Union Furniture Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1148 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT promise or grant wage increases, a reduced workweek, im-
proved working conditions, or other economic favors to our employees for the
purpose of interfering with their choice of a bargaining representative or as an
inducement to reject and refrain from activities in support of Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union 941, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, 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 of such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Union Furniture Company, Inc. and Truckdrivers, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union 941, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 33-CA-367. August
93,'1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 1956, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and, was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
118 NLRB No. 157.
UNION FURNITURE COMPANY, INC . 1149
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a supporting brief, and a
motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed..
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.' -
We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings of the various viola-
tions of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act committed by the Respondent in
the course of the union organizing campaign after the Union had
demanded recognition of the Respondent and filed with the Board
its petition for certification as majority representative of the em-
ployees. These violations, more fully detailed in the Intermediate
Report, consisted of unlawful interrogations, promises and grants
of benefit, and threat of reprisal related to the employees' union
activities. Concerning in particular the narrow issue of the Price
interviews as to which our colleague has dissented, our view coincides
with that of the Trial. Examiner that these interviews cannot be, and
they are not considered in isolation. The systematic questioning of
the employees concerning their "gripes and complaints" by Attorney
Price, engaged by the Respondent at such time to conduct a "personnel,
survey," was followed within 2 weeks with the announcement and
grants of substantial employee benefits which the Respondent expressly
related to the Price interviews. The stipulation of facts in the present
case also shows that Price promised the employees "he would try to do,
something in cooperation" with the Respondent "toward bettering
wages, hours and working conditions." We do not share our dissent-
ing colleague's view that the Respondent's conduct respecting the Price
interviews constituted a mere inquiry as to the employees' grievances.
We note that he states that "for the reasons set forth" in his dissent
in the companion American Furniture case,' "and in view of the facts
in this case," he finds no violation here either. Yet one of the reasons
given in his American Furniture dissent for not finding a violation
I The Respondent 's motion to dismiss is grounded upon the assertion that the unfair
labor practice issues in this case are now moot because , as a result of the Board election
conducted on November 23, 1956, the Charging Union has been certified as bargaining
representative of the employees. The motion is hereby denied. The unfair labor practices
found herein are entirely independent of the election issues , and the effectuation of the-
public policy provided in the Act requires that these practices be appropriately remedied,.
as hereinafter described.
2 American Furniture Company, Inc ., 118 NLRB 1139.
1 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there was that "in the course of the interrogation no threat of reprisal
nor promise of benefit was made or implied." Inasmuch as the stipu-
lation of facts in the instant case shows a promise of benefit was made
at. the time of the interrogation, it does not appear on what theory our
dissenting colleague would dismiss the interrogation in this case. In
the circumstances here, our finding is that the Price interviews and
the grants of benefit were inextricably interrelated as a unified plan
of the Respondent unlawfully to influence the employees with respect
to their protected organizational activities, thus constituting a viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1).
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Union Furniture Company,
Inc., El Paso, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees concerning union activities; threaten-
ing employees with reprisals; or promising or granting wage increases,
a reduced workweek, improved working conditions, or other economic
favors to its employees, in order to interfere with their choice of a
bargaining representative, or as an inducement to reject or refrain
from activities in support of Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers, Local Union 941, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, 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 of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its warehouse at El Paso, Texas, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 3
s This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
the Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
UNION FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 1151
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by Respondent for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part :
For the reasons set forth in American Furniture Co., 118 NLRB
1139, and in view of the facts of this case, I would not find Price's
interrogation of the employees concerning their grievances to be
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.4
4 The stipulation of the parties states that in the course of the interrogation Price told
the employees that "he would try to do something toward bettering wages, hours and
conditions." On the basis of this alleged statement, the majority finds that Price made a
"promise of benefit." It is to be noted, however, that the Trial Examiner found on the
basis of the record as a whole that "it is clear that Price promised no benefits." Contrary
to the majority, I agree with the Trial Examiner.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding is brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 61 Stat. 136, and stems from a complaint issued by the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board against Respondent, Union Furniture Company,
Inc. The complaint, dated August 27, 1956, alleged that Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Copies of the complaint, the charge upon which it was based, and notice of hearing
thereon were duly served upon Respondent.
The complaint alleged that on various dates in June and July 1956, Respondent
had interrogated its employees concerning their complaints, promised them improved
wages, hours and working conditions, questioned employees concerning their union
activities, threatened employees with reprisals for union activities, announced
certain improvements in working conditions, and instituted these improvements in
the working conditions of its employees in order to interfere with their union
activities. Respondent's duly filed answer denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at El Paso, Texas, on October 1, 1956,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner.' The parties were represented by
counsel who were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. At the close of the hearing,
the parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally and to file briefs and pro-
posed findings and conclusions. Oral argument was presented by the General
Counsel and Respondent, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
have been submitted by Respondent. Proposed findings 1 through 7 and 9 through
t This hearing was consolidated with a hearing in American Furniture Company, Inc.,
Case No. 33-CA-356, which involved similar issues. The two cases in part involved the
alleged commission of unfair labor practices by the same outside agent. The Board has
recently held that Respondent and American Furniture Company, Inc., are independent
enterprises which do not constitute a single employer. American Furniture Company,
Inc., et at., 116 NLRB 1496. Accordingly, the two cases have been considered separately
by the Trial Examiner.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11 are accepted , and proposed finding 8 is rejected; proposed conclusions 1 through &
are rejected.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Union Furniture Company, Inc., is a Texas corporation whose principal place of
business is located at El Paso, Texas, where it is engaged in the sale and distribution
at retail of home furnishings. As part of this business operation, it operates a ware-
house at another location in the city of El Paso; only the latter is directly involved
herein. During the 12-month period prior to the issuance of the instant complaint,
Respondent purchased merchandise valued at less than $1,000,000 which was shipped
to the aforementioned warehouse from points outside the State of Texas. During.
the same period Respondent sold home furnishings valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which, merchandise valued in excess of $100,000 was shipped to points outside
the State of Texas. I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce and
that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein, as the
Board has recently held. American Furniture Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1496.
See Hogue and Knott Supermarkets, 110 NLRB 543.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen. and Helpers, Local Union 941, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO, is ,a labor organization admitting to membership the employees
of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Introduction; the organizational campaign
The major portion of the facts in this case are not in dispute. The issue presented
is whether certain acts of interrogation and various changes in working conditions.
instituted by Respondent constitute unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. It appears that there is no history
of collective bargaining prior to the attempt of the Charging Party to obtain recog-
nition as the representative of the warehouse employees of Respondent. ' These
employees were approximately 28 in number and were under the supervision of
Elias Susarrey who is known as the "warehouse and delivery foreman." His assistant
is one Ramos and the latter's assistant is one Alvarez; there is no contention that the-
latter two are supervisory employees and I find that they were not. I find that
Susarrey, contrary to the contention of Respondent, is a supervisory employee within
the meaning of the Act 2
According to the uncontroverted testimony of George Webber, an organizer for
the AFL-CIO, he was assigned to Local 941 late in April or early in May 1956 to
assist that union in the organization of the employees of several employers in the
area including the warehouse employees of Respondent. This warehouse group,
included employees who worked in the warehouse proper as well as truckdrivers and
helpers. Webber held 4 or 5 organizational meetings away from the premises of
Respondent, prior to the end of May, and was assisted therein by 5 or 6 of the
approximately 28 employees in the unit. According to Webber, all of the employees.
in this unit signed cards.
2 Respondent disputes the supervisory status of Susarrey. He is the top and in fact
only management representative in the warehouse and is in charge of approximately
28 employees. Susarrey, who is the only salaried warehouse employee, personally chose-
his two assistants and has authority to recommend raises for the employees. He is con-
sulted as to recommendations concerning applicants for employment and has caused'
applicants to be hired as well as rejected. Susarrey does not report any minor errors
and transgressions to his supervisors but does report more serious matters to Bookkeeper
Longe. He routes the truckdrivers and assigns helpers to either warehouse or truck duty.
Susarrey has authority, which he exercises, to give employees time off for illness and for-
visits to physicians. In such instances, he does not clear the matter with his superiors.
I find, in view of the foregoing, that Susarrey responsibly directs employees, effectively
recommends action involving their tenure, and is a supervisory employee within the'
meaning of the Act.
UNION FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 1153.
On June 18, Local 941 wrote to Respondent and requested recognition, it also
filed a representation petition on the same date in Case No. 33-RC-570 seeking,
an election among Respondent's warehouse and driver employees? Thereafter, on
July 13, a consolidated representation hearing was held on this petition as well
as on that relating to American Furniture Company. The position of Respondent.
has been, as reflected in the transcript of the representation hearing duly incorporated.
herein, that it will not recognize the Union until it is duly certified in a unit found.
appropriate by the Board.
2. Interrogation of, and threats to, employees
The filing of the representation petition on June 18 , 1956, was promptly publicized.
in the local press and, within several days, the incidents complained of herein by the-
General Counsel took place. The chief protagonist for Respondent was its general.
manager, Edward Blaugrund.
Blaugrund came to the warehouse approximately 2 days after June 18 and asked,
truckdriver Manuel Tapia if he had read the newspaper story about the men or-
ganizing a union and if Tapia had joined ; Tapia admitted that he had. Blaugrund.
then summoned Foreman Susarrey and announced that Tapia had joined the Union..
Susarrey asked Tapia if such was the case and Tapia again admitted that he had joined..
Both Susarrey and Blaugrund asked him why he had joined and Tapia informed.
Blaugrund that he had done so because he desired "job security." Blaugrund asked
why he had not initially contacted him, Blaugrund. Tapia replied that no one had.
paid attention to them in the past and Blaugrund stated that if the employees had.
"come to me in the first place we would have probably avoided all this." Tapia
replied that the men had on many occasions informed their foreman that they needed.
a raise in pay but that the matter uniformly had ended there.4
Several days later, Tapia was summoned to the office of Blaugrund for a talk.
which lasted over 1 hour; no one else was present. This office is located in the
store proper, a location other than that of the warehouse. Blaugrund commenced.
by stating that he understood Tapia had been elected by the men as one of their
representatives; Tapia admitted this to be the fact. Blaugrund then stated that Tapia
could help him and that he would not "regret it." Tapia replied that he would not
let the men down and Blaugrund asked, "What can the union offer you that Union
Furniture cannot offer you?" Tapia replied that the Union could offer him job
security. To this Blaugrund responded that the Union was interested only in his
dues and that at present Tapia's check had no deductions. Blaugrund again asked.
why Tapia had signed up with the Union and stated that if Tapia needed help from.
the Union they would promise to help him but then, behind his back, refer derogatorily
to his nationality. Blaugrund repeatedly told Tapia that he, Tapia, was the one who
could help Respondent and that he should "tell the, guys not to go on with the-
union."
As in the case of Tapia, truckdriver Ruben Alvarez was approached in the ware-
house by Blaugrund several days after the filing of the representation petition- on
June 18. Blaugrund stated that he understood Alvarez had signed the petition and
Alvarez admitted that he had. Blaugrund asked why he had done so and Alvarez
replied that his salary was inadequate and that he hoped to make the union scale.-
Blaugrund replied that when the election came up Alvarez could change his mind and.
vote against the Union.
About 1 week or 10 days later, Alvarez was also summoned to Blaugrund 's office.-
Blaugrund told Alvarez that he could change his mind about the Union and asked
what the Union could give him that Respondent could not. Alvarez replied that he
was in the Union to make more money, but that it was equally acceptable to him for-
both Respondent and the Union to promise the same pay.
One or two days after the representation petition was publicized in the press,.
Blaugrund spoke to warehouse employee Ricardo Espinosa. He asked Espinosa.
if he had signed a union application and Espinosa admitted that he had. Blaugrund
stated that a union was undesirable and asked what a union could do that Respondent
could not. Espinosa replied that the men desired better hours and pay. Blaugrund
then stated that the Union "won't give you anything I can't. If you need anything you
come up to me and I will fix you up."
8 A parallel petition was filed at the same time in Case No. 33-RC-569 for a separate
unit of warehouse employees of American Furniture Company, Inc. See footnote 1.
k The foregoing findings are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Tapia. Except
as hereinafter indicated, the findings that follow are based upon the uncontroverted.
testimony of the employees involved.
450553-58-vol. 118-74
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Truckdriver Saul Abeytia was summoned to the store office by Blaugrund early
in June. Blaugrund asked if Abeytia belonged to the Union and Abeytia admitted
that he did. Blaugrund proceeded to state that "the union was no good for me .
he could give me some more things than the union." Blaugrund also stated that if he
saw his warehouse organized by a union he "would burn it."
Armando Madrid, a truckdriver's helper, was approached by Blaugrund in the
warehouse several days after the filing of the representation petition. According to
Madrid, Blaugrund spoke individually on this occasion with those employees who were
present. Blaugrund asked Madrid if he had joined the Union; Madrid admitted that
he had. Blaugrund then asked why Madrid had done so and Madrid replied that
he needed more money. Blaugrund then stated that he did not want a union and
that if Madrid needed more money he should request it of Foreman Susarrey.
Madrid replied that he had already done so and had been put off. Blaugrund's
reply to this, if any, is not disclosed.
3. Interrogation by Attorney Price
The complaint also attacks certain interviews which took place on July 9 and 10,
several days prior to the representation hearing held on July 13. The parties
stipulated that on July 9 and 10, John E. Price, an attorney with offices in Fort
Worth, Texas, who had been retained by Respondent for this purpose, interrogated
substantially all of Respondent's warehouse employees. It is agreed that Price ques-
tioned them concerning their "gripes and complaints" against Respondent, ascertained
what they were and promised that "he would try to do something in cooperation"
with Respondent "toward bettering wages, hours and working conditions complained
of by the employees." While the stipulation indicates that there was more than
one interview, the record does not disclose whether the employees were interviewed
individually or in groups. Price did not mention the Union or its organizational
campaign.
4. Changes in working conditions
There is no evidence of any further involvement herein on the part of Price, but
the improved working conditions adverted to by Price in his interviews were soon
forthcoming from Respondent.
On or about July 23, 10 days after the representation hearing and 13 and 14
days after Price had spoken of improved working conditions, the following took
place. Advertising Manager Saul Kleinfeld and Bookkeeper Longe, both super-
visory employees within the meaning of the Act, addressed the same meeting of
Respondent's assembled warehouse employees. Each announced that Respondent had
instituted certain changes in working conditions. Thus, Kleinfeld stated that the
warehouse employees were being changed from a monthly salary to an hourly pay
basis; that overtime pay of time and one-half would thenceforth be paid for all
hours worked in excess of 104 hours every 2 weeks; that the new hourly pay rates
and job classifications had been designed so that the employees would receive the
same gross pay despite a substantial reduction in the number of hours worked;
and that certain employees would receive higher gross pay in order to correct existing
inequalities. Kleinfeld informed the men that the changed working conditions
then being installed resulted, in part at least, from the survey conducted by Price on
July 9 and 10.
Bookkeeper Longe addressed the same meeting in substantially the same words;
just why the repetition was made is not disclosed. Neither speaker mentioned the
Union or the organizational campaign. Respondent immediately instituted these
improvements in working conditions effective retroactively to July 15 for the pay
period commencing July 15 and ending July 31. I find that this constituted a pay
raise for all employees inasmuch as all employees were receiving the same pay for
less hours and some even more.
5. Conclusions
(a) Turning first to the conduct of Price and the ensuing improvements in working
conditions, the record demonstrates that a representation petition was filed by Local
941 on June 18, 1956, after an organizational campaign had been under way for some
weeks. A parallel demand for recognition was made upon Respondent, but recogni-
tion was not forthcoming, and, on July 13, a hearing was held on the representation
petition, at which time recognition was declined until the Union was duly certified.
Thus, at that stage of events, a Board election was in the offing. Then, 10 days after
the hearing in the representation petition, and 13 and 14 days after Price promised
to try to improve working conditions, 2 key officials of Respondent announced to the
UNION FURNITURE COMPANY, INC . 1155
employees on July 23 the immediate institution of improvements in working condi-
tions. Kleinfeld and Longe stated that these changes resulted from the interviews
conducted by Attorney Price on July 9 and.10.
These changed working conditions included a raise in pay for all employees, this
being accomplished by a reduction in the workweek without a loss in gross pay; a
policy of paying time and one-half for overtime hours in excess of a certain number,
viz, 104 every 2 weeks; an improvement in warehouse ventilation; and an increase in
pay in certain categories to correct existing inequalities. The new pay scale was
installed forthwith retroactive to July 15.
This, in view of its timing, constitutes impressive evidence in support of the
contention of the General Counsel that these improvements in working conditions
were instituted by Respondent for the purpose of interfering with the union activities
of its employees, and Respondent has not contended that they were made for any
other reason. Indeed, any other theory as to how these improvements in working
conditions came about does not present itself.
There is absolutely no evidence that any of these changes had been requested
of Respondent's top officials prior to the interviews by Price and similarly, there is
no evidence that they had been under consideration for any reason whatsoever.
This record thus warrants the conclusion that these sudden improvements in the
working conditions of the warehouse employees were motivated by the organiza-
tional campaign of the Union and, in addition, were timed to achieve maximum
effect in the period between the representation hearing and the election. This is
not to say that an employer may not improve working conditions for business,
competitive or other lawful reasons. It is to say that on a preponderance of the
evidence in this record, Respondent instituted the above-specified changes in working
conditions and timed them in order to discourage union organizational activities
and to influence votes at a crucial point in the union organizational campaign.
As for the interviews conducted in behalf of Respondent by Attorney Price on
July 9 and 10, it is clear that no mention of the Union was made by Price on these
occasions, and that he promised no benefits. However, the record demonstrates that
the employees did inform Price of their complaints about working conditions and
that the information developed through the Price interviews was a key, if not the
only, source of the improvements in working conditions made by Respondent but
13 and 14 days later. Indeed, both Kleinfeld and Longe informed the employees
on July 23 that the changes they were then instituting resulted, in part at least, from
the information developed by Price in the July 9 and 10 interviews. This was
consistent with Price's promise to the men on those occasions to attempt to better
their working conditions.
Thus, this interrogation of employees by Price did not take place in a vacuum and
may not, in logic, be so considered. It was positively and directly linked by Respond-
ent's top officials, as well as Price, with the benefits subsequently granted to the
employees. The conclusion is therefore warranted that this questioning was prompted
by the broad union organizational campaign and was carried out in an effort
by Respondent to ascertain the reasons for the dissatisfaction of employees with
working conditions which presumably created or fostered their interest in union
organization and to remedy them.
I find that Respondent questioned the employees concerning their grievances and
gripes, ascertained what they were, and promptly proceeded, in the period between
the representation hearing and the election, to remedy the complaints advanced by
the employees, for the purpose of unlawfully interfering with the organizational
activities of these employees. I find that Respondent by all of the foregoing, including
the conduct of its agent, Price, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby
violating Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. N. L. R. B. v. Dallas Concrete Co., 212 F.
2d 98 (C. A. 5); N. L. R. B. v. Cen-Tennial Cotton Gin Co., 193 F. 2d 502
(C. A. 5); N. L. R. B. v. Pyne Moulding Corp., 226 F. 2d 818 (C. A. 2); N. L. R. B.
v. Valley Broadcasting Co., 189 F. 2d 582 (C. A. 6); N. L. R. B. v. Pacific Moulded
Products, 206 F. 2d 409 (C. A. 9) cert. denied 346 U. S. 938; Cary Lumber Co.,
102 NLRB 406; and Avildsen Tools and Machines, Inc., 112 NLRB 1021.
(b) There remains for consideration the conduct by General Manager Blaugrund
and Foreman Susarrey in June, shortly after June 18. 1 find that in the following
instances Respondent has engaged in unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion,
inasmuch as these statements contain a promise of benefit for relinquishing union
activities, or a threat of reprisal for continuing same.
(1) The statement by Blaugrund to Espinosa that Respondent could give Espinosa
anything that the Union could and that if Espinosa needed anything he should
contact Blaugrund and "I will fix you up."
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) The statement by Blaugrund to Abeytia that he could give Abeytia more
things than the Union.
(3) The threat by Blaugrund to Abeytia that if a union organized the warehouse,
Blaugrund "would burn" the warehouse, this forecasting a loss of employment.
(4) The statement by Blaugrund to Madrid that if Madrid needed more money
he should ask his foreman for it.
As found, in the course of these very same conversations with the men, all taking
place within a period of a few days, Blaugrund separately questioned employee Tapia
concerning his union membership, as did Foreman Susarrey in the same conversation;
questioned employee Alvarez as to his support of the Union; questioned Espinosa as
to his signing of a union application; questioned Abeytia concerning his union
membership; and asked Madrid if he had joined the Union.
Interrogation of employees by an employer concerning union matters is not per se
an unfair labor practice. It must be judged in the light of the totality of the-
employer's conduct. Blue Flash Express Co., 109 NLRB 591 and N. L. R. B. v.
Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc., 220 F. 2d 573 (C. A. 6). But where
the interrogation is linked with conduct indicating that there may be a reasonable
apprehension of action on the part of the employer, the interrogation takes on
another character. There is no claim that this interrogation was motivated by any
legitimate desire to ascertain the extent of union representation for reasons related
to the preparation of a Board proceeding, or for any other reason. Bearing in
mind that some of this interrogation took place in conversations which also contained
promises of benefit and, in one case, a threat of reprisal, and also that some weeks
later these promises of benefit were in fact forthcoming, as found above, I conclude
that this was not idle conversation but rather interrogation on the part of Blaugrund
and Susarrey which, in this context, reasonably tended to restrain and coerce these
employees. It is to be noted that these employees were uneducated, not proficient
in the use of English, therefore unorganized, unsophisticated in the field of labor
relations, and presumably unfamiliar with their protection under the Act. I find'
that by the above specified conduct on the part of Blaugrund and Susarrey, Re-
spondent has further interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the-
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8 (a) (1) thereof. N. L. R. B. v. McGahey, 223 F. 2d 406 (C. A. 5).
Certain other aspects of these conversations lack specificity as to containing a•
threat or a promise of benefit, or constitute expressions of opinion and therefore no
findings adverse to Respondent are based thereon; in any event, the remedy therefor
would be cumulative to the remedy recommended below. In one instance, employee
Tapia attributed to Foreman Susarrey the utterance of a threat of loss of jobs if
union organization persisted. However, in a repetition of the conversation, Tapia's
testimony was silent as to the threat and no adverse finding is based thereon. I
also credit the testimony of Susarrey, a witness who impressed me as forthright and'
endeavoring to tell the truth, that he did not inform employee Espinosa, as the latter
testified, that new employees were being hired to replace the existing employees who
had joined the Union. It is recommended that in these respects the complaint be
dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section 1, 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
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.5
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
a Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon the
changes in conditions of employment which it has made, as set forth above.
HALEYVILLE TEXTILE COMPANY, INC . 1157
2. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning union activities; threaten em-
ployees with reprisals; or promise or grant wage increases, a reduced workweek,
improved working conditions, or other economic favors to our employees for the
purpose of interfering with their choice of a bargaining representative or as
an inducement to reject and refrain from activities in support of Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 941, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union 941, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, 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 of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author-
ized in Section 8 (a),(3) of the Act.
UNION FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Ilaleyville Textile Company, Inc. and International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-0684.
August 03, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 7, 1957, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate' Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act and accordingly
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, the
Charging Party herein, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief.
118 NLRB No. 159.