Varo, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 2062 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

2062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Varo , Inc. and International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases
16-CA-3099, 16-CA-3187, and 16-RC-4758
September 17, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On June 18, 1968, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the 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 Decision. He
further found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that such allegations
be dismissed. He also found, in Case 16-RC-4758,
that the Respondent interfered with a Board elec-
tion held on December 18, 1967, and recom-
mended that the election be set aside. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed limited exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's failure to provide for the
severance and remand to the Regional Director of
Case 16-RC-4758.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 the
entire record in these cases and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, Varo, Inc., Mexia, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Transferring or refusing to reinstate an em-
ployee to his former position in order to discourage
him and other employees from being or becoming
union members.
(b) Maintaining in effect or enforcing its illegal
written no-solicitation rule, promulgating illegal
oral no-solicitation rules, or threatening employees
with discharge for violation of such rules.
(c) Interrogating employees unlawfully as to
their union activities or desires.
(d) Promising its employees economic benefits if
they refrained from becoming or remaining mem-
bers of the Union or assisting it.
(e) Warning its employees that if they selected
the Union, it would not accede to the Union's con-
tract requests, and employees would be forced to
strike to get a contract and would have difficulty
getting other jobs, or otherwise warning its em-
ployees that selecting the Union would be a futile
effort.
(f) Threatening its employees with removal of
the plant if they engaged in a strike and the Em-
ployer was unable to secure replacements for them.
(g) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative actions which
are necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to reinstate Robert Cherry to the posi-
tion of inspector- trainee in accordance with the
' We hereby correct the Trial Examiner 's apparently inadvertent mis-
statement of the results of the December 18, 1967, election, which were
176 to 91 against the Union
The no-solicitation rule in the Respondent's booklet " You and Varo"
was promulgated before the filing of the petition in Case l6-RC-4758, and
more than 6 months before the filing of the original charge herein, con-
sequently , we find no violation or interference with the election in the
promulgation of this rule, but do find a violation of Sec 8 ( a)(I) and inter-
ference with the election in its maintenance and enforcement during the
period relevant to these proceedings In adopting the Trial Examiner's con-
clusion that Manager Parker's speeches at employee meetings violated Sec
8(a)( I ), we rely on his statements to the effect that if employees voted in a
union, the Respondent would not accede to union contract requests, the
Union would be forced to strike , and the strikers would be immediately and
permanently replaced and would have difficulty in securing alternative em-
ployment
The Respondent requests an explicit finding that it did not violate Sec.
8(a)( I) by distributing to its employees the booklet "Some Questions An-
swered About Unions," written by its attorney, John E Price Such a
violation was not alleged, or litigated , or found by the Trial Examiner.
Neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party has excepted to the
Trial Examiner's failure so to find In these circumstances , it is not necessa-
ry to pass upon this issue, and the request is therefore denied
172 NLRB No. 236
VARO, INC. 2063
recommendation set forth in the section of the Trial
Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make Robert Cherry whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against him in accordance with
the recommendations set forth in the section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) 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
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Notify Robert Cherry if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of his right
to full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its Mexia, Texas, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 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 notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices
not specifically found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
December 18, 1967, in Case 16-RC-4758, be, and
it hereby is, set aside, and that said case be severed
from Cases 16-CA-3099 and 16-CA-3187 and re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 16 of
the Board for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems the circum-
stances permit the free choice of a bargaining
representative.
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 Enforc-
ing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and in order to effec-
tuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees
that:
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily transfer any
employee or in any other manner try to
discourage him or you from being or becoming
members of the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL rescind both our written no-so-
licitation rules contained in our booklet "You
and Varo" and our oral no-solicitation rules
promulgated during the Union's campaign in
September 1967.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees
economic benefits if they do not become or
remain union members or support the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge or other-
wise punish any employees for violating such
rules.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as
to their union activities or desires.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employers in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT warn our employees that if
they select the Union we will not accede to the
Union's contract requests, and employees will
be forced to strike to get a contract and will
have difficulty in getting other jobs, or that
selecting the Union would be a futile effort.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
moving the plant if the employees engage in a
strike and we are unable to secure replace-
ments for them.
WE WILL offer Robert Cherry reinstatement
to his position as an inspector-trainee with all
the rights and any backpay due him.
WE WILL notify Robert Cherry if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of his rights to full reinstatement, upon
application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or remain
union members.
2064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
VARO, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office , 8A24 Federal Office Building , 819 Taylor
Street , Fort Worth , Texas 76102 , Telephone
334-3921.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER , Trial Examiner : International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , filed an original
charge on August 31, 1967,' alleging that Varo,
Inc., herein called the Company , Respondent, or
Varo, was interrogating and threatening its em-
ployees concerning their union desires . This charge
was amended on October 19, to include an allega-
tion that Robert A . Cherry was discriminatorily
transferred from one job to another job. The
original complaint issued on October 31, and an
order consolidating cases, a consolidated com-
plaint , and an order rescheduling hearing was is-
sued on February 8, 1968 , by the Regional
Director . The consolidated complaint contained
some 12 independent allegations of 8(a )( 1) viola-
tions and two 8 ( a)(3) allegations , one of a dis-
criminatory transfer and the second of a suspension
of an employee . During the hearing several of the
8(a)(1) allegations and the allegation as to the
suspension of the employee were , without objec-
tion, deleted.
The Union filed a petition for an election on Oc-
tober 6 , and following a November 22 Decision and
Direction of Election , the December 18 election
resulted in a vote of 267 to 176 against the Union,
challenged ballots not being determinative . Timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election were filed and the Regional Director in a
Supplemental Decision and Order of February 2,
1968, determined that the validity of the unfair
labor practice allegations in the then outstanding
complaint, and the consolidated complaint to be is-
sued , would determine the ultimate merit of the ob-
jections , and ordered consolidation of the represen-
tation and the complaint cases.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent , in its answer and amended answer
to the complaints , admitted receipt of the various
charges and amended charges , that it was a cor-
poration engaged in interstate commerce , and that
the Union was a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act , but denied that it had in any
way violated the Act . The Regional Director's Sup-
plemental Decision in the representation case notes
that Respondent denied the allegations set forth in
the Union 's objections.
The hearing herein was held in Groesbeck, Tex-
as, on March 18 and 19 , 1968, and all parties were
afforded full opportunity to participate in the hear-
ing, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
argue orally . The parties waived oral arguments and
briefs from Respondent and the General Counsel
have been received and considered.
Upon the complete record in this case and on my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based
both on the evidence received and my observation
of their demeanor , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION
Respondent , a Texas corporation , maintains a
plant facility at Mexia, Texas, where it is engaged in
the design , development , manufacture , and sale of
night vision equipment , weapons delivery equip-
ment , and electronic devices for the conversion of
electric power and related products . During the
past year Respondent received at its Mexia plant
goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 which were
transported from points outside the State of Texas,
and during the same time , sold and shipped from
said plant to points outside the State of Texas
products valued in excess of $50,000.
The Respondent admits and I find that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union
herein is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
At its Mexia facility the Company has a two-shift
operation in two structures which are called plants
1 and 2 . Respondent 's top man at the Mexia facility
during the relevant period was Division Manager
Morris Parker who was assisted by Plant Manager
Bert Yandri and Personnel Manager Arlow Bowers.
Several foremen involved in this proceeding are
Doug Woods , Bobby Neely , Dave Johnson, and
' All dates herein occurred in 1967 unless specifically noted otherwise
VARO, INC. 2065
Mervyn Clay, all of whom are admittedly super-
visors within the meaning of the Act.
Respondent's industrial relations manager for
military systems, Robert E. Jones, testified without
contradiction that after the Union on August 18,
notified Varo it represented a majority of Varo's
employees, Respondent held two group meetings,
one for the day shift and the second for the night
shift at each of the two Mexia plants on Monday,
August 21. The employees were told that Varo had
received the Union's request and that "we would
make every effort to educate them on the facts of
unionism , how unions worked, since we had indica-
tions from the employees that they were not fully
aware and familiar with what unions were and how
they operated." Jones said that it was announced
that the Company would gather information for
their education and would have copies of a booklet
available for their education on unionism and it was
the Company's position on unions. (Resp. Exh. 1.)
Jones testified that several hundred copies of "Some
Questions Answered . . . About Unions" were
thereafter purchased to be made available to the
employees. According to Jones, Division Manager
Parker announced that subsequent meetings would
be held to further educate and explain to the em-
ployees about unionism and "it was described in
this booklet."
There appears to be no dispute that management
currently maintained and had given to its em-
ployees a booklet entitled "You and Varo" which
contained various topics of interest to employees
and a number of rules and regulations by which em-
ployees were to abide.2
Under "Rules of Conduct" in the "You and
Varo" booklet, employees are given examples of
offenses which require disciplinary action, rule 15
states : "Solicitation on Company property for any
purpose, including pools and lotteries, at any time
for a cause not sponsored or authorized by the
facility manager." On page 18 of the booklet under
the title "Soliciting" is the following: "Solicitations
and/or collection of funds for any purpose what-
soever is not permitted in the plant without specific
approval of the Industrial Relations Department."
Complaint paragraph 9(a) alleges that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by main-
taining a discriminatory written no-solicitation rule
prohibiting its employees from soliciting union
memberships and support on company property
during its employees' working and nonworking
time.
There appears no question but what these two
written rules forbid solicitation at any time on com-
pany property without specific approval of manage-
ment and would be violative of the Act as an un-
reasonable impediment to self-organization and
therefore discriminatory in the absence of evidence
that special circumstances make the rules necessary
in order to maintain production or discipline. See
Republic Aluminum Co. v. N.L.R.B., 394 F.2d 405
(C.A. 5).
Respondent maintains that the rules were not en-
forced in regard to employees' lunch hours for
which they were not paid, but Respondent's posi-
tion is not clear as to enforcement on breaktime for
which employees were paid. There is evidence that
employees were told that management would en-
force a no-solicitation rule in regard to breaktime.
The complaint in addition alleges that Respondent
by its supervisors also promulgated an invalid oral
no-solicitation rule. Whether the statements of
Respondent's supervisors were meant as enforce-
ment of the written rule or pronouncement of a
new rule is a question.
Certainly the broad range of Respondent's writ-
ten rules brings them within the scope of the rule
enunciated by the Board in Stoddard-Quirk Manu-
facturing Company, 138 NLRB 615, 617. Respond-
ent's written rules are presumptively invalid and
Respondent has not offered any evidence to
establish any valid reason for them other than to as-
sert that it does not know that they were enforced
for employees' nonpaid, nonworking time. The
evidence in regard to enforcement will be con-
sidered infra, with the oral no-solicitation rules. In
any event the evidence Respondent offered does
not overturn the presumption or give legitimacy to
these written rules.
I therefore conclude and find Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) by the promulgation of the
restrictive no-solicitation rules in its booklet "You
and Varo."
Following the August 21 announcements to the
employees, Respondent purchased some 200 to 300
booklets (Resp. Exh. 1). Personnel Manager Arlow
Bowers said he distributed a number of the
booklets through the plant and kept others in
reserve in case employees asked him for them.
Several of the employees testified that they had
seen the booklets in the plant and supervisors had
loaned them the booklets when requested.
On September 15, Division Manager Parker sent
the employees a letter (G. C. Exh. 3) reminding
them he had promised to give them more informa-
tion about the Company and its policies and prac-
tices as well as what a union would mean. He said
that in the ensuing weeks he would cover a number
of subjects with them making them aware of the
whole situation, but in this letter he sought to cor-
rect what he considered two erroneous rumors con-
cerning the Company and its policies.
2 Employee Harry Taylor testified he was given the Varo booklet when Employee Larry Holmes testified without contradiction that he saw
he was hired in 1966 and told that it was a brief statement of the company Foreman Winfrey hold up the Varo booklet during a group meeting on
rules and regulations The booklet was used during Thanksgiving 1967 by a December 15 referring to it as our rules
supervisor who had a question of whether Taylor had been on an unau-
thorized absence or not
2066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Personnel Manager Arlow Bowers testified that
Varo turned over a list of its employees to Respond-
ent's attorneys, who decided on the employee
groupings for a series of 20 to 22 meetings with em-
ployees in the bargaining unit concerning the Union
held just before the union election. The meetings
which lasted some 2 to 3 hours were attended by 13
to 15 employees, one of the Company's attorneys,
Division Manager Parker, several foremen, and in
most meetings Personnel Manager Bowers. A
general pattern of setting forth Respondent's posi-
tion was followed in the meetings, interrupted by
questions from the employees. In general Respond-
ent stated what it felt the rights of the parties were
and the large cost and miniscule gains of unionism.
In essence, the complaint charges that Division
Manager Morris Parker and Attorney Price by their
statements in these meetings painted a picture of
futility for the union adherents, by making various
threats of withholding benefits from employees or
removing the plant if they engaged in a strike, while
stating that Respondent would decline the Union's
unreasonable requests and that in the consequent
strike the employees would lose their jobs and
without income would lose all the goods they were
purchasing on installment contracts. Neither Attor-
ney Price or Morris Parker testified, and instead
Respondent had various supervisors, who either
participated in or were present during these
meetings, testify as to what was said in particular
meetings or deny that particular statements were
made.
Despite the procedure the overall message of Re-
spondent to its employees is quite clear. Respond-
ent made known from the outset its strong animus
towards the Union, labeling it a striking union and
stating that it would fight it. From its stance as an
educator for its employees, who were by its stand-
ards ignorant concerning unionism, it laid out for
them a predicted course of what would occur if
they were foolhardy enough to select the Union as
their bargaining representative. Respondent
emphasized its educational posture in teaching its
employees what would happen beginning with the
initial speeches, through the booklets and letters,
through the large number of lengthy meetings held
for small selected groups of employees immediately
before the election. The air of futility generated at
the inception was compounded to a fog. An exam-
ple of Respondent's dramatization of futility oc-
curred in a question by employee D. L. Donowho
and answer by company Attorney Bennett as fol-
lows:
Q. Did he (Bennett) comment about putting
people back to work after a strike?
A. Yes, sir. I asked him about the charges
pending today, and he said his job with the
' The parties stipulated that if Attorney John Edward Price were called
to testify as to any of the allegations in the complaint with reference to him,
his testimony would be that he said exactly what applies to that point as
company was to keep the company out of an
unfair labor practice charge and I told him we
can strike now on an unfair labor due to the
pending charges over there. He said, "yes, you
can strike, but it may take two years before a
decision comes down and you can't go to work
during those two years for Varo." He said, "By
that time you will probably have found another
job but most of you will have lost your cars or
homes and you will be looking for other em-
ployment. By the time the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals brings a decision down, most of you
won't want to be reinstated on the job."
Thereafter Bennett answered simply no to some
questions, which allegedly came from an em-
ployees' question box concerning whether if there
were to be a strike it would be of short duration
and whether the Company and the Union could get
along in peace and harmony. He concluded by say-
ing the committee (union) would be met by solid
opposition.
The complaint did not allege that company At-
torney Bennett committed any 8(a)(1) violations,
and in the present aspect of the case, since he was
not so charged and Respondent did not make any
effort to defend his statements , I will not find that
they violated Section 8(a)(1), but I will consider
the import of his remarks in regard to the represen-
tation proceeding.
B. Chronology of Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
1. James F . Smith was employed at Respondent
as a turret lathe operator some 10 months until Oc-
tober 30 , and is presently employed at the Naval
Air Station in Corpus Christi , Texas . Smith testified
that he gave other employees union authorization
cards during the union campaign , and on August
25, Foreman Doug Woods told him he had been
caught passing out pledge cards during the break
period to a boy named Tommy, and that it was
against company policy and against the law and the
practice would have to stop or else. Smith replied
that he would check into it and would not pass out
any more cards until he found out what he could
do. On the following afternoon Foreman Bobby
Neeley talked to Smith telling him it was against
company policy to talk about the Union to anyone
in the shop , whether it was on break , lunchtime, or
anytime except to supervisors and foremen. Smith
said he had started the conversation with Neely
after hearing from other employees that Neeley
said Smith had been arguing union during
lunchtime.
Respondent did not produce either Foreman
Doug Woods or Foreman Bobby Neeley and made
no attempt to explain why they did not appear to
stated in Resp Exh I (the book written by Mr Price "Some Questions An-
swered-About Unions")
VARO, INC.
testify. Thus there is no contradiction of Smith's
testimony other than the denials in Respondent's
answer and Respondent's general position in its
brief that the restrictions on solicitations and talk-
ing were reasonable. Respondent's position does
not raise an adequate defense.
I credit James Smith, determining that he has no
reason to fabricate these conversations and con-
clude and find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by the action of Foreman Doug Woods in
promulgating an oral no-solicitation rule prohibit-
ing union solicitation on company property during
an employee's nonwork time. Further Foreman
Woods violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening
Smith that the practice would "stop or else" which
I take to be a threat of discharge if Smith persisted
in union solicitation.
Foreman Neeley's warning and prohibition
against talking union anywhere on company pro-
perty at anytime is an extension of Respondent's
no-solicitation rule and I find and conclude that as
an oral no-solicitation rule it violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Respondent's restriction of talking union at any
time or soliciting on employees' breaktime again is
presumptively invalid as an interference with the
employee rights. Respondent made no effort to ex-
plain why it might be necessary to so restrict em-
ployees' union activities, merely asserting that it
was not an unreasonable restriction.
In the absence of any adequate explanation and
where the rule is presumptively invalid I find it to
be an invalid rule. See Stoddard-Quirk Manufactur-
ing Co., cited above, and Marion Manufacturing
Company, 161 NLRB 55.
2. Robert Cherry began his employment on May
5, as an engine lathe operator on the second shift
under Foreman Mervyn Clay. Cherry became a
union proponent, wore union buttons in the plant,
and helped secure union authorizations from em-
ployees. Clay and Cherry state they spoke of Cher-
ry's desire to become an inspector and Clay told
Cherry he would speak to then Chief Inspector J. T.
Barnett about it and set up an interview for Cherry.
At the interview which occurred 2 or 3 days before
Cherry reported to work in the inspection depart-
ment on September 5, Clay after introducing Cher-
ry and Barnett told Cherry that he agreed to let him
transfer to the inspection department if they
wanted him, that he would be on probation there,
and if he did not work out, he would take him back
on the second shift in the engine lathe department.
Cherry agreed and after a short conversation with
Barnett regarding his use of a micrometer and other
measuring instruments, the transfer was set.
Robert Cherry testified that on Wednesday, Sep-
tember 6, Inspection Foreman Dave Johnson ap-
proached him about 15 minutes before the 7 a.m.
starting time and asked if he was a union instigator
and he replied he was a union agitator. Johnson
told him he was not to talk about the Union on
2067
company time, that the lunch hour was his and he
could talk about what he wanted, but that he might
get into trouble if he talked union on coffeebreaks
because the Company paid for that time. Cherry
replied that he didn't think he needed any more
cards signed because they had a majority.
Johnson, who is now the quality engineer, stated
that, as inspection foreman, he talked to Cherry
about every day Cherry was in that department and
on two occasions discussed Cherry's work with him.
According to Johnson on the first occasion, Sep-
tember 6, he told Cherry he had several complaints
from the production department that the inspection
department was bothering or hindering the produc-
tion employees on their machines by talking and
keeping the production people from their jobs
resulting in a rise in the scrap rate, adding that they
must not be guilty of this. As to restricting Cherry,
Johnson says he told him that "the Company has
some rights, one being they can restrain you from
talking union or soliciting union on company time
in company property. They probably won't say
anything to you about what you do on your break,
but they could restrain you since they do pay for
the break. Your lunch hour we don't pay you for so
we don't have the right to say anything about it. I
went further to say I hate to see him lose his job,
but in my observation of him in the way he handled
himself in a day and a third of a day, if he couldn't
keep himself busy and if his proficiency didn't im-
prove, that since he was on probation he couldn't
last in Inspection." Johnson acknowledged Cherry
stated he was an agitator not an organizer.
Under either Johnson's or Cherry's version of the
conversation, Cherry was being warned by his su-
pervisor that he could not solicit for the Union or
even talk about the Union on company time on
company property even on breaktimes. This
prohibition is again an unreasonable invalid restric-
tion on employees' legitimate activities and again,
with no reasonable explanation by Respondent as in
the preceding section, is a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act and I so conclude and find.
The complaint appears to allege that this conver-
sation between Cherry and Johnson was violative of
the Act as an illegal interrogation of Cherry. Con-
sidering that Cherry was wearing several union but-
tons at that time, I believe that Johnson's question
of Cherry was somewhat rhetorical indicating
knowledge that Cherry was one of those organizing
the Union at the plant. In any event such an
8(a)(1) finding would not amplify the corrective
measures which will be recommended.
3. Employee D. L. Donowho testified that
Foreman Mervyn Clay on either Thursday, Sep-
tember 7, or Friday, September 8, told him "Bob
(Cherry) has let me down." When Donowho asked
how, Clay said he had recommended Cherry to
Barnett and that he was a good man but was doing
too much politicking. Donowho agreed that Cherry
was a good man and added that if a man wanted to
2068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make up his own mind that was his prerogative. Ac-
cording to Donowho they talked some more about
each individual having his own opinion regarding
whether he wanted a union or not.
M. C. Hedrick, Jr., testified that he was the lead-
man inspector under Foreman Dave Johnson and
had been a class A inspector for some 14 to 15
years , but no longer works for Respondent . He said
Respondent had no set period or system for
trainees , but that the trainee would be assigned to
him and he would help him and teach him as the
trainee worked and learned . Hedrick said "we give
them plenty of time and a lot of help." According
to Hedrick the training usually took about a month
and he would be asked by Foreman Johnson and
sometimes by Chief Inspector Barnett how the
trainee was progressing and would report if the
trainee was slow or was catching on. In regard to
Cherry, Hedrick said he was asked several times
how Cherry was doing and said the only complaint
he had about Cherry was that he appeared to talk
too much to the other men when there was such a
large volume of work to be done. Hedrick said
there were no complaints about Cherry's work
whatsoever and that Cherry had the ability to make
a good inspector in that he did what he was told
and would report back after he had finished an as-
signment . On the last occasion Barnett asked him
about Cherry's progress, he told Barnett that Cher-
ry was not an inspector yet but that he was training
him and Cherry showed ability. Hedrick did not
learn of Cherry's transfer back to production on
September 1 1 until after it happened. Of all the in-
spectors he trained during his employment with
Varo, Cherry was the only one who was not made
an inspector and was transferred back to produc-
tion.
On Monday, September 11, shortly after
beginning work, Barnett told Cherry he had
watched him for the past week and was convinced
that he was not qualified to be an inspector . Cherry
asked what he did wrong and Barnett said he read a
height gauge with one hand in his pocket . Cherry
said that if Barnett had his mind made up there was
no use talking to him , washed up, and left.
Hedrick stated that during the week Cherry
worked with him, Chief Inspector Barnett on one
occasion remarked he had noticed Cherry reading a
height gauge with one hand in his pocket and asked
how he could do that. Hedrick answered it would
be difficult but that he could do it and laughed it
off.
During direct examination J. T. Barnett was
asked why he placed Cherry back in production
and responded that it was due to Cherry's "not
being proficient in the type of work that was laid
out in the inspection ." He testified that Foreman
Johnson reported to him that Cherry didn't appear
to have initiative or to be agressive and added that
he had observed Cherry for a week and noting his
lack of proficiency he felt it would be to the best
advantage to transfer Cherry back to the produc-
tion department. Therefore on September 11, while
Cherry was at his work station, he told Cherry he
had observed him in the past week and explained
the reason he felt Cherry needed more experience
in reading instruments and other equipment includ-
ing drawings and that he was going to transfer him
back to production . Barnett stated that when Cher-
ry said he didn't understand why, he made
reference to Cherry's checking a height gauge with
one hand in his pocket . On cross-examination Bar-
nett said that he had observed Cherry on approxi-
mately three occasions during the prior week, one
of which was when Cherry was reading the height
gauge. Barnett referred to Cherry's reading the
height gauge until Respondent 's counsel suggested
the word operating which Barnett promptly
adopted. He said he did not know why Cherry had
his hand in his pocket and didn't bother to ask him.
When asked why not , Barnett responded with a
question as to why should he, although admitting
that he had spoken to other men while they were
working and that he had observed other trainees
while working and spoken to them . Barnett did not
check to see whether the part was damaged by
Cherry's handling of the height gauge.
In regard to Johnson 's purported conclusions that
Cherry was not aggressive or enthusiastic , Barnett
stated Cherry didn't show vim, vigor, vitality, and
zip in learning his new job , and he believed Johnson
reported this to him on Saturday and this was one
of the factors he took into account in making the
decision to transfer Cherry back to production.
Johnson did not tell him how he arrived at this con-
clusion , only that he arrived at it in the process of
normal inspection or duties. When asked further
about this answer Barnett replied that it was
"Something of this nature; insofar as shall we say,
the detailed work, at his work station, the way he
progresses- or the method he uses-I don't recall
exactly, but something to that nature."
Two other subjects in regard to Cherry's inspec-
tion work were raised, one being that Cherry had
stamped a traveler which went with some " bosses"
or "snubbers" which went on a missile launcher.
According to the testimony the "bosses" were too
small and had to be scrapped. The wording used by
Barnett is peculiar in that he stated not that Cherry
had misinspected them but that a dimension had
been missed on them.
In regard to these " snubbers " Foreman Johnson
stated he had a conversation with Cherry a few
days after a group of 400 "snubbers" had to be
scrapped because the " bosses " were undersized
and at this time Cherry was inspecting some of
those "snubbers" and that is why he talked to him
about the importance of inspection. He also told
Cherry he was on probation and that if he didn't
perform better , he and Barnett saw no alternative
but that he couldn 't remain there.
Regarding parts inspection , Cherry testified that
VARO, INC. 2069
on occasions an employee would bring a part to
him when he first made it to be sure the machine
was set right and he would inspect it and stamp the
traveler on that first article . As to the " snubbers"
Cherry said he went to the machines which were
running on the upper and lower " snubbers " and the
operator called his attention to the tact tnat tney
were not right according to the blueprint and he
checked them and brought the matter to Hedrick's
attention , putting a red tag on the "snubbers." At
that time he had inspected about 60 and rejected
about 45 of that number . He stated he did not re-
member stamping the traveler but could have
stamped it after inspecting one, as was the occa-
sional custom.
The second matter concerned inspection of some
upper ducts for searchlights . Johnson said on a
Saturday when they regularly worked a half day, he
told Cherry to inspect the ducts , that they had to go
out that afternoon . He said Cherry left at noontime
and although he had rejected some he couldn't tell
what was what , and they had to be reinspected and
some of them had to be reworked before they went
out.
Chief Inspector Barnett stated that Johnson re-
ported to him that Cherry had been inspecting duct
covers for a searchlight and "it appears he (Cherry)
got disgusted and walked off and left the parts
without saying anything to Mr . Johnson about them
and Mr . Johnson had to put another person on
these items to complete the inspection . Cherry left
the plant and went home ." Barnett said to the best
of his knowledge Cherry did not indicate the parts
had been inspected.
Cherry testified that on that Saturday Johnson
told him that the job had to be finished and shipped
that day and that he inspected the 20 to 25 parts
and rejected all of them but 5 or 6 . He then re-
ported this to Foreman Dave Johnson , asking if
they could take the parts when they were so many
thousandths of an inch out of line and telling him
that he had only a very few good parts. After re-
porting to Johnson and not getting any further in-
structions and having worked a half day he left for
home.
Johnson mentioned one other matter regarding
Cherry and that was that he had complaints from
Foreman Neeley on Sunday that Cherry tried to get
an individual in the plant to sign a union card.
According to both Barnett and Johnson, on
Saturday evening they discussed Cherry and de-
cided he should be put back to the production de-
partment when he reported on Monday . Neither
Barnett or Johnson ever attempted to determine
why Cherry had left the job on Saturday afternoon.
If this had been the flagrant disregard of duties
Barnett and Johnson seemed to indicate it was,
then it is difficult if not impossible to understand
why they would have felt that Cherry should con-
tinue in Respondent 's employ at all. This incident
was not mentioned by Barnett to Cherry when he
informed him on Monday that he was transferring
him. In fact , the only incident mentioned was the
one-handed reading of the height gauge along with
the vague generalization that he was not qualified.
Considering the various versions of the contested
events and those which are uncontested and further
considering Respondent 's restrictions on union ac-
tivities , I conclude that Cherry's transfer from in-
spection , thus prohibiting him from advancing in
the inspection department to a more substantial
wage , was discriminatorily motivated . Hedrick, who
appeared to be an unprejudiced witness since he
was no longer associated with Respondent and
further appearing to me to be an honest and
forthright witness , testified that as the man training
all of the inspector trainees , Cherry had the ability
to become an inspector and showed talent for the
job. The vague generalizations of Barnett and John-
son plus the rather incredible notions of not
checking Cherry if he had been doing something
wrong in using the height gauge and in not finding
out why he had left the plant if indeed Johnson did
not know , lead me to discount their testimony in re-
gard to Cherry's ability and actions . In doing so I
have also noted the very careful language which
was used about the "snubbers ," which does not
really accuse Cherry of misinspection , plus his
credible explanation of the events . Respondent's
testimony concerning Cherry appears to me to be
framed most precisely to create an aura of wrong-
doing on Cherry's part without precisely saying so.
The interim remark of Clay to Donowho, which I
credit despite Clay's denial, gives a further clue as
to the reason for the retransfer of Cherry.
I conclude and find that Respondent's interrup-
tion of Cherry's training program and subsequent
transfer back to production was discriminatorily
motivated because of Cherry's union activities and
adherence and consequently violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. Following the Cherry transfer , James Smith
sought out Foreman Dave Johnson on September
11, and finding him in the inspection department
during lunchtime , asked why Bobby Cherry had
been taken off inspection and put back on running
the machine at nights . Johnson said he did not have
to answer any questions for Smith . Smith replied he
was the union steward representing Cherry and
would like an answer . Johnson said there were
several reasons and he would not go into them and
did not have to, that they did not have a union at
Varo, and he did not have to answer any questions.
About that time, according to Smith, the bell rang
and the conversation ended.
Johnson was not questioned about this conversa-
tion and I credit Smith's version.
That afternoon Smith was summoned to the of-
fice of Plant Manager Yandri, where he found Yan-
dri with a secretary who apparently took steno-
graphic notes of their conversation . Yandri asked
Smith if he had talked to Johnson on company time
2070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the Union and Smith answered he might have
gone over the lunch period 1 or 2 minutes. Yandri
said that was not too important, that I or 2 minutes
would not make too much difference. He next
asked if Smith was a union steward or posing as a
union steward. Smith said he wanted a witness if
that was all right with Yandri. Yandri agreed and
Smith got Henry Taylor to come in the office with
him. Yandri repeated the question and Smith said
he would like to talk to his union representative be-
fore he answered the question and would give an
answer the next morning and Yandri agreed. At
that point Yandri asked Smith what the people
wanted out there. Smith answered that he did not
know for sure, that he could not speak for all the
plant, but after an election he would have a con-
tract and then his questions would be answered.
Yandri said that if money was all that they were
concerned with, they did not have to go to all that
trouble to get it. Smith answered that there were
several things they would want besides money.
Yandri told Taylor that would be all and Smith
asked to speak to Yandri in private. The secretary
and Taylor left and Smith told Yandri that Foreman
Doug Woods had torn a union sticker off one of the
toolboxes and thrown it on the floor, and asked
Yandri to put a stop to such activity. Yandri replied
that he would look into it.
Henry Taylor confirmed the conversation
between Yandri and Smith, stating that after Yan-
dri asked the question about Smith being a union
steward and agreeing with Smith's request to put
off the answer until the following day, they talked
on some subjects and Yandri said that if money was
all the men wanted why did they go to all this trou-
ble to get it. Smith said that that was not all, there
were other things, seniority, etc. According to
Taylor, Yandri made a statement that he thought
the men could get more through the company offi-
cials than through the Union. Smith said that he did
not think so, that they had tried others, and that
had not helped.
Yandri testified that after hearing a report that
Smith was talking about the Union in the shop after
the bell, he had Smith come to the office, and told
him he wanted a straight story whether he was in-
dulging in conversation regarding union business
after the bell rung. He added that if it was so, he
felt that Smith was out of order and if not, that he,
Yandri, was out of order for reprimanding him for
the activity. He asked if Smith had been talking to
Dave Johnson regarding the Cherry incident after
the bell rung. Yandri said Smith answered that the
bell might have gone off but he was not sure. Yan-
dri then said that he had talked with Johnson and
by Johnson's recollection of the conversation, at
least a portion of the conversation took place after
the bell. Yandri said he next accused Smith of
presenting himself as a union steward to Johnson,
saying he felt that this was out of order. At that
point Smith asked for a witness and Henry Taylor
came in. When Yandri repeated the question Smith
asked to be allowed to consult with an IAM official
and answer in the morning. Yandri agreed to the
request and thereafter made some comment about
his own experience with a union some years ago
and that he had no idea of how they were presently
conducting themselves. He stated that the men
were about to leave when he (Yandri) said he was
aware of some wage inequities in the shop, but that
in his opinion it seemed ridiculous to go to all this
trouble for that. He pointed out that they had been
short of staff in the office and while they might
have hired some people a little bit high and others a
bit low, those inequities were going to be adjusted
with more office help. He further stated that he
might have asked a question of Smith as to what the
men wanted and that Smith told him it was too
early to tell what the men's wants were and what
they were going to ask for, that that was a long way
down the road.
The complaint alleges that Yandri's question of
and statements to Smith violated Section 8( a)(1) as
an unlawful interrogation and as a statement of an
invalid oral no-solicitation rule. Smith's testimony is
corroborated by Taylor and in the main by Yandri
who seeks however to draw some fine verbal
distinctions. I feel that the version given by Smith
and Taylor is the more nearly correct.
The fact that Johnson informed Yandri of the
conversation and Yandri forthwith took up the
matter with Smith in the terms he said he used
shows that Respondent took a very serious view of
its prohibition of union solicitation on company-
paid time. According to other testimony football
and baseball pools and other forms of solicitation
took place without employees being warned about
such activities. That Yandri raised the question
makes it clear Respondent was enforcing its invalid
no-solicitation rules and relaxed enforcement of it
as to Smith only on the assurance that the conver-
sation stopped about the time the bell rang. Yan-
dri's question of Smith's presentation of himself as
a union steward seems to be a natural question in
the absence of any arrangement between Respon-
dent and the Union for stewards on the job, but the
manner in which the question was put further
demonstrates Respondent's animus and put Smith
under fear that some disciplinary measures might
be taken against him. The inquiry as to the desires
of the employees and the holding out of greater
benefits without the bother of having a union, at
the least , constituted illegal interrogation and a
promise of benefit as alleged in the complaint.
I therefore find and conclude that Yandri's state-
ments and questions violated Section 8(a)(1) as an
unlawful interrogation , an illegal promise of
benefit, and as a restatement of Respondent's in-
valid no-solicitation rules.
5. Employee Palmer Colier was sent to Yandri's
office on September 11, and told by Yandri that
Colier had been conducting union activity on com-
VARO, INC.
pany time that day. Colier denied it saying that he
conducted his union activities on his own time, and
had just come back from lunch and Yandri could
check the timecard if he wanted to do so. Yandri
replied that if the men walked out, those involved
would be subject to dismissal, and any union activi-
ty on company time was prohibited Colier said it
was his right and that of the others to believe as
they saw fit. He continued that he knew of one and
possibly a second person who were fired for giving
2 weeks' notice, and he didn't agree with this com-
pany policy, and the word was going around and
after a while Varo wouldn't be able to get machin-
ists. Yandri replied that he would rather let a man
go than have him stay around talking to employees
about a better job elsewhere. Colier repeated that
he didn't agree with this policy, and that one of the
leadmen, Jerry Don Sunday, said he would not have
anyone working for him that believed in a union.
Colier said that this wasn't right, that the people
had a right to believe in a union just as much as
Sunday had a right to believe against it.
Yandri offered no testimony about his conversa-
tion with Colier, and such testimony being unde-
nied and Colier appearing to be a credible witness,
I credit Colier's version. The broad prohibition by
Yandri of any union activity on company time
under the extant versions of company time includ-
ing breaktime is sufficient to make this oral rule an
illegal prohibition of union solicitation, and I so
conclude and find that it violates Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
I do not however find that Yandri's statement
amounted to a threat of discharge for solicitation,
as alleged in the complaint. The threat of discharge,
if there is one, is the statement that employees who
went on strike were subject to dismissal. This state-
ment can be construed in several ways, being legal
or illegal under various circumstances, but it was
not alleged or litigated as a threat to discharge
striking employees in violation of the Act. There-
fore I do not find a violation as to Yandri as alleged
in complaint paragraph 9(d).
6. About 2 weeks after his transfer from the in-
spection job, Cherry talked to Foreman Clay about
having received good job grades, but not getting a
raise. After discussing other topics he told Clay that
where he worked previously, they got regular raises
because they had a union. They discussed the good
and bad points of a union with Clay saying he had
worked at a plant where because of a strike they
had lost their jobs. Clay said they wouldn't have
anything to gain if they got a union, that they had
good benefits such as insurance, etc., and they
would not win an election and if they did the Com-
pany would never deduct union dues from their
checks and offered an apparently facetious bet that
the Company would never agree to such a thing.
Clay testified that shortly after returning from the
inspection job, Cherry started a conversation with
him concerning union beliefs and the progress of
2071
union activity at Varo. To specific questions Clay
replied that there was no reference in the conversa-
tion to checkoff or union dues, but they did discuss
Respondent benefits, and he said he didn't believe
Varo would go union, that the people didn't want
it, and he thought the mass of the people would
vote against it because of the policies that the Com-
pany had set up, the wage structure, etc., and that
they didn't need a union.
General Counsel alleges that Clay in this conver-
sation threatened reprisals if the Union was elected
in order to impress on the employees the futility of
selecting the Union. Considering Cherry's version
of the conversation, I could not conclude that the
statements he reports Clay made could be con-
sidered reprisals to be taken against employees or
even promises of benefit for refraining from bring-
ing the Union in. The only threat, if it can be called
that, is that the Company would never deduct
union dues from employees' checks. This is not a
reprisal. I think that this conversation, although ex-
hibiting Clay's animus toward unions, is not such
that I would find it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
7. Cherry testified he spoke again with Clay con-
cerning the Union during the last week of
November at a time when he was discussing with
Clay going on the day shift. Clay said that if he
wanted the day shift he should have told him so-
oner. They started talking about the Union, and
Clay said they would never get a contract if they
did vote the Union in, and if it was his company
and they voted for the Union, he would shut the
doors. Cherry asked Clay if he thought the Com-
pany was that chicken, and Clay declined to
answer.
Clay was asked when Cherry requested an assign-
ment to the day shift and placed it around October
17, and identified a letter dated October 19 from
Cherry's physician concerning such a request. Clay
was not thereafter asked by Respondent's counsel
about a conversation at the time Clay asked for the
change to the day shift, although during cross-ex-
amination Clay admitted he discussed the Union
with Cherry a couple of times.
I believe that Cherry's identification of the con-
versation at the time they talked of a change to the
day shift, even though the month might be wrong,
and Clay admitting they had a conversation about
the transfer request, was sufficient to enable
Respondent to meet and seek to refute the conver-
sation if it desired to do so. I credit Cherry's version
of this conversation.
Clay's remarks, besides demonstrating extreme
animus , indicate that even if employees are success-
ful in organizing they will be frustrated since
Respondent will never agree to a contract. Clay's
remark about closing the plant and declining to
answer Cherry's question of Respondent's inten-
tions in that direction constituted a thinly veiled
threat of Respondent reprisals if the employees' or-
ganization attempt proved successful.
2072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I conclude and find that Respondent, by Clay's
statements, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening reprisals if employees selected the
union as their bargaining representative in order to
impress on them the futility of selecting the Union.
8 Mrs. Sue Ferguson testified that on December
16, she attended one of the series of meetings held
by Respondent in mid-December immediately be-
fore the election. Division Manager Parker, after
declaring that everyone should exercise their right
to vote, said Varo had contracts to meet and if a
union got in, that before they could get a contract
there would have to be a strike, and if there was a
strike the Company's contracts would be met.
Parker said the strike would be an economic strike,
and such a strike was not backed by the Labor
Board nor by the Federal Government, and that the
Company would bring in others to take the place of
those who were on strike. He continued that if the
employees were replaced while on strike that would
not be a very good reference for them in trying to
get another job. Ferguson denied that Parker's re-
marks about not getting a contract and striking
were expressed as Parker 's opinion.
Plant I Production Superintendent David Schu-
macker testified he attended some 9 or 10 em-
ployee meetings at which Parker spoke and was
present at the meeting Ferguson attended and said
Parker made no reference to an economic or an un-
fair labor practice strike, but said that when and if
the Union won the election and when and if the
people went on strike to force agreement to a con-
tract, he (Parker) would be forced to ask the per-
sonnel manager to supply him with people to sup-
port the program to meet his contractual obliga-
tions with the government. Schumacker said Parker
did not read from a text and remembered nothing
more of Parker's statements . Schumacker was
asked:
Q. Did Mr. Parker say whether or not the
Union got in at Varo, before they got a con-
tract there would have to be a strike?
A. He did in this way-
Q. Did he say that?
A. No, he didn't say that.
To other questions Schumacker responded he did
not hear Parker mention the Federal Government.
Employee Henry Taylor testified that Division
Manager Parker spoke at the meeting he attended
in December telling the employees about himself as
a prisoner of war after being shot down in Ger-
many, and then pointing out that the Union
couldn't help Varo and he was there to fight it, say-
ing that they had contracts to meet and they would
meet them regardless of the cost . He said that to
get a union and a contract they would have to
strike and if there was a strike he would immediate-
ly put in a notice for replacement employees, and
that if it came to it he could still drive and would
drive a truck and make deliveries and if anyone
tried to stop him on the picket line he would run
them over.
Schumacker testified that Parker did not say he
would run over pickets.
D. L. Donowho stated that in the December
meeting he attended Parker related some of his war
experiences and said he wanted to stress that once
the Union was elected there would be a strike and
that he would replace anyone that struck and re-
peated this several times during his speech. A
question was asked as to whether the Federal
Government subsidized the training of some em-
ployees and Parker answered that the government
did not subsidize the scrap parts which cost large
sums of money.
Personnel Supervisor Bowers testified he at-
tended approximately 13 or 14 of the December
meetings , and was present at the one Ferguson at-
tended. He heard Parker say that when and if the
Union was voted in and when and if the employees
went out on strike if a contract could not be de-
cided on, that was the day Parker would issue or-
ders to have replacements come in and fill the jobs
that were affected by the striking employees. Ac-
cording to Bowers, Parker said Varo didn't want a
strike and would work hard to avoid it, but they
would have to meet their contractual obligations
and therefore would continue to operate the plant
and would find people to turn out products to meet
the contracts, and that in his (Parker's) opinion, if
the Union was voted in the Company would not be
able to meet the Union's demands for a contract
and they thought the possibilities for strike were
quite high. Bowers stated he did not recall any
statement that there would have to be a strike be-
fore the employees got a contract, and that he
heard nothing regarding strikers getting bad
references from Varo, but rather that if the Varo
employees were out on strike and applied for a job,
the personnel officer at the other company would
ask where they worked before and they would say
Varo, and if it was anywhere near , he would say
isn't Varo on strike and when the employees said
yes, that they were coming to work because of the
strike, the personnel officer would probably be a
little hesitant about hiring them. According to
Bowers, nothing was said regarding references from
Varo as such. Bowers also testified he was present
at the meeting Taylor attended. He stated that in
that speech Parker did not say he would run down
the pickets, but rather that a rumor was going
around that if the Union got in Varo, the truck
companies would not cross the picket line, and that
if they didn't he (Parker) would go up there and
drive the truck in, that he was able to do it.
Bowers also testified he was present at the meet-
ing Donowho attended and that during the meeting
a question was asked of Parker about the Man-
power Development and Training Act, and Parker
answered that the government did partially fund the
training program but didn 't pay for scrap.
General Foreman Philip Winfrey testified that he
was present at the Plant 2 meeting on December 16
and, in response to a series of leading questions
VARO, INC. 2073
from Respondent's counsel, stated that Parker said
that if and when the Union got into the Company
and if and when the employees went out on strike,
then he would send out an order for replacements.
Further, Parker said that he could drive a truck
through the picket line himself. Winfrey denied that
Parker said anything about running over pickets,
and denied Parker said he would send for replace-
ments the day the Union was voted in.
Respondent produced general and some specific
denials by various supervisory personnel of state-
ments attributed by various General Counsel wit-
nesses to Parker, but there was no testimony from
Parker and Respondent did not indicate, at any
point, why Parker was not called to testify concern-
ing his statements. Parker's remarks in these
meetings were a part of Respondent 's overall cam-
paign to defeat the Union and were not as Respon-
dent would like us to believe merely free expres-
sions of opinion. Parker was not a minor supervisor
casually offering an opinion to an employee, but
was the top management- official on the scene,
setting forth in conjunction with Respondent's
counsel, for all the employees, the precise course
which Respondent predicted would occur if the em-
ployees chose to accept the Union as a bargaining
agent . The people who would guide Respondent in
negotiations, presumably those who would be
responsible for Respondent's tactics, were here
"educating" their employees from their position of
superior knowledge as to what the employees could
expect if they chose the Union.
The overall picture of these meetings must be
balanced by the statements of Respondent's attor-
neys and the foremen who spoke at the meetings,
insofar as the objections in the representation case
are concerned. However, it is clear to me that
Parker set forth very carefully that if the employees
voted in a union, the Company would not accede to
union contract requests, the union would be forced
to strike, and Respondent was ready and planning
for a long strike,by replacing all of the strikers im-
mediately. The strikers' problems would be further
complicated since when they sought employment
elsewhere, after being without work for a long time,
other employers would view their applications with
a jaundiced eye when they discovered they had lost
their prior employment by being replaced while on
picket duty. In essence Parker from his position as
the responsible management agent told the em-
ployees a union could avail them naught for
Respondent would continue to exercise its
judgment as to what the employees should receive,
would not listen to what it termed "unreasonable
union demands " and, in search of further benefits
than the Company was willing to pay, the em-
ployees would have to engage in a long and fruitless
strike being replaced in the interim and not being
able to get jobs with other employers because they
had lost their present employment while engaging
in union activities.
Where, as here, Respondent pursues a course of
treading the precipice between the ground of free
speech and the brink of unfair labor practices and
seeks the very edge, in order to deeply engrain in
its employees its great animus to their union activi-
ties, then it must bear the burden of any missteps. It
is apparent that all talk of strike emanated from
Respondent. There was no showing that strike talk
during the early parts of the campaign began with
the union adherents, but from the testimony it
came from Respondent's supervisors and agents.
Respondent's campaign was pitched on this precise
point, not by reason of any fear by Respondent of
an imminent strike of employees who were well or-
ganized, but as a campaign measure to instill fear
and inhibit the employees from exercising their
rights to organize. Company Attorney Bennett's
statement quoted above is an example of the
lengths to which Respondent told its employees it
was willing to go to forestall their organization, in
that it would not take back employees who engaged
in an unfair labor practice strike until ordered to do
so by the circuit court. This statement coupled with
the threat that they would lose their cars or homes
in the interim was not intended as a fair responsible
statement of applicable law. Rather Respondent's
campaign sought to provide the employees with a
distorted one-sided view, psychologically phrased
and pitched to frighten them away from the Union
by painting a picture of loss and doom if they chose
a union.
I conclude and find that Respondent through
Morris Parker violated Section 8(a)(1) by threaten-
ing various reprisals including employees not being
able to resume their jobs and the prospect of not
being able to get other employment if they chose
the Union and struck, seeking to impress upon
them that their choice of a union was a futile
gesture since it could avail them nothing.
9. General Counsel's complaint alleges that
Respondent's Counsel John Price violated Section
8(a)(1) by warning employees that selecting the
Union would be a futile effort, by threatening plant
removal if the employees engaged in a strike, and
by threatening to withhold from employees benefits
they would otherwise be entitled to if they engaged
in a strike. To support the allegations General
Counsel offered the testimony of Sue Ferguson,
Henry Taylor, and Palmer Colier.
According to Ferguson, Attorney Price began the
meeting she attended by saying an employee had
come to the plant office that morning stating that
someone had forged his name on union literature.
Ferguson spoke up and said she was present when
the eight employees signed that piece of union
literature and there were no forgeries. Price replied
he did not know about that but could only go by
what the man said. Price continued that he was
there to concentrate on the 40 percent of the em-
ployees who were undecided as to the Union. He
said he had witnessed a strike in New Orleans
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 59
2074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where a woman who tried to cross the picket line
had all her clothes torn off. (The meeting attended
by Ferguson was one in which most of the partici-
pants were women.) Thereafter Price said that the
Union was a business and the representatives were
salesmen and the Union did not consist of the peo-
ple. He said that the only right the Union had was
to talk, and the only right that the people had was
to strike, while the Company had the right to say
no. Thereafter, Price compared union contracts at
other companies seeking to show that the em-
ployees had nothing to gain from a union contract.
Ferguson asked Price if a written contract was not
better than an oral contract and Price replied that a
union contract was no better than Varo policy, and
he would say no to any union contract. Price spoke
of some employees at a company who sought his
assistance because they were under a UAW con-
tract and wanted to avoid paying an assessment that
was being levied against them. He said he read their
contract and advised them that under it the assess-
ments could be taken out of their salaries. Ferguson
remembered Price saying that the IAM was known
as the striking union.
The meeting she attended lasted 2 hours and 15
minutes and she testified that both Price and Parker
said more than she recalled, but she remembered
that Price held up a book which he said he wrote,
and that it was put out in the plant for anyone who
was interested to read. She did not recall that he
read from the book.
Henry Taylor testified that during the meeting he
attended Attorney Price introduced himself saying
he was there to represent the Company and asked if
Taylor was present. When Taylor identified himself,
Price said that according to an article in the local
paper he needed some education. Taylor replied
that Price's remark was an insult and when Price
asked why, Taylor said that before talking about a
person in front of a group he should have contacted
him. According to Taylor, Price apologized and
began setting out various points regarding the
Union , discussing the number of employees and the
number of union members, giving comparative data
on various contracts, and stating that Varo was pay-
ing a top wage of $3.77 per hour, but that Price did
not reply when asked who was drawing that
amount . In discussing the Union, Price said it was a
moneymaking business with union representatives
as salesmen and that the Union couldn't help them
in any way and that Varo could do more for them.
Price said that if the Union came in, there would
not be any agreement on a contract and the em-
ployees would have to strike and immediately the
Company would put in notices for replacement of
employees. He said that the benefits, such as in-
surance , for anyone who walked out would be lost,
since the Company couldn't afford to pay it and
would not pay it while they were on strike. Price
continued that there would not be any job recom-
mendations, that their union activity would be a
bad reflection on their individual employment abili-
ty, and that the Company was going to meet any
contracts it had. After talking about strikes Price
said that if everyone decided to go to a football
game or to get sick or for some other reason they
weren 't coming to work, the Company would move
to a place where they could get employees in order
to meet their contracts. Questions were asked con-
cerning strikes and Price said that in an economic
strike the employees could be replaced but in an
unfair labor practice strike they would have to be
rehired.
During the meeting Price referred to his book
saying it was a guide he prepared for these con-
ferences . Price also talked about fines and assess-
ments and mentioned some figures . Taylor reported
Price said the Company would not agree to a con-
tract if they did not have to and that to get a con-
tract the employees would have to strike.
During cross -examination Taylor said Price told
the employees he didn't think the Union would help
at Varo and that regarding giving in to the Union
the Company would not do so, that they would say
no and that if the Union came in there would be no
contract, there would have to be a strike and each
employee who walked out would be immediately
replaced.
Palmer Colier testified he attended a meeting at
which both Price and Parker spoke and during
which he asked if Price said the Company would
move the plant. Price answered that if it was neces-
sary they would. He asked this question after Price
spoke of strikes and said that if the Company could
not meet their schedules because of a plague or
sickness or everyone became a baseball fan or for
some other reason , that they would move the Com-
pany to where they could meet their contracts.
As noted, Attorney Price did not testify in this
proceeding and it was stipulated that if he were
called to testify as to any of the allegations in the
complaint with reference to him, his testimony
would be that he said exactly what applies to that
point as stated in Respondent's Exhibit 1. Respond-
ent's Exhibit 1 is a 75 page booklet with a number
of questions and answers about a number of topics
concerning unions , bargaining , strikes, and
representation. Respondent's brief claims that
under the stipulation pages 10-21 and 67-69 of the
booklet would be proper in considering what Price
would say he said in regard to the statements at-
tributed to him by Henry Taylor.
Among the other topics the booklet lists what the
Union would cost the employees, breaking it into
two sections depending on whether there is a strike
or not. If there is no strike the costs, according to
the booklet, would include union dues and fees of
$75 to $100 a year, the loss of the person's right to
speak for himself, emotional upsets due to bitter
feelings between employees working under rigid
contract provisions, and indirect loss to the em-
ployee as a result of reduction in the Company's ef-
VARO, INC.
ficiency of operation. If there is a strike the losses
according to the booklet would be extended by loss
of considerable wages while striking, which could
lead to loss of articles purchased on credit plus
possible loss of the striker's job by being replaced.
The subjects are discussed in further depth from
pages 26 to 40. On page 41 appears the title
"About Gains From Union Representations." The
booklet's short answer is that "no one can say
because we don't what will happen, but we believe
common sense and reason will show that there is
not much to gain ." Under economic gains the
booklet states that if the Union demanded a wage
increase which the Company refused to grant and a
10-week strike followed during which the em-
ployees lost $800, and a 5-cent-per-hour wage gain
was granted, the employee might make up the $800
loss in 7 to 8 years depending on the amount of
overtime he might receive. Under the heading
"Possible Gains Other than Economic" the booklet
states the employees might or might not get a con-
tract and that a contract might not be good for
them since it is a rigid instrument and enforcing it
could cut both ways, which does away with the
recognition of individual characteristics and com-
pares unfavorably with the present system of opera-
tion where employees are treated as individuals.
Listed among the other " gains " is a checkoff provi-
sion by which union dues and fees can be deducted
from employees' paychecks, which according to the
Company, is helpful for union business but does not
seem particularly desirable from the employees'
standpoint.
Thus, the message of this Respondent-adopted
booklet is that there are all costs and no gains to be
had from having a union , with many grave risks of
losing job, home, goods purchased on credit install-
ment , etc. The booklet contains some misleading
statements such as the individual loses all rights to
speak for himself, which statement appears to
negate the first proviso of Section 9(a) of the Act.
This booklet read as a whole conveys a clear
deliberate message that nothing is to be gained
from union activities or from bringing a union into
a plant, while the employee has much to lose for
doing so.
Although making a disclaimer, it becomes obvi-
ous to the reader of this booklet that it is
deliberately calculated to instill a feeling of futility
by depicting miniscule gains and awesome losses
which it claims would result from employees
choosing a union as their bargaining representative.
This is not done as a matter of offhand opinion, but
as a work with reference to the locale and general
type of industry and as here it is a statement of the
Company's official position by the Respondent who
will have the largest position in making its predic-
tions come true.
Predictions made as part of the official position
2075
of the Company are not free expressions of opinion
but are forecasts by a party in a position to make
them reality, and in this situation were propounded
by Respondent as having superior knowledge to
those ignorant of the facts. Near the end of the
booklet five questions are propounded to help the
employee decide if he wants a union or not.
They are:
(1) Do you really want to work for a week or
more each year just to give the money to a
stranger?
(2) Do you actually want to give a complete
stranger the exclusive right to speak for you,
for a third of your everyday life?
(3) Do you want to invite, into your everday
life, argument, bitterness, unpleasantness, trou-
ble, and even fighting among the people you
work with?
(4) Do you really want to work where
everything about the job revolves around a
small book of words which are carefully and
closely followed, without regard to you as an
individual person?
(5) Even if you wouldn't go on strike yourself,
do you want to invite the possibility of a strike
by some of your fellow workers with all the un-
pleasantness and danger to everyone?
The situation of the stipulation regarding Price's
testimony in addition to the booklet leaves me with
the testimony of some of Respondent's supervisors
who were present during these meetings who were
asked some specific questions as to what was said
by Price or whether he said certain things . In some
instances the question asked did not relate directly
to the testimony elicited by General Counsel. In
other cases supervisors were asked for generaliza-
tions of the testimony. In some cases Respondent's
witnesses professed to recall precisely what was
said at one meeting although they had attended up
to 14 meetings which during other parts of their
testimony they said followed the same format and
were nearly identical. It is therefore difficult to
credit Respondent's versions of these events,
though on certain points I do. Here again Respond-
ent sought to tread the edge of that dangerous
path between free speech and violations of Section
8(a)(1), and where as here the effort is made
against a background of vigorous union animus and
individual violations of the Act, I am resolving
credibility on the basis of what appears to me to be
the best report of what was said in each of the
meetings, and if there are doubtful issues they will
be resolved against Respondent.' In doing this, I
take note that some of the statements contained in
Price's booklet are, to say the least, loaded and in
4 See Bush Hog, Inc ., 161 NLRB 1575
2076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some cases misleading . Respondent placed itself in
the position not of the giver of free opinions but of
the authoritative source in instructing employees as
to the consequences of their actions if they choose
a union , so when Respondent states that from its
experience and from its knowledge a strike will
occur because it will not be able to meet the
Union 's demands , it is by its own statement speak-
ing from a position of knowledge and is lecturing to
employees who know nothing about it.
From some of the testimony it appears that some
of the topics discussed by Price were not covered
by the booklet.
Production Supervisor Schumacker stated he was
present at the meeting Ferguson attended , and said
that Price spoke of a woman coming through a
picket line in Mississippi who was disrobed by
pickets. Schumacker testified he did not remember
whether Price said woman or women. Another in-
significant change made by Schumacker in regard
to Ferguson 's testimony was that he recalled Price
did not refer to auto workers but rather to Bell
Helicopter workers, although another Respondent
witness stated that Price did refer to the employees
who sought his assistance as being members of the
UAW who worked for Bell Helicopter during the
Ford strike who were concerned with assessments
made to help the Ford workers.
Personnel Manager Bowers testified he was
present at some of the speeches made by Price and
said that Price's reference to a woman being
disrobed by a picket line was in a strike that oc-
curred in Mississippi . He noted the other distinction
that the workers who came to see Price concerning
his representing them , against an assessment, were
UAW members working for Bell Helicopter. In re-
gard to the differentiation between an unfair labor
practice strike and an economic strike , Bowers who
was the personnel manager stated that the explana-
tion by Price got a little bit confusing for him. He
said Price said nothing about bad references from
Varo, but that if the Varo employees were on strike
and applied for a job the personnel officers at the
other plants would ask where they worked before
and when they would say Varo and if it was
anywhere near , they would know of it and ask
whether they weren 't seeking work because they
were on strike and would probably be hesitant
about hiring them . Bowers was asked whether in
the 13 or 14 meetings he attended the same things
were said at all the speeches and replied that it was
and that the same procedure was followed and
same subjects were covered.
Further , according to Bowers, Price said that the
employees had a right to strike and if the Union
came in the Company would bargain in good faith
but if demands were made that could not be met
there would be a strike . The Company had a right
to make a profit and to continue and, if the de-
mands were so that the Company could not func-
tion profitably , the Company would have to say no
but would still continue to function . To a series of
leading questions , Bowers said that Price did not
say that they would have to have a strike.
General Foreman Winfrey, to some leading
questions , responded that Price said if the Union
won there would probably be demands made which
the Company could not meet and they would go on
strike . As an example Winfrey was asked:
Q. Did Mr. Price make any reference to a
contract if the Union won the election?
A. No sir . Well, he said if the Union won
there would probably be demands made of the
Company which they could not meet and they
would go on strike.
Q. Tell me whether or not Mr . Price said if
the Union did come in there would not be an
agreement on a contract and there would have
to be a strike?
A. No sir.
The wording here is rather close and there are fine
verbal distinctions being drawn concerning state-
ments made at one meeting in a series of meetings
to a number of employees where the Respondent
had the obvious intention of discouraging union ac-
tivity.
Any ambiguity here was sought by the Respond-
ent to discourage employees and in such circum-
stances credibility should be resolved against it.
In reference to a meeting in which Attorney
Bennett spoke, Winfrey in confirmation of Dono-
who's report stated:
He (Bennett ) said if the Union was voted in
and won the election there would probably be
demands made the Company could not meet,
and the employees would have to exercise their
rights and strike . Also he said the Company
had the right in good economical judgment to
say "No " and also "Hell no."
As to complaint paragraphs 9(i) and (k), I find
that Respondent by its Attorney John Price in
violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act warned the
employees that if they selected the Union , it would
be a futile effort on their part and further he
threatened that the plant would be removed if the
employees engaged in a strike and the employer
were unable to secure replacements.
A campaign of similar nature was indulged in by
Respondent's counsel in a case entitled Hawthorne
Aviation , 161 NLRB 1326.
Respondent's campaign was pitched basically
along the line that if the employees exercised their
legitimate right to organize, that they and manage-
ment would then be on a collision course resulting
in no contract for the employees, no gains for them,
and a strike during which they would be replaced
and would lose their jobs and possessions . The em-
ployees were also assured ' that they could be
replaced easily and permanently . Thus , the tenor of
the whole campaign was not a mere explanation of
what conceivable outcomes could be , but rather a
prediction that there could be no other conceivable
VARO, INC.
outcome than that if the employees organized they
would lose most seriously and would probably lose
their jobs . Where one of the moving parties to such
an eventuality makes this as a flat prediction, it
becomes more than an expression of opinion. It
becomes a prediction as to how management will
react to effect these consequences when it is set
forth by Respondent 's management and counsel.
See Independent, Inc., d/b/a The Daily Advertiser,
165 NLRB 405.
III. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
The petitioner 's first two objections are as fol-
lows:,
1. The Employer, by its agents and employees,
called its employees in groups of 10 to 15 to the of-
fice on several occasions just prior to the date of
the election . During these meetings the employees
were threatened with loss of jobs, wages, and
benefits if the Union won the election.
2. The Employer, by its agents and employees,
discouraged union activities by enforcing a "no-sol-
icitation" rule.
Though the 20 or so meetings were not held in
Respondent 's office , they were held in places away
from the employees ' normal work areas. In the sec-
tions above I have found that the Employer called
these lengthy meetings which were planned by its
counsel and in them coerced the employees in that
it laid out for them that their activities in attempt-
ing to organize a union were futile , and could only
lead to a strike if they were successful in organizing
the Union, which would in turn mean loss of their
jobs with a consequent loss of goods they were
acquiring by credit and loss of their insurance since
the Company would not carry it during the strike. I
have further found that the course of these
meetings in the context of the surrounding viola-
tions including the promulgation of an illegal no-
solicitation rule violated Section 8 ( a)(1) of the
Act.
Respondent urges in its brief that the employees,
if they misunderstood what was said in the
meetings , should have read the booklets which
were made available to them so that they could
more clearly understand what Respondent was
telling them . Certainly the employees were under
no duty to do so. The booklet, although in its latter
part declaiming that it did not say that organization
by the employees was futile , expressly does so in all
of its various sections up to that point , in that it sets
forth numerous and grievous losses which em-
ployees will likely sustain if they organize a union,
and depicts no substantial or legitimate gain that
could ever come from union organization. The
booklet , sometimes in technical language , has but
S No evidence was adduced as to Objections 3 and 4 and so they are not
considered herein
e It would seem that if it were shown that this booklet were distributed to
2077
one purpose and this is to discourage union activi-
ties. But the disclaimer toward its end cannot serve
to wipe out the patently clear message made up to
that point.
The Board has always endeavored to provide a
free choice for the employees in deciding whether
or not they wish to have a union as their collective-
bargaining representative . This booklet which was
put out by management as their policy in regard to
unions goes a long way to remove the air of
freedom the Board wishes to nourish . Certainly
here where it was placed in the hands of the em-
ployees together with the several statements of su-
pervisors and the remarks of Bennett , Price, and
Parker in the meetings and against the background
of the Company 's restrictive illegal policies, there is
no question but that the employees were denied a
legitimate opportunity to freely choose between
having a union organization or not. Here it was
made perfectly clear to them that they could only
lose if they sought to and did organize.6
I therefore find that objections 1 and 2 have been
proven and recommend that the election which was
held on December 18 be set aside and that a new
election be held at such time as the effects of the
unfair labor practices found herein are dissipated to
the extent that a free and fair election may be held.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion II, above , occurring in connection with the
Respondent 's operations described in section I,
above , have a close , intimate , and substantial rela-
tionship to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the
unfair labor practices as set forth above , I recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act as follows:
I have found that Respondent discriminatorily
transferred Robert Cherry from his position as an
inspector -trainee back to his former position as en-
gine lathe operator on September 11, 1967,
because of his union sympathies , activities, and
desires. I therefore recommend that Respondent
place him again in the position of an inspector-
trainee and give him a fair opportunity to become
an inspector , and that Respondent make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
all the employees as Respondent 's official position , the message of this
booklet would be sufficient in itself to prevent the holding of a free and fair
election
2078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of his not becoming an inspector in the course of
his normal promotion to such duties 1 month after
beginning his original training in September 1967,
since there is uncontradicted testimony that all in-
spector -trainees up until that time had become in-
spectors . Such increase in pay is to be computed on
a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in F . W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to
be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 1 further recom-
mend that Respondent make available to the
Board , on request , payroll and other records in
order to facilitate the checking of the amount of
backpay due Robert Cherry.
Respondent has also interfered with its em-
ployees ' rights by maintaining and publishing a dis-
criminatory written no -solicitation rule and a dis-
criminatory oral no -solicitation rule. I therefore
recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
discriminatorily promulgating or enforcing its writ-
ten and oral no-solicitation rules. Further , Respond-
ent has threatened its employees with discharge
for violating its discriminatory rules, threatened its
employees with reprisals if a union were selected to
impress upon them the futility of selecting a union,
promised its employees economic benefits if they
refrained from becoming union members or giving
support to it, warned its employees that selecting
the Union would be a futile effort , and threatened
that the plant would be removed if the employees
engaged in a strike and the employer were unable
to secure replacements because of such strike.
Due to the violation as to Robert Cherry , and the
violations of Section 8(a)(1) noted above and to
the manner of Respondent 's vehement campaign
against the Union and its animus towards the Union
and because the rights of Respondent 's employees
have been seriously invaded by Respondent's ac-
tions , I am of the opinion that the danger exists
Respondent will commit further unfair labor prac-
tices , having shown by these violations their
proclivities for violating the Act . I therefore recom-
mend that Respondent be placed under a broad en-
joiner to cease and desist from in any other manner
infringing on the rights guaranteed its employees by
the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the en-
tire record , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Varo, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce 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 discriminatorily transferring Robert Cherry
on September 11, 1967, and not thereafter having
reinstated him to his position as an inspector-
trainee because of his union activities and desires,
Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a)(3) and ( 1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act by.
(a) Publishing and promulgating an illegal no-
solicitation rule in its booklet "You and Varo."
(b) Promulgating an illegal oral no-solicitation
rule by various of its supervisors.
(c) Enforcing the written and oral no-solicitation
rules against employees.
(d) Threatening its employees with reprisals if
they selected a union as their collective -bargaining
representative in order to impress upon them the
futility of selecting a union.
(e) Promising its employees economic benefits if
they refrained from becoming or remaining mem-
bers of the Union or giving it assistance.
(f) Warning its employees that selecting the
Union would be a futile effort.
(g) Threatening its employees with removal of
the plant if they should engage in a strike and the
Employer be unable to secure replacements for
them during the strike.
[Recommended Order omitted from publica-
tion.]