Trojan Battery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY
Trojan Battery Company and Teamsters Automotive
Workers Local 495, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America. Case 21-CA-11469
November 19, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On July 20, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Herman Corenman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed
exceptions 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the Administrative Law
Judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modi-
fied herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
findings that the Respondent's coercive interrogation
of employees concerning their union preference and
threats to discharge them because of their union
membership, activity, or preference were violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We further agree that its
discharge of employee Jaime Vidales was not
violative of the Act.
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, howev-
er, we find that the Respondent's letter to its
employees described in paragraph 11(a) of the
complaint is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
Admonitions, as opposed to views, arguments, or
opinions, to employees not to sign union authoriza-
tion cards, are violative of the Act.2
We further find that the wage increase promised
before the election and subsequently granted by
Plant Manager Harold Tobison to employee Jorge
Arceo, as described by the Administrative Law Judge
in his Decision, was for the purpose of discouraging
Arceo's support for the Union and therefore violative
of Section 8(a)(1).3
i Pertinent portions of the letter, not fully reported by the Administrative
Law Judge, are as follows,
Don't sign anything regardless of the reasons advanced by the union
organizers Remember they want Money-Your Money.
So be careful! Drink their free drinks, eat their steak dinners and let
them talk, but don't sign cards, and be prepared to vote "NO" or you
will be paying for the free drinks and dinners
Chairman Miller does not join in this finding. In his view, the letter could
not reasonably be construed to be an employer order, but rather was no
more than advice to employees that signing a card might lead to an
obligation to pay dues. This was an expression of views, as Chairman Miller
425
Additionally, we find that Foreman Aranda's
remarks to several employees, that he was going to
discharge four or five workers because they were
talking a lot about the Union, and that he knew
which employees were in favor of the Union,
constituted conduct giving the impression of surveil-
lance, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Accordingly, we
shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's Order
and the notice attached to his Decision to reflect
these additional finding.4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Trojan
Battery Company, Santa Fe Springs, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully threatening to discharge employees
because of their union membership, preference, or
activity.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning
their union membership, sympathy, or preference.
(c) Unlawfully directing employees not to sign
union authorization cards.
(d) Promising or granting increased wages to
employees for the purpose of discouraging their
support for the Union.
(e) Unlawfully creating the impression that the
Respondent is engaged in surveillance of the union
activities of its employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it
is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its premises, copies' of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to
employees and supervisors are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
sees it, within the sanction of Sec 8(c) of the Act
2 See, e.g, Robert Meyer Hotel Company, Inc, d/b/a Robert Meyer Hotel,
154 NLRB 521,523
3 See, e.g., Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, 128 NLRB 184 at 184
and 189
4 Rockingham Sleepwear, Inc, 188 NLRB 698; Colnu, Inc., and Fashtonit
Trim, Inc, 144 NLRB 1395, 1405
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of, Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
207 NLRB No. 70
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union membership,
preference, or activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge because of their union membership,
preference, or activity.
WE WILL NOT direct our employees not to sign
union authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant increased wages
to employees for the purpose of discouraging
their support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of engaging
in surveillance of the union activities of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist the Teamsters Automotive
Workers, Local 495, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help-
ers of America, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively 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 or all such activities.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN , Administrative Law Judge: The
General Counsel issued a complaint in this proceeding on
February 6, 1973, after a charge filed January 2, 1973, by
Teamsters Automotive Workers Local 495, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , herein called the Union. The
complaint alleges that Trojan Battery Company, herein
called the Respondent , violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by alleged acts of interference , coercion, and
restraint and the discharge of one employee . The case was
tried before me at Los Angeles, California, on April 26 and
27, 1973. All parties were afforded the opportunity to
produce evidence and to examine and cross -examine
witnesses and to argue orally on the record . Posthearing
briefs which have been filed by the General Counsel and
the Respondent have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case ,- including my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The pleadings establish and I find the Respondent is a
California corporation engaged in the manufacture and
sale of batteries at its plant located at Santa Fe Springs,
California. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations described above , annually purchas-
es and receives goods, materials , and supplies valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside
the State of California . I find that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
TROJAN BATTERY
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, Room
600, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California
90014, Telephone 213-688-5254.
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Organizational activities to unionize the Respondent's
employees began in September 1972:1 Respondent's
employee Jaime Vidales contacted Union Organizer
Thomas O'Leary who gave him a quantity of union
authorization cards to procure employee signatures and a
quantity of booklets outlining the merits of the Union.
1 I am taking administrative notice that the Union filed a petition for
representation in Case 21-RC-12907 with the Board's Region 21 on
October 2, 1972, that a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election
was entered into by the parties on November 1, 1972, and that an election
held on December 12, 1972, in which challenged ballots affecting the
election results had not yet been resolved at the time of the hearing in this
case, but were later resolved and the Union certified on May 9, 1973.
TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY 427
Vidales passed out the authorization cards to approximate-
ly 40 employees for signature.
B. Interference, Coercion, and Restraint
Testimony, which I credit, was given by several rank-
and-file employees in support of the General Counsel's
complaint, alleging that in the months October through
December 1972 Foreman Carlos Aranda2 at the Respon-
dent's plant threatened employees with loss of employment
and other reprisals if they did not abandon their support of
and activities on behalf of the Union.
Thus, employee Vidales testified credibly that in October
or November 1972, in the presence of himself and
employee Jose Almarez, he heard Foreman Aranda tell
Almarez that he was going to fire anyone who joined the
Union or wanted to join it. Employee Mario de Leon
Gonzales credibly testified that Foreman Aranda in
October 1972, in his office and in the presence of Luis
Rojas and Gonzales, told him that if he signed in favor of
the Union and if the Union did not come in it was better if
he looked for work elsewhere. On an occasion 2 or 3 weeks
later at his machine, Gonzales credibly testified that in the
presence of himself and employee Jose Almarez, he heard
Foreman Aranda tell another employee that "four or five
workers of the factory, he was going to have to discharge
them from work because they were talking a lot about the
Union." Gonzales testified credibly that on this occasion
Aranda named the employees he was thinking of discharg-
ing as Jose Almarez, Mario de Leon Gonzales, Jaime
Vidales, and Gabriel Portillo. Jorge Arceo credibly testified
that about 1 month before the election at Aranda 's office
Aranda told him and employee Jose Sosa , among other
things, that he was "going to fire the guys who are for the
Union." Arceo further testified credibly that on another
occasion 1 or 2 weeks later, while he was at work on the
assembly line and in the presence of employees Jose
Almarez, Gabriel Portillo, and Francisco Mendez, Fore-
man Aranda told the group that "the guys who are for the
Union, he knows them, who they are, and he is going to
fire them, the Union is no good." Arceo also credibly and
without contradiction testified that former Plant Manager
Harold Tobison '(present Plant Manager Art Sanchez'
predecessor) before the election asked Arceo "if I worked
for the Union and I told him, "No." Arceo replied, "That's
good Jorge." Taking advantage, of the situation, Arceo
credibly testified that he asked Tobison for a 5-cent raise
and he received it on his next paycheck.
Sergio Ramirez credibly testified that about 1 month
before the election Aranda conversed with him while he
was on the assembly line in the presence of Luis Rojas and
Gonzales. Ramirez testified credibly that he told Aranda of
the benefits of the Union, good insurance, one could take
his children to the hospital without paying. Aranda replied
that Ramirez "was crazy because the Union was the
2 I find that Carlos Aranda was a supervisor within the meaning of Sec.
2(11) of the Act. He responsibly supervised the plant employees, assigned
them their 'tasks, effectively recommended the hire and discharge of
employees, gave them permission to leave work early, excused absences,
assigned overtime, checked timecards, and together with the plant manager
planned the work to be performed. The fact that Aranda cast an
unchallenged ballot at the December 12 election does not operate to affect
Mafia," Ramirez also credibly testified that on a day
following the election Aranda approached him on the
assembly line and asked him how he voted . Ramirez
replied that he had voted "No." Aranda told Ramirez he
did not believe him because he had been a past member of
the Union.
Jose Almarez , currently in Respondent's employ for 10
years, credibly testified that in October 1972, Aranda
approached him while he was working in the production
line and told him that he was sure that Almarez had signed
in favor of the Union and if the Union won he was going to
discharge him. Almarez further testified credibly that
Aranda asked him how many years he had worked there.
When Almarez told him 10 years, Aranda told Almarez "it
would feel bad if one was • discharged after 10 . years."
Almarez further testified credibly that later in October
1972, Aranda repeated to him again while he was working
on the production line that if the Union won, he was going
to discharge him.
The General Counsel's complaint alleges at paragraph
11(a) that on or about November 21, 1972, the Respondent
issued a letter to all of its employees directing them not to
sign union authorization cards, and alleges further at
paragraph I1(b) that on or about November 25 and
December 5 , 1972, Respondent issued letters to its
employees directing them to obtain written guarantees of
promises from union officials. In support of the foregoing
allegations, the General Counsel offered into evidence a
letter dated November 21, 1972, from the Respondent to
its employees containing preelection propaganda caution-
ing the employees not to succumb to union promises, with
the final admonition, "To protect yourself, get all the facts,
and get all the union promises guaranteed in writing and
signed by a union official-So be careful! Drink their free
drinks, eat their steak dinners and let them talk, but don't
sign cards, and be prepared to vote NO or you will be
paying for the free drinks and dinners." The General
Counsel also introduced into evidence a December 5, 1972,
letter from the Respondent to its employees containing
preelection propaganda. This December 5 letter suggested
that the employees protect themselves from irresponsible
promises by union officials by having the union officials
sign their promises in writing . The letter suggested some
promises which employees would have the union officials
sign and guarantee in writing. Upon examination of these
two election propaganda letters, I find that they are
privileged by Section 8(c) of the Act as they do not contain
threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit . See Desert
Laundry -A Corporation, 192 NLRB 1032.
However, I find that the threats to discharge employees
because of their union preference or activity uttered by
Foreman Carlos Aranda to employees Almarez, Gonzales,
Arceo, and Vidales, or in their presence, violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act .3
I also find that Plant Manager Tobison's interrogation of
my finding. Presto Manufacturing Company, 168 NLRB 1073, 1075 (1968),
Duo-Bed Corporation, 172 NLRB 1581 , In. 1(1968).
3 In view of the detailed testimony of witnesses Almarez, Gonzales,
Arceo, and Vidales concerning the threats of discharge made by Aranda. I
credit their testimony over Aranda's flat general denials that he made such
threats.
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee Arceo if he worked for the Union, and Aranda's
inquiry of employee Ramirez how he voted in the election
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The Discharge of Jaime Vidales
Vidales had been in the employ of the Respondent since
December 5, 1970. He worked in the assembly department
under the supervision of Foreman Carlos Aranda. Vidales,
with two other workers, would compose a team of three
men in the assembly of a battery. One member of the team
is called the "assembler," or "stacker"; the other, the
"burner"; and the third, the "balancer." The members of
the team regularly interchange their functions after 4 hours
during the course of a day's work. The assembler or stacker
engages in the first operation in the assembly of the
battery, and to that extent controls the number of batteries
completed in a given time as the burner and the balancer
cannot perform their function until the stacker performs
his functions. Vidales began his activities in union
organization in September 1972. He contacted Union
Organizer Tom O'Leary at his office where O'Leary gave
Vidales a quantity of union authorization cards and some
union literature to pass out to the employees and to solicit
their signature to the cards. Vidales would meet with
O'Leary about once every 2 weeks to discuss the progress
of the union organization work, and he would make weekly
telephone contacts with O'Leary. Vidales also attended a
union meeting at Santa Fe Springs, California, which was
attended by approximately 45 of Respondent's employees,
and which was presided by Union Organizers O'Leary and
Joe Henderson. Vidales talked in favor of the Union daily
at the Respondent's plant, and passed out union authoriza-
tion cards to approximately 40 employees. It is clear from
the evidence that the Respondent was aware of Vidales'
union preference and activity. Additionally, Vidales was
the union observer at the December 12, 1972, Board
election.
On December 23, 1972, Vidales asked to go home about
midmorning. Foreman Aranda testified credibly that on
this morning he noticed that Vidales was acting abnormal,
that he appeared to be in a daze, staggered a bit, looked
flushed and-his eyes were glassy. Aranda testified credibly
that Vidales couldn't keep up with Gonzales who was
"stacking" that morning. After the morning break period,
Plant Manager Sanchez brought Vidales to Aranda and
asked if he would excuse Vidales who wanted to leave
early. Because the next workday would be a holiday,
Aranda suggested that Vidales should stay till noon so he
could qualify for the holiday pay .4 Vidales agreed to stay
till noon when he was excused to leave.
On December 26, 1972, the day after Christmas, Vidales
reported for work. He worked as a "stacker" that morning.
4 To qualify for holiday pay under the then current policy of the
Respondent, an employee was required to work at least 4 hours on the day
preceding the holiday and 4 hours on the day after the holiday
5 Vidales testified that a line of 12-volt batteries is about 34 batteries.
6 Gonzales testified that Aranda did tell the people to work faster before
the election, about two or three times a week, in fact, Gonzales testified that
Aranda has told the people to work faster ever since he started working, but
that Aranda did not tell him to work faster after the election. On the other
hand, Arceo testified that Aranda did not ask him to work faster before the
election, but he did ask him to work faster after the election, almost daily.
Vidales testified that while so engaged in "stacking,"
Aranda "came and told me he wants more job I was
doing." "I told him I am going to do what I can do." He
said, "No you are going to do what I want you to do" and I
said, "I am going to do what I can do." He said, "Well if
you are not going to do what I want you to do, you are
fired." And he said , "Stop; don't work."
Vidales testified that Aranda then went to the office and
returned in 10 minutes and told Vidales to "go pick your
checks up." Vidales testified that at the time he was
approached by Aranda he had worked on a line and a
half.5 Gonzales was "burning" and Arceo was "balancing."
After being told by Aranda to pick up his checks, Vidales
went to the office of Plant Manager Sanchez. Vidales
testified that Sanchez asked him what happened. Vidales
testified further, "So I told him what happened," and he
said, "You come over here and tell me something and
Aranda told me another thing, so I think he doesn't want
you over there, and I can't do anything about it." Vidales
testified further that he had never been reprimanded or
received a warning notice . Vidales testified further that
before the election Aranda "used to come in and tell us
[the group] you know, to work faster" about two times a
week, but after the election he would tell only Vidales to
work faster.6
Aranda testified that Vidales is off work frequently and
has come to work with a hangover on several occasions.
Aranda recalled one occasion in July or August 1972 where
after lunch Vidales was unable to work and absented
himself from his work station. Aranda found Vidales in the
restroom unfit to work. Aranda told Vidales to remain in
the restroom and lie down and he himself performed
Vidales' work task the remainder of the day but credited
him with working a full day.
With reference to the events of December 26, 1972,
which led to Vidales' discharge, Aranda testified that on
"that morning, he was replacing another employee" who
was off sick. Aranda testified that between the morning
hours of 8 and 10 he noticed that Vidales had gone to the
restroom twice. On that day Vidales was "stacking," "so he
was supposed to give work to the other two men who were
just standing idly by, namely, Gonzales who was `burning'
and Arceo who presumably was `balancing.' " Gonzales
and Arceo, Aranda testified, were waiting for some work to
be put on the table. After the midmorning 10-minute break
period, Aranda approached Vidales. Aranda testified as
follows:
I told him that this particular kind of battery was
behind, he was lagging, and I expected him about 12
noon to have the production that we had scheduled for
him. So then, he told me he was going to make what he
thought he was going to give me and for me to be
Arceo testified that Aranda would say, "We have to make a certain number
of battens"-if they could not do this, Aranda said, "Punch your card and
go home."
Employee Ramirez testified that before the question of the Union came
up he was never urged to work faster It was after the election that he was
urged to work faster, and this occurred about twice a week for many weeks
because he was told , "He walked around a great deal ." Ramirez testified
that the people who told him to work faster were Carlos Aranda, Luis Rojas
(the assistant foreman), and the last time, Art Sanchez, the plant manager.
TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY 429
satisfied with that . And so he started yelling at me and
waiving at me with his arms, like insulting me there in
front of everybody. He told me he was going to give me
36-what was it-three and one-half lines, which
amounts to about some 40-odd batteries and he said,
"Well, now because you asked me, I am going to make
less. I am just going to make 36 and be satisfied. So I
told him "That's not the way to talk back ." I says, "I
talk to you decently and I expect you to talk back the
proper way. "So then he says, You are nothing here-
you don't have to tell me nothing . So then he turned
around and started putting his rubber gloves on to go
back to work, and I told him, "Don't work at all-I'll
show you who I am here." Aranda testified further,
"Everybody was staring at me and I was being
ridiculous in front of everybody-I was being harassed
and degraded in front of everybody there."
Aranda testified he then punched Vidales' timecard at
the timeclock, gave it to Plant Manager Sanchez, and
recommended Vidales for dismissal . Aranda told Sanchez
that Vidales was not performing his duties properly and
"He was hollering at me and he was insubordinate, he
didn't want to do what I told him." Aranda then walked
back to the assembly department and told Vidales he
should talk to Sanchez.
Corroborating Aranda's version of his reasons for
discharging Vidales, Sanchez testified credibly that about
10 a.m. on that day Aranda came to his office with Vidales'
timecard and recommended that Vidales be fired. When
Sanchez inquired what had happened, Aranda told him
that Vidales was on slowdown production and, when he
tried to hold a conversation with Vidales to explain to him
the reason for increasing production , that Vidales told him
he was going as fast as he could and that he wasn 't going to
any more, and now that he asked he was going to do less
and that he would have to be satisfied with this. And
Vidales said to Aranda, "Who the hell do you think you
are?" Sanchez credibly testified he then told Aranda to
send him to his office . On his arrival , Sanchez credibly
testified he listened to Vidales who told him he had been
"working the best he could," he "was working good" in his
opinion. Sanchez further testified credibly that Vidales did
not promise he would try to do better . Sanchez credibly
testified further as follows: "I had seen his actions in the
past. I had seen his trips back to the bathroom. I had seen
his physical condition on other occasions . I was well aware
of his actions in the past , and I felt that he was extremely
capable of being insubordinate . After looking at both
stories, I decided to follow the recommendation of Charles
Aranda."
Gonzales, who was the "burner" teamed up with Vidales
on December 26, testified that on that occasion , Vidales
worked "the same as always"; that he was not working any
slower that day than he did normally; that Vidales worked
no slower on the job than Gonzales does when he is
performing it; that the batteries were coming to him as a
"burner" no less than usual; and that Vidales' work as a
stacker was no slower than the other employees.
Arceo, who also was teamed up with Gonzales and
Vidales on the day Vidales was terminated , testified that
Vidales was not working any slower than usual; he was
working "regular about the same as the other guys."
Neither Gonzales nor Arceo , witnesses called by the
General Counsel, who were teamed up with Vidales on the
day of his discharge , were questioned concerning the
conversation between Aranda and Vidales that led to
Vidales' discharge.
Luis Rojas, assistant foreman , who is a compadre
(Spanish for godfather ) of Aranda, testified that he was
present on the morning of Vidales ' discharge. He testified
he observed that Arceo was sitting down and Gonzales was
standing up with his arms crossed across his chest looking
at Rojas and Aranda while Vidales was walking around
talking to other employees . Rojas testified he was not
present when Aranda went up and talked to Vidales, but
was present later when Aranda returned and told Vidales
to go to the office. Rojas testified that when he got back
after the coffeebreak he asked Gonzales what was going
on. Gonzales told him that Aranda and Vidales had had a
discussion and that Aranda had gone to the office to fire
him. Rojas testified credibly and without contradiction
that Gonzales told him he would give him two to one that
Vidales was going to get fired . Rojas further testified that
Gonzales told him that Vidales was just taking his time and
that Gonzales didn 't want to be blamed.
D. Analysis and Conclusionary Finding on Vidales'
Discharge
Although the record is clear that the Respondent was
hostile to union organization , I find that Aranda dis-
charged Vidales for his insubordinate conduct when he
urged Aranda to produce more work . I credit the testimony
of Aranda and Rojas that Vidales was not giving his full
attention to his job as "stacker" with the consequence that
Gonzales and Arceo were standing idly by, waiting on
Vidales. The record is clear and I find that Aranda's
conduct in urging Vidales to get out more production of
batteries was not intended to provoke him, but was a
legitimate instruction which was commonly employed by
Aranda to speed up production . It is significant that
General Counsel's witnesses , Gonzales and Arceo, who
were present when Aranda and Vidales engaged in the
conversation which led to Vidales' discharge , were not
called upon to testify to the remarks made by Aranda and
Vidales. I credit the testimony of Rojas and Aranda who
testified that Gonzales and Arceo were standing idly by
because Vidales , who was "stacking," had not placed any
work on the machine for them to work on . I am persuaded
that Aranda entertained no personal animosity toward
Vidales, as only 3 days earlier, on December 23, Aranda
suggested to Vidales that he work till noon on that day so
he could draw pay for the Christmas holiday when it
appeared that Vidales wanted to leave work at midmorning
before he had worked 4 hours. I find that when Aranda
urged Vidales to get out more production , on December
26, Vidales provoked Aranda by telling him that he would
now get less work and insulted Aranda and demeaned his
authority as testified by Aranda. It was this conduct, and
not Vidales' union activity , that resulted in his discharge
which Plant Manager Sanchez approved.
I therefore find that there is no merit to the complaint's
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
allegation that the discharge of Jaime Vidales violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union preference and by threatening employees with
discharge because of their union membership, activity, or
preference, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. Respondent's letters to its employees described in
paragraphs 11(a) and (b) of the complaint are not violative
of the Act.
5. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of
the Act by discharging Jaime Vidales from his employment
and by refusing to reinstate him.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]