Glazer Wholesale Drug Co. of New Orleans, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 26, 1970181 N.L.R.B. 304 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Glazer Wholesale Drug Company of New Orleans, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO Local No. P591. Cases 15-CA-3507, 15-RC-4102 February 26, 1970 DECISION, ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On November 21, 1969, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the aforesaid conduct had interfered with the Board election of May 14, 1969, in the representation proceeding, and recommended that the said election be set aside and that a new election be held. The Trial Examiner further recommended that other allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations' of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Glazer Wholesale Drug Company of New Orleans, Inc , New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified. 1. Delete paragraph 1(i) of the Recommended Order in toto and reletter the succeeding paragraph accordingly. 2. Delete the penultimate substantive paragraph from the Appendix to the Trial Examiner's Decision. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on May 14, 1969, in Case 15-RC-4102, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 15 to conduct a new election when he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. [Direction of Second Election' omitted from publication.] 'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1235, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company 394 U S 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the 'In the light of the numerous violations of the Act which the Trial Examiner has found , we find it unnecessary to pass upon nor do we decide whether the Respondent also violated the Act when, in the circumstances described by the Trial Examiner , Hall and Pickett absented themselves for the purpose of having the antiunion petition notarized In view of the Trial Examiner's finding that manager Clark knowingly paid employees Hall and Pickett for their time off in getting a petition notarized that sought to get the Union to withdraw its objections to the election, Member Jenkins agrees with the Trial Examiner that this conduct when viewed against the backdrop of Respondent ' s other unfair labor practices "was aimed at stunting .he Union's organizational endeavors" and was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 'In adopting the Trial Examiner 's recommendation that the election in Case 15-RC-4102 be set aside , we do not adopt his comment that, after the appropriate posting period , the Regional Director might be persuaded that the conduct of a second election would be administratively inadvisable MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner: With all parties represented, this proceeding was tried before me in New Orleans, Louisiana, on June 24 and 25, 1969, on complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed thereto by Glazer Wholesale Drug Company of New Orleans, Inc , herein called the Respondent.' Joined with the complaint are Objections to an election conducted by the Board in Case 15-RC-4102 among Respondent's employees on May 14, 1969, which were lodged by Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local P591, herein called the Union, and which the Regional Director for Region 15 consolidated with Case 15-CA-3507 for hearing by order dated June 18, 1969. At issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter In his "Supplemental Decision and Order directing counting of challenged ballots and hearing on objections," the Regional Director 'The complaint, which issued on April 30 , 1969, is based upon charges filed on March 17, 1969 and served on March 18, 1969 181 NLRB No. 50 GLAZER WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY 305 also referred for decision by the presiding Trial Examiner the question of whether the foregoing alleged acts of misconduct by Respondent, which antedated the election, so interfered with the employees' freedom of choice as to require the holding of a second election. All parties were afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally at the close of the hearing, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have been duly considered Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs submitted to me, and upon my observation of the demeanor of each witness while testifying, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Respondent is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana At its principal office and place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana, it is engaged in the wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages. During the annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent received alcoholic beverages valued in excess of $50,000 at its establishment in New Orleans which were shipped directly to it from points located outside of the State of Louisiana The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is undisputed and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Contentions The complaint alleges that, on or about March 12, 1969,2 Respondent's Manager Sam S. Clark, who is admittedly a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Statute, engaged in a series of acts which interfered with, restrained and coerced Respondent's employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).' The General Counsel also pleads that, on or about the same date, Warehouse Foreman Cleveland J. Fontanille, whose supervisory status is also conceded by Respondent, indulged in additional acts of misconduct which were offensive to Section 8(a)(1) 4 Finally, the General Counsel asserts that the foregoing activities of Clark and Fontanille warrant setting aside the election For its part, Respondent denies the commission of any labor practices proscrih.d by the Statute and urges that the election results be allowed to stand. 'All dates herein fall in 1969 'At the hearing , the General Counsel amended the complaint to add the allegation that, on or about June 17, Clark encouraged and assisted employees in the solicitation , circularization and-formalization of an antiunion petition in violation of Section 8(a)(l) 'Without opposition , the undersigned Trial Exayimer granted the General Counsel' s motion, made at the hearing , to delete paragraph 8(g) of the complaint which alleged that "On or about March 13, 1969, [Fontanelle ] created an impression of surveillance by orally informing an employee that Respondent had a list of names of the employees who B Background and Procedural Issue It is undisputed and I find that, beginning around March 3, the Union launched an organizational campaign among Respondent's employees by distributing authorization cards to the men outside Respondent's warehouse By letter of March 6, the Union notified the employees who had signed the designations that a meeting had been scheduled for March 11 to discuss its organizational efforts. The letter added that a petition for a representation election would be filed with the Board as soon as a sufficient number of signed cards had been obtained from the employees The meeting attracted the attendance of approximately 10 to 12 of the men The Union petitioned the Board for an election on March 12 and, on March 16, a second meeting was conducted among the interested employees. On March 17, the Union lodged unfair labor practice charges against Respondent alleging that, between March 12 and March 14, Supervisors Clark and Fontanille engaged in various acts of misconduct violative of Section 8(a)(1).' The same day, that labor organization executed a document entitled "Request to Proceed," in which it asked "the Regional Director to proceed with the above-captioned representation case [Case 15-RC-4102], notwithstanding the charges of unfair labor practices filed in Case 15-CA-3507 " Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Region on April 18, the balloting was conducted on May 14. The ensuing tally of ballots disclosed that, of approximately 21 eligible voters, 9 cast their votes for and 9 voted against the Union, with 3 ballots challenged On May 16, the Union filed 4 Objections to conduct of the Respondent which allegedly affected the outcome of the election 6 In a Supplemental Decision issued by the Region on June 4, 2 of the challenges were overruled and a hearing was directed on the outstanding Objections. Thereafter, on June 18, the Regional Director promulgated a revised tally of ballots which revealed that the Union had lost the election by a vote of 9 to 11. On the same date, he issued an order consolidating Cases 15-CA-3507 and 15-RC-4102 for hearing. A threshhold procedural issue is raised by Respondent's argument that, as the charges which the Union filed on March 17 were identical to the Objections which the Union lodged on May 16 after its election loss, and inasmuch as the Union filed a "Request to Proceed" with the election on March 17 despite the pendency of the charges, it was unfair for the General Counsel further to process the Union's Objections because it was thereby afforded "two bites at the apple " Respondent consequently urges that the representation petition be severed from the complaint proceeding, that the petition be dismissed, and that the results of the election be certified in its favor The short answer to this argument is that the Union, when it filed its petition on March 12, was entitled to harbor the belief that the Respondent would refrain from indulging in misconduct which would make a free and untrammeled election impossible. While the Union may attended the union meeting " 'Another charge in Case No 15-CA-3507-2 was filed on March 17 by the Union claiming that Respondent violated Section 8 (aX3) of the Act by discharging an employee named August Lewis This charge was dismissed by the Regional Director as lacking in merit 'With the approval of the Region, the Union was permitted to withdraw 3 of the 4 Objections, leaving viable only those Objections which find their parallel in the allegations contained in the original complaint 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have erred in thinking that it could win its representational rights through an election in the face of Respondent's misconduct, and hence decided to proceed with the balloting in spite of the outstanding unfair labor practices, this does not dictate the conclusion that it thereby became harnassed to a single, Statutory course of action. In Bernel Foam Products Co , Inc .' the Board observed that there existed no legislative warrant for imposing upon a labor organization which seeks to represent employees an "irrevocable option as to the method it will pursue in seeking vindication of the employees' representation rights while permitting the offending party to enjoy at the expense of public policy the fruits of such unlawful conduct" Moreover, nothing contained in the "Request to Proceed" evidences any intention on the part of that organization to waive the right which it otherwise possessed to press a valid post-election claim that Respondent committed wrongdoings which affected the results of the vote Inasmuch as I have hereinafter found that Respondent engaged in a series of acts violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Statute between March 12 and 14 which affected the election's outcome, I find no merit in Respondent's argument and I reject it 9 I turn next to a consideration of the facts surrounding Respondent's charged misconduct C. The Alleged Improper Activities of Supervisors Clark and Fontanille Between March 12 and 14 As heretofore chronicled, the Union started its organizational drive at Respondent's warehouse in early March. Its initial meeting with the employees was conducted on the evening of March 11. It is undisputed and I find that Manager Sam Clark first became aware of the Union's efforts at 11:30 p.m on March 11 when he returned home from a dinner engagement and discovered a note from his daughter informing him that someone had called to report that his employees had attended a Union meeting that night Employee Linell Holly testified that he had worked for Respondent for about 3 months prior to the March II meeting which he attended. Shortly after he began work on the morning of March 12, he was summoned to Clark's office for the first time during his employment with the company. Clark opened the conversation by asking Holly how long he had been employed and what his rate of pay was. When Holly answered that he had toiled for .Respondent for 3 months and was receiving $1 65 per hour, Clark announced that he "was going to give me a ten cent raise and that starting next week that I would be getting $1.75 an hour." According to Holly, management had not apprised him at the time of his hire that he would be awarded a wage increase after 3 months' employment, and he believed that the added wage increment was reflected in the paycheck which he received on March 13, the day following his conversation with Clark. Holly further testified that, after Clark gave notification of the impending wage raise, the latter stated, "Now, I understand that you all have been having meetings about a Union" and Clark inquired whether '146 NLRB 1277 'Ibid at p 1280 'I would note that Respondent does not raise the claim that the Objections lacked timeliness under the rule expressed by the Board in Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company. 134 NLRB 1275 Holly had any information concerning the matter. Holly denied any knowledge of such meetings, at which juncture Clark proceeded to spell out the existing fringe benefits which the employees were accorded by Respondent, including a Christmas bonus, a profit sharing plan, a money lending program, and other forms of assistance to the men. Although Holly had learned of these benefits through scuttlebutt among his fellow workers, his testimony is undenied and I find that no official of Respondent had previously imparted this intelligence to him Clark then asked Holly whether he was satisfied with his terms and conditions of employment and, when Holly responded in the affirmative, Clark "told me if I found out anything about the Union, where the Union hall was located, who attends the meetings, where the meetings were taking place, who was pushing the Union and what and where the Union hall was located, to either talk to his office and let him know or either phone him at his home and let him know." Clark, who admittedly was opposed to the unionization of his employees, because "we had never had a Union, and we had been a very happy family and I had no reason to want it otherwise," conceded that he entered into a discussion with Holly on March 12 during which the former inquired whether Holly had attended the Union meeting on the previous evening and whether he had any problems or was dissatisfied with working for the Respondent. Clark also admitted that he questioned between six and eight employees on March 12 about the Union meeting "For my own information, I wanted to know what was going on," and that some of the workers asked whether they would be fired because of their activities After interrogating the employees, Clark placed a telephone call to his home office in Dallas, Texas, to report on the Union's operations at the warehouse and to receive advice of counsel. Counsel told Clark either on the evening of March 12 or the morning of March 13 "that anything I had done up to this time was all right, but from now on there would be no raises until we know what's going on." While Clark testimonially claimed that he did not threaten employees with discharge or other adverse changes in their working conditions, and did not promise any economic benefits in the course of his colloquies with them on March 12 in order to wean them away from the Union's embrace, Holly's testimony stands undenied and I find that Clark interrogated him as to whether he and his fellow employees had attended Union meetings; for the first time outlined Respondent's fringe benefits after learning of the Union's organizational campaign; and, directed Holly to funnel information to Clark concerning the Union movement at the warehouse, the identity of the labor organization involved, and the identity of its most active adherents. In his testimony, Clark proclaimed that he reached a decision to grant wage increases to his men well in advance of his acquisition of any knowledge that the Union had entered upon the scene. According to Clark, he made it a practice of evaluating each employee's performance every 6 months, in collaboration with Foreman Fontanille, to ascertain which employee merited a pay raise. Under normal circumstances, this evaluation and the award of the increases would have taken place during the last week in January or early February However, Clark related that the customary appraisal was deferred on this occasion because of a combination of factors. On January 10, he embarked on a business trip for approximately 2 weeks and, when he returned, he learned that one of his drivers had committed suicide GLAZER WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY 307 which required his time and attention, with the result that ,.we had no time to actually go into the raises until approximately January 20th." In early February, Clark was called out of town because of a death in the family. On February 21, he again sat down with Fontanille and, armed with a payroll journal for the pay-period ending February 20, they collectively checked off the names of the deserving employees with the amount of increases and Clark made a notation on the document, directed to Fontanille, that "this is effective 3-7-69." Clark went on to explain that March 7 constituted the beginning of a new pay-period and that the increases were reflected in the paychecks which the employees received on March 14. When queried as to why he waited until March 14 to implement his February 21 decision to afford the wage increases , Clark remarked that it was "Standard procedure. We usually discuss when we are going to do it, do it at that date. I never do anything overnight." Finally, Clark maintained that he made no mention of pay raises to the employees during his conversations on March 12, claiming that it was part of Fontan ille's duties to convey this intelligence to the work complement. Employee Earnest Hill had been employed by Respondent for approximately 2 years. On March 3, he joined the Union. Hill testified that, when he appeared for work on the morning of March 12, Clark called to him and invited Hill to Clark's office. It is uncontroverted and I find that Clark had never conversed with Hill during the entire period of the latter's employment. When they arrived at the office, Clark inquired whether Hill had attended the Union gathering on the previous evening. After Hill asked to what meeting Clark had reference, Clark stated "that the guys was passing out cards for the Union, and that he knew that I was there at the meeting." Clark then questioned Hill as to whether he was satisfied working for the company and, when Hill answered in the affirmative, Clark commented that "the Union was breaking up a happy family . he had did favors for some of the guys, and they turned their back on him . . he said they came to him when they needed him to borrow money or to get out of jail, and he said if they needed to borrow money they would have to go to the Union." Hill rejoined that if his fellow employees decided to support the Union he would follow the same course Clark terminated the conversation by informing Hill that Clark "was going to give me a raise , but he wasn ' t sure. He had to wait and see." Nevertheless, Hill did receive a wage increase in his March 13 paycheck which was made effective on March 7. However, it is Hill's testimony that he was unaware that Respondent had granted him an increase until May 13, the day he received it. Clark acknowledged on the stand that he invited Hill into his office on March 12 and inquired whether Hill had been to the Union meeting and "one thing and another " Upon being asked whether he made any statements in this discussion with Hill to the effect that if the employees were in need of money they should seek out the Union, Clark replied, "No, the only statements I made was that in the past I have been able to lend money out of my own pocket. I don't know what will happen now." Clark finally gave an "absolutely not" answer to a question as to whether he had promised the employees a wage raise if they abandoned their support for the Union Like Hill, employee Edmond Cummings worked for Respondent for 2 years He executed a Union authorization card on March 4 and attended all the Union meetings , including the one conducted on March 11 Cummings testified that, late in the afternoon of March 12, he entered Clark's office where the latter initially inquired , " Mike, what ' s going on9" Cummings responded, "We're trying to get a little Union going on." Clark retorted, "I know you I know you're an instigator on the night crew, and August Lewis is on the day crew When it comes time to vote, which way will you vote?" Cummings stated that he was undecided. Clark thereupon commented that "two guys had called him the night of the meeting 11:30 at night at his home, and told him that I [Cummings ] helped direct the meeting " Cummings rejoined that this information was erroneous inasmuch as he had arrived at the session a- half hour late, to which Clark replied that "some of your friends must be lying on you." Clark added that "If you need any favors, go to the Union," and the dialogue was concluded with Clark's statement that Cummings "was going to get a raise, but since the Union came up and I was for it, I wasn't going to get anything , and nobody wasn ' t going to get nothing until after all of this is over with. And that he wasn't going to waste his time on August Lewis ." Neither Cummings nor Lewis received wage increases in their March 14 paychecks. During his testimony , Clark did not deny questioning Cummings about the Union meeting or about his Union inclinations . Nor did he deny telling Cummings that the former knew that Cummings was a Union activist on the night crew and that employee Lewis occupied the same role during the day shift Moreover , Cummings' averments stand uncontradicted that Clark stated he had learned from two employees that Cummings had directed the Union meeting Employee Matthew Young joined the Union and went to the March 11 meeting He testified that, a day or two after this convocation , he was at work when Clark approached and inquired whether Young had received two telephone messages that day which had been attached to his time card. After Young acknowledged their receipt, Clark asked, "Are you having any problems9" When Young replied in the negative, Clark posed the query, "Are you going to a meeting9" Young expressed puzzlement at this remark , stating "I don ' t know nothing about no meeting." Whereupon , Clark smiled and broke off the discussion Clark recalled the foregoing conversation with Young. According to Clark, it was customary for the office employees to receive personal telephone calls for the warehousemen and, to insure that the men received the messages , they were appended to the time cards. On the date in question , Clark was aware that Young had been called twice and, spying Young outside his office, Clark asked whether Young had gotten the messages. When Young replied in the affirmative, Clark inquired, "Have you any problems." This inquiry, according to Clark, was prompted by the fact that "the boy had had problems with the Police and so forth " Young assured Clark that all was well Upon being asked whether he queried Young about attending a Union meeting, Clark responded that "I might have mentioned `Are you going to a meeting tonight?' " However, Clark then stated that the query, although having reference to a Union meeting, was not put in a serious vein and that "I was laughing all the time." It is undisputed and I find that, on March 12, Clark told Holly that the former had learned of a Union meeting on the previous evening and interrogated Holly as to whether he had any information concerning it. It is also uncontroverted and I find that, on March 12, Clark interrogated employees Hill and Cummings, and on 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD March 13 or 14, Young, as to whether they had attended the Union gathering of March II Moreover, by his own admission , Clark questioned other employees along the same lines . The complaint alleges and I conclude that this interrogation was coercive in the context of Respondent's entire course of conduct in the proceeding, and I conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Statute. Hill testified that, after Clark expressed his chagrin during their March 12 conversation over his employees' desire for Union representation, the latter cautioned that Respondent would henceforth withhold financial assistance for employees' personal needs Cummings testified in a similar vein. During his examination, Clark initially denied that he had uttered such a statement. He then allowed as how "the only statements I made was that in the past I have been able to lend money out of my own pocket. I don't know what will happen now." However, Clark failed to illuminate this record with any cogent or reasonable explanation as to why the well of Respondent's largesse would suddenly run dry after years of affording loans to the men. The testimony of Hill and Cummings was given in a forthright and sincere manner and I credit it on this score. I therefore find that, on March 12, Clark warned these employees that they would be deprived of company loans if they cast their lot with the Union and that Respondent thereby offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1). The testimony of Cummings is uncontradicted and I find that, in his discussion with Clark on March 12, Clark told Cummings that he knew that the latter was the most active Union supporter on the night shift and that another employee played the same role on the day crew, and he further knew that Cummings assisted in running the Union meeting on March 11. It is also undenied and I find that on the same date, Clark informed Hill that the former knew Hill had attended the March II meeting. By this conduct, I conclude that Respondent created the impression that the Union activities of its employees had been placed under surveillance and that, in consequence, Respondent intruded upon the rights of its employees protected under Section 8(a)(I). Hill also testified that, after he informed Clark in their March 12 discussion that he would support the Union if his fellow employees chose to do so, Clark remarked that he "was going to give me a raise, but he wasn't sure. He had to wait and see." Cummings testimonially related that, when he told Clark that he and the other men were "trying to get a little Union goir.g," and after Clark had accused Cummings and Lewis of being the chief Union instigators in the warehouse, Clark retorted that Cummings "was going to get a raise, but since the Union came up and I was for it, I wasn't going to get anything, and nobody wasn't going to get nothing until after all of this is over with. And he wasn't going to waste his time on August Lewis." Moreover, Holly averred that, on March 12, Clark promised to increase the former's hourly wage from $1.65 to $1.75 if Holly spied upon his fellow employees' Union activities for Respondent. While Clark entered a general denial that he had threatened to withhold economic benefits, such as wage increases, during the interrogations which he conducted on March 12, or that he had promised escalated wage rates to employees if they participated in acts of espionage for Respondent, I do not credit his denials Clark admittedly was concerned by the incursions which the Union was making among his employees and he interrogated each of them in order to assess the Union's strength on March 12. With respect to Holly, this employee's testimony stands undenied that Clark asked him whether he had any information concerning the Union meeting of March 11. Moreover, Respondent's own exhibit shows that Holly did, indeed, receive a raise of 10 cents per hour in his paycheck on March 14 in spite of the fact that, by his own admission, Clark had been instructed by counsel, either on the evening of March 12 or the morning of March 13, that "from now on there would be no raises until we know what's going on." Regarding Cummings, whom Clark suspected of being the main Union supporter on his shift, the record shows that, true to Clark's prediction, Cummings was not awarded a merit increase on March 14 although Clark provided no reason for this happenstance Nor did Fontanille Finally, Fontanelle and Clark admittedly made it a practice to consult with each other concerning wage policies and Fontanille was contacted on two occasions by Clark on March 12 from whom he received information and instructions about the Union's organizational efforts In view of the fact that Fontanille concededly told Hill and other employees that wage benefits would be withheld because of the advent of the Union, I find Hill's testimony both reasonable and persuasive that he was told by Clark on the same day that Respondent might deny a wage increase to him because of the Union In sum, I credit the testimony of Hill, Cummings, and Holly and find that, on March 12, in separate interviews with them, Clark threatened to deprive Hill of a wage increase because the latter had espoused the Union's cause, and Clark fulfilled his threat with respect to Cummings by withholding a pay raise because he believed that Cummings was the most active Union supporter on his shift By these threats, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find that, on March 12, Clark promised Holly an hourly wage increase of 10 cents in the hope that he would spy on the Union activities of his fellow workers. I therefore conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) In his pleadings, the General Counsel asserts that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with the loss of Christmas bonuses and profit sharing funds due to their Union inclinations. The only testimony relating to this allegation came from the mouth of employee Holly He related that, after Clark inquired about his attendance at and knowledge of the Union meeting, Clark proceeded to enumerate the fringe benefits which Respondent afforded to the warehouse complement. So far as this record stands, there is nothing in Clark's testimony, either express or implied, which evinces any threat to deprive the employees of those benefits in the event that they joined or supported the Union. Nor has the General Counsel come forth with any probative evidence supportive of this allegation. I shall therefore dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated the Act in this regard." "During his examination , Hall was questioned about Respondent's policy of permitting employees to purchase liquor at wholesale prices Hall testified that , each Friday morning, employees who desired to buy liquor would so inform the cashier who would then prepare a purchase order billed in the name of an established , wholesale customer The reason for this procedure was that Respondent, as a wholesale liquor merchant, could not lawfully vend its merchandise to employees at the wholesale figure Hall claimed that Clark was aware of Respondent 's policy in this regard, and that this benefit was curtailed when the Union commenced its organizational campaign at the warehouse In his testimony , Clark averred without contradiction that the sale of alcoholic beverages at wholesale to other than retailers was strictly prohibited by State law Clark remembered GLAZER WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY 309 Warehouse Foreman Fontanille, who immediately supervises the 21 employees engaged at Respondent's warehouse, normally reports for work at 11 a m., some 5 hours after Manager Clark assumes his duties Fontanille testified and I find that he first learned of the Union's attempt to enlist the collective support of Respondent's employees early on the morning of March 12 when he received a telephone call from Clark who related that a Union meeting had been convened on the previous night Clark inquired whether Fontanille was aware of the Union's efforts at the installation. Fontanille expressed ignorance Clark then put Fontanille on notice that "they [the employees] are trying to start a Union." Later that day, Fontanille met with Clark and received additional information concerning the Union's drive This intelligence prompted Fontanille to summon each employee under his command for a personal interview on March 12 because, in Fontanille's words, he "wanted to know if they disliked me." Although Fontanille claimed that he was in no rush to canvass his employees' sentiments, he confessed that he felt impelled to sound them out immediately after he heard that they had attended the Union meeting because, according to his narrative, "frankly, I wouldn't want to get tied down with [a union] myself." The content of Fontanille's interviews was related by employees Holly, Hall, Hill, Cummings and Young during their visits to the stand. Holly recounted that, about 2 p.m on March 12, Fontanille beckoned him to the office where Fontanille began the discussion by asking, "I have always treated you right, haven't I, Holly9" Holly replied that this was so, and Fontanille continued, "I've never pushed you, have I, Holly9" Holly again agreed with Fontanille's observation. Fontanille broke off the conversation with the comment that "I get nervous at times . but when I was in the Army I had a lot of colored friends (all of the employees who attended the March 11 meeting were Negroes). That's all I wanted to know, Holly, you can go " Hall recited that, as he was on his way to the front office on March 12, Fontanille instructed him to proceed to a small office in the warehouse. Behind closed doors, his supervisor confided that he knew that a number of his employees had attended the Union gathering the night before, and expressed the view that Hall would prosper more without Union representation because of the excessive levy of Union dues Fontanille thereupon asked whether Hall had signed a Union authorization card. Hall admitted that he had, at which point Fontanille inquired whether Hall had attended the Union meeting of March 11. Hall confessed that he had been in attendance. This evoked Fontanille's response that "at least you are honest about it, the rest of these guys that we know went to the that, on some undefined date while an employee was in the process of placing an order for himself , Clark became aware of this practice for the first time and summarily eliminated it At the hearing, the General Counsel urged that the purchase of liquor at wholesale prices from Respondent was an economic benefit of which the employees were deprived once Respondent learned of their Union proclivities , and that Respondent violated Section 8(aXi) by curbing this practice When the undersigned Trial Examiner inquired whether, assuming Respondent ' s motivation In withdrawing the benefit was bottomed on Statutory discrimination, I should fashion a remedial order directing Respondent to perpetuate an undeniably unlawful policy, the General Counsel deferred response for his brief. Those advocative papers are silent on the issue In view of the violations of Section 8(axl) which I have otherwise found in this Decision, I deem it unnecessary to erect a mound over what is essentially an ant-hole I therefore make no findings and draw no conclusions regarding this issue meeting, that we know signed a card, lied and said that they didn't . we know exactly who went to the meeting, exactly who signed a card, exactly who was going to sign cards " Fontanille pressed Hall as to whether his decision to join the Union was due to his dissatisfaction with Fontanille's and Respondent's treatment of Hall. The latter replied that his sole purpose in seeking a collective bargaining agent was to achieve better wages. Fontanille advised Hall that, during the previous week, he and Clark had devoted countless hours to determine the amount of wage hikes to afford all employees, and a judgment was made to raise the rates of various men from 5 cents an hour to as much as 20 cents. Fontanille noted, however, that because "now that you guys want to put a Union in," only three employees would be granted a pay raise, and he proceeded to name the putative recipients Hall asked whether he was in line for an increase. Fontanille replied that he was uncertain of what Clark's decision with respect to Hall would be, but added that "he doubted whether or not I [Hall] was going to get a raise " Finally, Fontanille told Hall that Respondent "was going to cut the guys loose, that they figured they could do without." When asked to expand upon his understanding of Fontanille's statement, Hall replied, "there's only one way you can take that; in other words, the fellows, like I say the fellows, what he meant was the fellows at the Company they figured they could do without, or the fellows they couldn't use, they were going to let them go." Continuing the testimonial recitation regarding Fontanille's preelection activities, employee Hill averred that, on March 12, he entered into a conversation with Fontanille in the latter's office. According to Hill, Fontanille complained that he and Clark had been "breaking their necks" for the past 2 weeks in an attempt to obtain extra wages for the men and, despite these efforts, "we [the employees] had pulled the Union over him." Fontanille commented that "he didn't know what he was going to do" about the raises in light of the current Union activities of his employees. Fontanille inquired whether Hill had signed a Union authorization card or had attended the Union meeting on March 11. Hill answered both queries in the negative. This response drew an expression of incredulity from Fontanille In line with Fontanille's admitted curiosity about his employees' efforts in support of the Union, Cummings testified that he was summoned to the former's office about 11 a m. on March 12 where Fontanille stated, "Mike [Cummings], I know you're not going to lie to me. I know you was at the meeting last night, and I know you are on a night crew, and are for the Union, and there's one on the day crew that's pushing it up" Cummings acknowledged that he had attended the meeting. Fontanille remarked, "I just want to ask you a simple question. Are you for the Union?" Cummings replied, "if the rest of the guys are for it, yes." Not satisfied with this explanation, Fontanille repeated his question and prodded Cummings about the reasons for his Union adherence, expressing the belief that Cummings and his cohorts might be at odds with Fontanille as a supervisor When Cummings assured his superior that it was money, not personalities, which prompted the employees to support the Union's election drive, Fontanille retorted that, "it didn't make any sense for us to have a Union because he was talking to the men, he was trying to get all of us a raise. . . . now he wasn't gonna do anything for us because of this Union." Fontanille reiterated that all employees had been programmed for a wage increase, and he showed 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cummings a slip of paper setting forth the amount of the planned raise for the witness. However, Fontanille apprised Cummings that "he [Fontanille] wasn't going to give me nothing," that "he wasn't going to give me a raise because of this Union because I was for it " Fontanille concluded the colloquy by again reminding Cummings that Respondent was aware that he was an active participant in the Union campaign because several employees had reported to him that Cummings was "pushing up the Union stuff" and "was passing out cards." Matthew Young testified that he was called into Fontanille's office late in the afternoon of March 12 where he was reminded by his supervisor at the outset of their conversation that the witness had been in jail and that Respondent had used its good offices to obtain his release. Fontanille asked whether Young was displeased with his treatment by the supervisor Young replied that he harbored no complaints against Fontanille Fontanille thereupon inquired whether Young had attended a Union meeting and whether he had received a letter from that labor organization inviting him to do so. Young confessed that he had not. Fontanille rejoined, "Oh, Matthew, don't lie to me." The conversation then ended. As a witness, Fontanelle readily admitted that he had interrogated each and everyone of his employees concerning their attendance at the Union meeting on March l 1 when he interviewed them on the following day. On direct examination by Respondent's counsel, Fontanelle denied that he had threatened any employee with discharge on March 12 for belonging to or supporting the Union, denied that he offered any employee a salary increase if they agreed to inform him of what transpired at Union meetings, and denied that he threatened any employee with loss of company loans, Christmas bonuses, or profit sharing, if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative. When asked by his counsel whether he told the men during his conversations with them that they would not receive any wage increases due to their Union activities, Fontanelle replied that "I told them everything was slow. We couldn't approach them with any raises or anything after we were notified about the Union," and he added that he told them that "while we were negotiating we could not have any salary increases " On cross examination, Fontanille repeated that he mentioned to the employees on March 12 that "there would be no salary increases while [Respondent] was negotiating " He went on to relate that "When we were notified, I was told not to approach any employees or anything. Some of them come asked for their raise and I told them there wasn't a thing I could do about it." He continued that "We were notified, I believe, that we weren't supposed to show any enticement to get the employees on our side of the voting." Upon being asked when he was first notified of this policy, Fontanille replied "it was some day after March 12th, a few days after," and finally conceded that, in light of this chronology, he could not have received any instructions concerning the mention of wage increases when he interviewed the employees on March 12. I do not credit Fontanille's testimony in this or any other regard for, not only did he impress me as lacking in testimonial candor, but also because his sworn words ring with the sound of implausibility. For example, while on the stand, he embarked upon a summarization of Respondent's policy regarding the grant of wage increases. According to Fontanille, he and Clark made it a practice of communing semi-annually to decide which employees merited raises and in what amounts. Clark normally accepted Fontanille's evaluation of the employees and the latter would consequently notify them of their award. Under usual circumstances, the latest evaluation would have occurred in January but, because of a combination of circumstances involving Clark's absence from the city, the supervisors did not convene until February 20 at which time wage awards were determined for certain workers. Fontanille testified that, when increases are decided upon, he personally summons the affected employees to his office to inform them of the raises. Fontanelle stated that he was positive he followed this procedure and summoned the meritorious employees to his office on February 20 to announce the wage awards, and he was equally certain that the pay raises appeared in the checks which the men received on March 7. In light of this testimony, I find it implausible and indeed incongruous that Fontanille would have felt called upon on March 12 to advise his employees that they would not receive wage increases on or after the latter date if, in fact, that increment had been granted to them 5 days earlier. Moreover, the implausible nature of his testimony is heightened by the uncontroverted testimony in this record, as buttressed by the words of Clark, that certain non-Union as well as Union employees received pay increases which were reflected in checks which they received on March 14. I find that, on March 12, Fontanelle interviewed each and every available employee and asked them whether they had attended the Union meeting on March 11. I further find that, on this date, he told Hall that he was aware of the names of all employees who had appeared at the meeting and who had signed Union authorization cards, and Fontanille inquired whether Hall had gone to the Union convocation and had executed an authorization card. I also find that, during their conversation, Fontanille threatened that the Respondent would grant only a limited number of pay increases because the men "want to put a Union in," and warned that Hall might not be one of the recipients because of his Union adherence. Additionally, I find that Fontanelle uttered the threat that the company would rid itself of certain employees and, when viewed in the context of Fontanille's general dialogue with Hall, I find that Hall was reasonably led to believe that Fontanille had in mind the Union supporters. Based upon Hill's credited testimony, I find that, in his conversation with Fontanille on March 12, the latter interrogated Hill as to whether he had attended the Union meeting on the preceding day and whether he had signed a Union card. I also find that Fontanille threatened to withhold pay increases due to the fact that the employees "had pulled the Union over him." I credit the testimony of Cummings and find that, during his colloquy with Fontanille on the aforementioned date, Fontanille reported that he knew that Cummings was the foremost Union advocate on the night crew and that he was aware of the identity of the Union's champion on the day shift, and Fontanille inquired whether Cummings favored the Union. I find that, when Cummings expressed sympathy for collective representation, Fontanelle warned Cummings that he would not receive a merit increase because "I [Cummings] was for" the Union. Finally, I credit the testimony of Young and find that, on March 12, Fontanille asked whether he had been to the Union meeting and whether he had received a letter from that organization inviting him to that gathering. By Fontanille's conduct, as chronicled above, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. GLAZER WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY 311 There remains for decision a final allegation in the complaint aimed at Fontanille. It is undisputed and I find that, for approximately 6 to 8 months prior to the Union's campaign, Respondent made available work uniforms for those men who desired them through contract with an industrial laundry. This arrangement was initially devised in conversations between Clark and Fontanille , and seven of the employees, including Hall, Hill and Cummings, decided to participate in the program. Clark believed that it would be advisable to "make the boys part of it" by bearing $1 of the weekly $3.40 charge Accordingly, each employee who subscribed to the laundry plan suffered a deduction of $1 from his paycheck each Friday when he visited the cashier 's table. Hill testified that the employees were required to wear uniforms but that the majority of the employees declined to do so Around the end of March, Fontanille approached him to report that the $1 charge would no longer be assessed against the employees who had chosen the service , stating that "he was going to stop letting us pay the dollar a week for uniforms, because they didn't have enough getting them, and he said they were going to pay themselves." Hall related that, after either the first Union meeting on March 11, or the second held on March 16, Respondent stopped deducting the $1 tariff from his paycheck without his prior notification Cummings recounted that Respondent's cashier ceased making the deduction about 2 weeks after the commencement of the Union campaign. In his testimony , Fontanille insisted that the decision to eliminate the laundry charge was reached jointly with Clark on February 20 when they arrived at a consensus with regard to the grant of wage raises and, like the pay increases , the elimination of the laundry impost took effect on March 7, before either Clark or he had become aware of the Union's presence I do not credit Fontanille's testimonial assertion on this issue, mainly because it lacks firm support from the utterances of Clark and smacks of contrivance. Clark initially claimed that he had had a discussion with Fontanille in February about the elimination of the laundry charge and that their decision to assume the cost was reflected in the men's paychecks of March 7 Clark explained that their reason for pursuing this course of action was occasioned by the circumstance that "It got to be so much a burden on the cashier, that I said, [Fontanille], let's just cut it out. We'll just take up - eat the whole ball of wax at the same time maybe all the fellows will be in uniforms and everything will be for the better," a chant which Fontanille also refrained by stating that it was "too much book work for the cashier " However, when pressed on cross-examination as to the precise date on which the tariff was eliminated, Clark allowed as how it might have been on March 14. I am not convinced that Respondent added the emolument of $1 to the paychecks of 7 of his 21 employees because of any enlarged administrative duties imposed upon the cashier, nor am I persuaded that this beneficence occurred prior to Respondent's knowledge that the Union was beating at the warehouse doors. The cashier's burden had existed for some 6 to 8 months without any evident complaint Clark himself conceded that the assumption of the cost of laundry charges may have been undertaken on March 14, after he and Fontanille had learned of the Union ' s drive I am therefore persuaded and find that Respondent decided to and did advance an economic benefit to its employees by taking over the entire cost of the laundry service after it became aware of their adherence to the Union, not because of business considerations, but in order to cause their defection from its ranks. By so doing, I conclude that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The Alleged Improprieties of Sam Clark on June 17 and June 18 It is undisputed and I find that, a few weeks after the election, Respondent's employees learned that the Union had filed Objections with the Board to overturn the results of the balloting and obtain another vote Employee Hall testified without contradiction and I find that he and several fellow employees visited the Union's offices on approximately three occasions in an abortive attempt to induce Union President Lanier to withdraw his Objections and permit the election results to stand. However, Cummings and another employee managed to reach Lanier and the latter informed the men that he intended to press the Union's Objections because "he didn't want no bad name in there saying that he quit on us, to make it look like he quit it." Lanier added that "he's going to fight it to the finish, whatever way it goes whether he wins or loses" and that "he wasn't going to drop it even if you [the employees] wanted it dropped " Following this rebuff, I find that Hall was approached by employee Michael Pickett on June 17 and a discussion ensued regarding the Union's persistence in its search for another election Pickett suggested that they draft a petition for signature by all employees in the unit signifying that they did not desire that the Union press the Objections which it had filed. Hall, who had been one of the most active supporters of that labor organization, readily agreed to this course of action and he proceeded to draw up such a petition which was typed by a secretary in Manager Clark's office. The secretary cautioned the two men not to bring her activities to the attention of Clark, and I find that Clark was unaware that the services of his secretary had been utilized Thereupon, Hall and Pickett obtained the signatures of all warehousemen who had voted in the election, as well as the newly hired employees When they met again on the morning of June 18, Pickett advised Hall that it might be desirable to notarize the document, and Pickett suggested that they visit the offices of his attorney to have this ministerial act performed However, prior to leaving the warehouse, and according to Hall's testimony, the two men journeyed to Clark's office where they informed Clark of their intended legal mission. Clark explained to Hall and Pickett that "he could have nothing to do with this, wouldn't have nothing to say about it, because of the position he was in, you know, he could not talk to us, he couldn't do nothing for us. But he did say if he could, he would pay for us to have it notarized, and he would send us to a lawyer if he could but he couldn't do nothing for us. In other words, what we had to do, we had to do it on our own." It is Hall's further testimony that their conversation with Clark occurred on company time and, as they were about to leave for the attorney's office at about 10 a.m., Clark "told us we could take time off and we could go and have it [the petition] notarized " In consequence of Clark's instructions, and without clocking out, Hall and Pickett drove to the lawyer's office where the petition was sworn to. They then proceeded to deliver copies of the document to the General Counsel and the Union When they returned to the warehouse at approximately 1 or 2 p.m on June 18, they presented a copy to Clark. It is undisputed and I find that these employees were compensated by Respondent for the time spent while they 312 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD absented themselves from company premises during working hours It is also undisputed and I find that each employee who became a signatory to the petition did so voluntarily, without any encouragement or assistance by Respondent's officials or agents Clark's version of the events surrounding the drafting, signing and notarization of the petition goes as follows. At I 1 a m. on June 17 while he was holding a meeting in his office with some wholesale liquor dealers, Hall and Pickett appeared at his door and beckoned to him. Outside, they confided that they had an important message for Clark and, despite his protestations that he was busy, he granted them an audience . Thereupon, the employees unfolded' the petition to him Clark's first reaction was to inform the men that " I don't want to have no part of anything like this. I cannot . I am bound not to have any part of it ." Hall and Pickett inquired whether it was permissible to take this action in ridding themselves of the Union, to which Clark replied that he could not offer them any "advice whatsoever about it." At this time, the petition did not bear any of the employees' signatures. Clark denied that he was aware that his secretary had typed the document for Hall and Pickett until he was so apprised by the men , as a result of which he thereafter verbally reprimanded the lady, and I so find. He also denied that he knew that Hall and Pickett had obtained the signatures on company time and , for want of any evidence to the contrary, I further so find. Clark also testified that , on the morning of June 18, he received another visit from Hall and Pickett at which time they showed him the petition which bore the signatures of his employees . The emissaries told Clark of their intention to proceed to Pickett's attorney and have the petition notarized, to which Clark responded that "I did not want any part of it whatsoever." Clark acknowledged that the employees informed him that they were about to leave the warehouse during working time to have the document legally witnessed . However , he claimed that he was ignorant of the fact that they had failed to-clock out before they left, or clock in when they returned. Clark conceded , however, that , according to Respondent's personnel policies, employees "are supposed to" clock out when they leave the premises on private business, but he claimed that he did not personally investigate whether this procedure was followed on that occasion because "I have enough to do besides that " Clark then added that "I never tell them [the employees] please to check out." I do not credit Clark's testimony that he was unaware that Hall and Pickett departed the warehouse on June 18 to formalize a petition to remove the Union from the scene or that he did not know that they were paid for the time so spent , because his testimony and that of Warehouse Manager Fontanille , his lieutenant, do not hang together . Fontanille testified that he left for a vacation in Las Vegas on June 15 and did not return until after the episode regarding the petition had been concluded . During his absence , an individual named Raymond Helmesteader performed Fontanille 's duties and assumed his responsibilities , acting under the direct supervision of Clark. In his testimony , Fontanille recited that it was normal operating procedure, whenever an employee desired time off, for the worker to seek permission from Fontanille before leaving his job. Fontanille would thereupon clear the absence with Clark and the former would later monitor the absentee's timecard to determine whether he had properly checked out and in and to certify the proper amount of wages due the employee as a result of his absence . Fontanille, candidly admitted that , while he was on vacation during the salient period, employees were required to notify, Fontanille ' s substitute , Helmesteader , of an intended; absence and that the latter would in turn apprise Clark of,- that absence. Moreover , Fontanille confessed that his,, substitute was fully cognizant of this procedure . In light of Fontanille ' s testimonial averments in this regard , as well as Clark' s acknowledgement that when his underling was away from the warehouse Helmesteader "was sort in,-, -charge, but he had no right to do anything without my- r knowledge," I deem it inconceivable that Clark could have been ignorant of the fact that Hall and Pickett had left the premises during working hours on June 18 in pursuit of their goal to notarize a petition which had as its object the removal of the Union as a burr under Respondent 's saddle, and I am convinced and find that these men were knowingly paid by Clark for their leave of absence while they embarked upon this venture. In his complaint , as amended at the hearing, the General Counsel urged that Clark, by the foregoing conduct, encouraged and assisted his employees in the solicitation , circularization and formalization of an anti- Union petition with the calculated aim of causing his work force to abandon the Union and of forestalling the further processing of the Union's Objections to the election, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act As I have heretofore found, Clark had no knowledge of, and played no part in, the initial formulation and distribution of the petition. I have found, however, that he permitted Hall and Pickett to absent themselves from the warehouse during work time in order to have the denunciatory document notarized, and that he compensated them for the productive time thus lost. This condescension, if viewed in isolation , might normally be considered a harmless error on Respondent's part which would not demand an affirmative finding of illegality or require a companion remedial order But, when considered against the backdrop of the series of unfair labor practices in which Clark and Fontanille otherwise engaged , I am not convinced that this activity should be disregarded. Accordingly, I conclude that, by allowing these employees to leave Respondent ' s installation during working hours to notarize the petition, and by compensating them for the time spent on this junket , Respondent encouraged and assisted them in the formalization of the petition which was aimed at stunting the Union's organizational endeavors , and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by so doing." Despite the commission of the foregoing unfair labor practices , Respondent urges that a new election should not be directed because, during the period between the filing of the election petition on March 12 and the holding of the vote on May 14, Respondent did nothing to impede the electors' choice. Additionally, Respondent contends that, as a result of the defection of all eligible voters from the Union ' s ranks, as evidenced by the document which. they signed on June 17, a second balloting would be unwarranted. While it is true, as I have found, that- Respondent stayed its hand in committing labor practices prohibited by the Act between the critical dates, and although it appears that all of the potential voters may have fallen out of sympathy with the Union by their actions on June 17, I am unable to determine , based upon this record, whether or not Respondent 's earlier unlawful conduct had any pervasive influence upon their defection. "See Cumberland Shoe Company , 160 NLRB 1256 GLAZER WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY' In my opinion, the only sure test of the employees' allegiance can best be measured by another secret ballot. In this connection, it may be that the Regional Director for the Region in which these cases arose might be persuaded that, after the appropriate posting period, the conduct of a second election would be administratively inadvisable. I therefore find no merit in Respondent's contention I have heretofore found and concluded that Respondent indulged in a series of acts and conduct designed to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Statute and, by so doing, thereby created an atmosphere which made it impossible for its employees to express their free choice in the election which was held on May 14. I shall therefore recommend that, in addition to ordering Respondent to refrain from engaging in any like or related unfair labor practices found herein, the election be nullified and that another election be conducted at such time as the Regional Director for Region 15 deems it appropriate IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have also found that Respondent, by the commission of unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, thereby engaged in objectionable conduct which interfered with the election held on May 14 I shall therefore recommend that said election be set aside and another be conducted at such time as may be appropriate Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. .3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the purview of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By the aforesaid unfair labor practices, Respondent has interfered with and illegally affected the results of the Board election held on May 14, 1969. 5. The aforesaid conduct constitutes conduct affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER 313 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section ,10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Glazer Wholesale Drug Company of New Orleans, Inc , New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall. 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their Union sympathies and their attendance at Union meetings, as well as the attendance of their fellow employees at such gatherings, and coercively questioning employees as to whether they had executed authorization cards on behalf of the Union and whether they and their cohorts favored representation by that labor organization (b) Creating the impression that it had, under surveillance the Union activities of its employees by informing them that it was aware of their attendance at Union meetings, that it knew that certain employees were the prime supporters of that labor organization on their respective work shifts; and, that it had been apprised of the names of employees who had signed Union authorization cards (c) Questioning employees as to whether they had received invitations to attend Union meetings (d) Threatening employees that it would withhold periodic merit wage increases because they supported and assisted the Union ' (e) Threatening employees that personal loans would no longer be available to them if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. (f) Threatening employees that Union adherents would be discharged in the event the Union obtained exclusive representative status at its warehouse (g) Promising economic benefits to employees for informing upon the Union activities of their fellow employees. (h) Compensating employees for laundry services in order to induce them to reject the' Union as their collective-bargaining agent. (i) Encouraging and assisting employees in the formalization of a petition designed to impede the Union's representational efforts, by compensating them for time lost from work while accomplishing this deed. (,l) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities 2 Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its warehouse in New Orleans, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 15, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted and maintained I 'in the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings , conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith." IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election conducted in the appropriate unit of Respondent's employees on May 14, 1969, be set aside, and that another election be directed at an appropriate time IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board an agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their activities on behalf of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local P591, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT ask our employees questions about their attendance at Union meetings, or the attendance of their fellow workers at these meetings. WE WILL NOT question our employees about whether they signed Union authorization cards or whether the other men in our warehouse signed these cards. WE WILL NOT make our employees believe that we are spying on their Union activities by telling them that we know who went to Union meetings, that we know who the main supporters of the Union are, or that we know which employees signed Union cards. WE WILL NOT ask our employees if they received letters from the Union inviting them to come to Union meetings WE WILL NOT threaten or warn our warehousemen that they will not receive merit wage increases if they join or help the Union in winning an election at our warehouse WE WILL NOT threaten or warn our men that we will not give them any personal loans if they join or vote for the Union in a National Labor Relations Board election WE WILL NOT threaten or warn our employees that any of them will be fired if they join, help, or vote for the Union WE WILL NOT promise any employee a pay raise for informing us about his fellow employees' Union feelings or their attendance at Union meetings. WE WILL NOT pay any man for the cleaning of his uniform in order to get him to quit the Union or vote against it. WE WILL NOT pay any employee when he leaves the warehouse on company time to go to a lawyer, or any other person, to have a petition notarized to shuck the Union or any other labor union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Dated By GLAZER WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY OF NEW ORLEANS, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation