest prepared a petition. The petition read: "We, the under-
signed employees of Visador Company, request the 23rd [sic] off." The petition was
then circulated by Low and Weatherford through the miter saw department, and
practically all of the employees in that department signed it. Then Segrest took the
petition to the assembly department, but was prevented from circulating it on com-
pany time by Foreman Hyden. Weatherford and Low went to Hyden and "chewed
him out" for stopping the petition. Weatherford testified that he also told Hyden
that Personnel Manager Foster had informed employees in July 1964, that if they
had a complaint or gripe to write it down and give it to him. Foreman Hyden then
told them that they could bring the petition down to his department during the din-
ner break. Foreman Pendergast then volunteered to talk to Foster about circulat-
ing the petition. After conferring with Foster he reported back that Foster had said
that it was too late to do anything about it because- the checks were already pre-
pared, and that the Company needed the production real bad anyway. Low then
took the petition home and threw it away.
Weatherford had worked for the Company since 1961, and at the time of his dis-
charge in January 1965 was getting $1.90 an hour. Low had been with the Company
for about 2 years and operated a special miter saw. Pendergast testified that he would
classify both Weatherford and Low as good employees. The record shows from the
testimony of Union Representative Shirley and that of Weatherford that Weatherford
was aggressively behind the 1964 organizational drive. Weatherford testified that he
secured 20 signed authorization cards, including his own. It is also apparent, as
reflected by the record, that in the matter of the petition and in Weatherford's and
Low's audiences with President Hall, Weatherford took the initiative and was the
spokesman for the two.
The preparation and circulation of the petition constituted concerted protected
activity on the part of Weatherford and Low, and it seems clear that the real reason
for Weatherford's and Low's discharges on January 4, 1965, was for having engaged
in such activity, and their specific identification with the Union's organizing efforts.
The Company attempted in their testimony to disregard the petition as a rather minor
incident. However, the reliable evidence shows that Superintendent Davis thought
otherwise, and informed miter saw employee John Mayo, after Assistant Superin-
tendent Allen had unjustly accused him of circulating the petition, that if Davis knew
the "son-of-a-bitch" that started it he would not have a job. The evidence further
shows that Superintendent Davis had also previously "chewed out" Pendergast about
Mayo circulating the petition. It is therefore obvious that the top-level hierarchy of
the Company was greatly concerned about the employees responsible for the petition,
and Superintendent Davis openly acknowledged to Mayo the discharge intention and
retaliations for such activity. It is noted also that employees had been instructed by
Foster to put their complaints in writing, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
employees, in circulating the petition, were acting without at least some official
approval or guidance and as Weatherford specifically indicated in his conversations
with Hall.
In view of the above it appears to me that very little need be said in respect to
Weatherford and Low visiting the doctor. I think it sufficient to merely point out that
here we had an employee who was having considerable and continual difficulty with
his back; Foreman Pendergast then had Weatherford take Low to the doctor; they
went to Low's family doctor instead of the doctor or hospital designated by the Com-
pany; they returned to duty within a reasonable length of time; and Weatherford had
been officially designated in his department to help out his foreman under such situa-
tions. On the morning of January 4, 1965, Foster was then given a full explanation by
Foreman Pendergast which adequately explained in detail why the official company
policy had not been exactly followed, but, nevertheless, Foster repeatedly insisted
that Pendergast fire Weatherford and Low. I submit, and find, that these discharges
were caused by their participation in circulating the petition and their identification
with the Union and that there was no bona fide grounds that Weatherford and Low
had seriously or intentionally violated a company policy which justified their dis-
charge.i° It is also pointed out in passing that all of this happened on the day of
Christmas Eve, and I think it can even be safely assumed and said without serious
contradictions, that on the day before Christmas strict company procedures and
policies in all areas of this country have commonly been somewhat relaxed in the
spirit of this season. In the final analysis here it is further noted that the Company
subsequently admitted that it was wrong in its discharge of Weatherford and Low on
January 4, 1965, in their visitation to the doctor and then agreed to their reinstate-
ment on January 6, 1965.
16 It was readily admitted that a reprimand would have been in order.
THE VISADOR CO. 1569
In addition to the above, and in showing union animus and motivation, Foreman
Pendergast testified that in October or November 1964, Superintendent Davis had
called off some names of employees that were for the Union and who were "pushing"
the Union, and in so doing mentioned Low and Weatherford, and Davis then also told
Pendergast that Foreman Hext had informed him that the employees in his miter saw
department were talking about the Union. Pendergast stated also that in May 1964,
and on later occasions, Davis had told him that the Company had to take John Mayo
back, that the Company did not want him, and that Pendergast was to look for a
reason to get rid of him.
In accordance with all the above, it is perfectly clear that the Company was well
aware of Weatherford's and Low's efforts for the Union, that the Company then
announced to its foreman, Pendergast, to get rid of them because of their adherence to
the Union, that their subsequent participation in circulating the petition was the straw
that activated the Respondent 's previously announced intentions , and the doctor's
visitation incident on the day of Christmas Eve was merely a pretext in attempted
justification for the discharges which the Company then later admitted. Weatherford
and Low were discriminatorily discharged on January 4, 1965, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
a. The discharge of Pendergast
Pendergast was discharged on January 26, 1965. Foreman Delton Parker testified
that he had a conversation with Pendergast about the Union on the day of his dis-
charge. Parker stated that during this conversation Pendergast commented that the
Union had 85 percent of the employees signed up and that the Company would go
union without a vote this time and that the Federal Government was on the Union's
side pushing it. Parker then replied that it sounded as if Pendergast was on the
Union's side. Parker then told Pendergast that he had to be on one side or the other,
and Pendergast said that he was probably right, and that he supposed that he was on
the Union's side and that he was on it all the way and did not care who knew it.
Parker testified that he then asked Pendergast why he would be for the Union, and
Pendergast replied that he felt that it would help the employees get a raise. Parker
answered that he should remember that about a week before it was shown in a meeting
why the employees could not get a raise. Parker went on to testify that: Pendergast
then told him that if the Company should go union there would be 1,500 carpenters
that would come down and form a picket line and keep the men from working, if
employees tried to work "they would have knots on their head," he was made to fire
the best two employees he had because they went to the wrong doctor, these two
employees had been drinking that morning, but that there were others drinking also,
and Pendergast told him that the new superintendent was "power crazy." After the
conclusion of the conversations, Parker reported its contents to Assistant Plant Super-
intendent Allen, who told him to write it down. Parker did so and turned it in to
Allen, and Allen in turn gave the written report to Foster and Foster then delivered
the report to Hall. Hall and Foster then called Pendergast into Foster's office. Foster
informed Pendergast that he did not stay in his department enough, that he showed
favoritism to some employees, that Pendergast had received an unfavorable report on
an opinion survey, that there was a lot of bad material in the miter saw department,
and Foster also mentioned accident reports that Pendergast had turned in. These
were the reasons given by the Company for the discharge of Pendergast.
Briefly summarized, Pendergast had been involved in the cross fires during several
attempts by the Company to rid itself of union adherents as detailed previously herein.
Superintendent Davis resented the reinstatement of John Mayo from a previous case
and requested that Pendergast get rid of him. Davis and Foster asked support from
Pendergast in beefing up their discriminatory discharge of Roberts and Forward, and
Pendergast was also told by Davis that Weatherford and Low were pushing the Union
and he was then forced to discharge them, and Pendergast was reprimanded by Davis
in the Respondent's mistaken belief that Mayo had circulated the petition in the miter
saw department, as aforestated. Pendergast was then discharged on the same day he
openly made known to Parker his union views. The General Counsel states in his
brief as follows: "This alleged violation presents the sad spectacle of an immature
youngster placed in a supervisory position and coming into conflict with the `loyalty'
demanded by an employer determined to prevent the self-organization of its employ-
ees and his friendship with and regard for the rights of those employees which he must
deny if he is to retain his own job. As it obviously turned out, this was impossible
for Pendergast to achieve." I am in full accord.
It,is well settled that the discharge of a supervisor for refusing to engage in the
unfair labor practice violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as the net effect thereof
1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is to cause employees reasonably to fear that the employer would take similar
action against them. Thus, the discharge of Foreman Pendergast for refusing to
participate in the discriminatory discharge of the employees involved herein con-
stituted an invasion of the self-organizational rights of rank-and-file employees be-
cause it demonstrated graphically to such employees the extreme measures to which
the Company would resort in order to thwart them in their desires to oppose or
assist labor organizations. Applying the above principle, and in view of the events
and circumstances set forth herein, and upon my observation and demeanor of
the witnesses, I find that by discharging Pendergast the Respondent abridged Sec-
tion 7 rights of employees, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.17
b. The discharge of Weatherford on March 31, 1965
The Respondent bases its final discharge of Weatherford on his alleged insubordi-
nation to Foreman Parker.18
On the afternoon of his discharge, Weatherford had been in the assembly depart-
ment checking with Hyden on some order tickets. As Weatherford was leaving, Bob
Faucher approached him and told him that Clarence Williams wanted to talk to him
for a minute. Weatherford then had a conversation with Williams about some house-
trailers that Weatherford owned. As Weatherford started to walk away, Parker
appeared on the scene and, asked Weatherford what he was doing. Weatherford
replied that he was talking to Williams.19 Parker then emphatically instructed
Weatherford to get back to his work station. Both Parker and Weatherford then
started back to the miter saw department, where Weatherford worked, and in so doing
engaged in a conversation. According to Parker's testimony, he informed Weather-
ford that he wanted him to stay in his department and that he was going to stop all
employees milling around, and that Weatherford could only go to the assembly depart-
ment to check on special orders. Parker testified that Weatherford then remarked
that "If you are trying to make it hard on me-I will show you how hard I can make
it on you," and also stated that Weatherford then told him, "I will tell you right now,
I am not scared of you or any of these other son-of-a-bitches out here, and if you
don't believe me, step outside." Parker then went into the office and pulled Weather-
ford's timecard, and Parker testified that he told Weatherford that the reason he was
being fired was because he called him a son-of-a-bitch. Parker denied that at any
time during the conversation he cursed Weatherford or made mention of the Union.
As to the above conversation Weatherford testified that he asked Parker why he
was riding him all the time, and that Parker replied, "All right, I will tell you what,
I will just stop riding you, damn you, I will fire you." Weatherford stated that he then
also asked Parker to return a miter saw book that belonged to him and that Parker
replied "the goddamn book belongs to the Company, and you can't have it." Weather-
ford further testified that he also asked Parker, "Did those people tell you to fire me,
to do this to me, or are you doing.it,on your own, because of, the union?"-that
Parker answered, "I am not scared of you or the goddamn union," and after which
Weatherford replied, "Well, you son of a bitch, let's just step outside and see."
Weatherford testified that Parker then started hollering "You are fired. Punch your
card. You are fired." Weatherford also related that shortly after Parker became
superintendent, he complained to Parker that his scheduling of overtime was causing
him [Weatherford] difficulty with the, other employees that-rode with him to work,
because their overtime hours were different. Weatherford wanted Packer to arrange
it so that his riders who worked in other departments could work in the miter saw
department during overtime periods. Parker's recollection was that he merely replied
that he could not do this. According to Weatherford's testimony, Parker remarked
that he was not "running the damn shed" for Weatherford's riders. Also shortly after
Parker became superintendent, Weatherford complained to him about the mainte-
17 As set forth herein, a good deal of this case hinged on the testimony of Pendergast.
He is the key witness The Company might argue and contend that since Pendergast was
himself discharged, his natural tendencies would be against the Respondent. In accord-
ance therewith, I especially observed Pendergast at the hearing and noted his demeanor
on all occasions while testifying. His testimony at the hearing before me was straight-
forward with complete sincerity and truthfulness, and in the few situations where he had
made some prior inconsistent statements, his reasons and explanations were convincing.
1B Because Parker's job at this time involved the supervision of other departments, he
spent most of his time making the rounds of all of the various departments checking to
see that all of the employees were working and that orders were being carried out.
10 Weatherford admitted he had no business talking to Williams about trailers.
THE VISADOR CO. 1571
nance men having placed a new type of saw too close to his work area. When
Weatherford showed Parker the situation, Parker's recollection was that he replied in;
a joking manner that he would just build Weatherford a ladder over to his work table.
According to Weatherford, Parker's reply was that he would "build [Weatherford] a
goat walk." 20
It is clear from the evidence presented in this phase of the case that for over 3 years.
Weatherford had been considered by the Respondent to be a satisfactory and good
employee as pointed out in an earlier section of this Decision. In fact, there seems
to be no evidence that the Company had any difficulty with Weatherford's work or
work habits before March '31, 1965. Furthermore, the facts in this record clearly-
show that because of the type of work involved, the interrelation and communications
between the assembly and miter saw departments are quite common, and that employ-
ees frequently go back and forth in the discharge of their various duties. In spite of
the foregoing the evidence establishes that after the Respondent discovered that
Weatherford was a union supporter, as aforestated, Parker became less and less
receptive and certain differences between the two then started and continued to grow.
It appears clear to me that the campaign of harassment against Weatherford culmi-
nated on March 31, 1965, approximately 3 months after Weatherford had been
initially discharged on January 4, 1965. On the day in question here Weatherford,
left the miter saw department to check on orders in the assembly department, in the
course of normal and regular procedure. While he was on this mission he was con-
fronted by Parker and Weatherford, was then told to "get his ass back to his depart-
ment." The exchange of words and sentiments between Parker and Weatherford'
then, became more and more heated as they walked back to the miter saw department,
and almost reached the fisticuff stage when Weatherford called Parker a "son-of-a-
bitch." Parker then fired Weatherford.
While a surface view of the events, of March 31, 1965, indicates conduct which may.
be characterized as insubordination, a closer look at the facts clearly shows that
Weatherford's actions and conduct were precipitated by the Respondent's harassing-
tactics, and provided a convenient pretext for discharging a union supporter and one
who had successfully stifled the Respondent's prior attempts to get rid of him. Based
on the above, and my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I reject the
Respondent's reliance on a naked right to discharge for alleged insubordination, and;
find that the Company violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by so discrimina-
torily discharging Weatherford.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its business operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 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 the-Respondent has engaged in•certain unfair labor practices, I;
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discharged W. B. Roberts, Carl Forward, James,
Edward Wiliams, Joe W. Low, and Cledis C. Weatherford, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, and Gordon Pendergast, Jr., in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer each of these individuals imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discharge, as found
above, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages they-
would have earned between the dates of their dismissal and the date of a proper offer
of reinstatement,21 and that the said loss of pay be computed in accordance with the-
formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90.
NLRB 289, to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as
prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
20 In making my conclusion as to this final discharge of Weatherford, I have also fully
considered and evaluated the testimony of Low, Hilliard, and Faucher as their testimony
related to the events and conversation between Weatherford and Parker, as hereinabova
set forth.
a As noted herein, Low was reinstated on January 6, 1965, and has continued to- work
for the Company since that time.
2 21-3 74-6 6-vol. 15 7-10 0
1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I shall also recommend that the Respondent preserve and make available to the
Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and copying all payroll records,
social security payment records , timecards , personnel records and reports, and all
other records and reports necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the
right to reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations . In order to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist from , in any manner, infringing upon the rights
guaranteed in that section . N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426;
N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is 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 the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Roberts, Forward , Williams, Low, and Weather-
ford, as found above , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By discharging Gordon Pendergast , Jr., as found above, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Wholesalers Cooperative Trucking Association , Inc. and Local
135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Wholesalers Cooperative Trucking Association , Inc. and Local
135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Cases Nos.
05-CA-2016 and 25-RC-2639. April 8, 1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
On November 4, 1965, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that those
allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief ; the Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions and the General Counsel filed exceptions
and a brief. Respondent also has filed an answering brief.
157 NLRB No. 120.