McKesson & Robbins, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1432 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of MCKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, PRODUCE DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS LOCAL 452, AFL
Case No. ,YO-CA-92.-Decided January 22, 1951
DECISION. AND ORDER
On July 31, 1950, Trial Examiner Alba B..Martin issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock,
and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. . The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below :
1. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. As fully set forth in the In-
termediate Report, the proscribed conduct consisted of interrogation,
threats of reprisal if the Union became the bargaining agent, and
promises of benefit for abandoning or voting against the Union. We
disagree, however, with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re-
spondent's manager, Works, by reading to the assembled employees
a series of questions which appeared in the Respondent's personnel
manual, further violated the Act. The questions were not coercive,
made no promises of benefit, and were not designed to elicit replies
from the listeners about the Union or the union activities of the Re-
92 NLRB No. 216.
1432
McKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED 1433
spondent's employees. We therefore find that the reading of this
series of questions was protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act?
2. The Respondent excepts to the various unfair labor practice find-
ings of the Trial Examiner on the ground that he made erroneous
credibility findings. We do not agree with this contention. Further-
more, as we recently noted in Ozark Hardwood Company,2 the im-
portance of observing the demeanor of witnesses in making findings
of credibility is so great that we will overrule a Trial Examiner's reso-
lution as to credibility only where the clear preponderance of all
relevant evidence convinces us that his resolution was incorrect. No
such conclusion is warranted in this case.$
3.' In its exception and brief, the Respondent charges that the Trial
Examiner at the hearing asked leading questions of the General Coun-
sel's witnesses, failed to stop the General Counsel from leading his
witnesses, and, in the Intermediate Report, unfairly quoted portions
of witnesses' testimony in such a manner as inaccurately to reflect the
over-all testimony. We have carefully scrutinized the record and find
that it does not sustain these charges. In our opinion, the Trial
Examiner conducted the hearing in this case with fairness and impar-
tiality, and the portions of the testimony quoted in the Intermediate
Report accurately reflect the entire testimony of the witnesses involved.
4. In its brief, the Respondent contends that there are variances be-
tween the violations alleged in the Union's charge and the violations
found by the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report. We find
no merit in this contention as the complaint herein alleges the unlawful
conduct which the Trial Examiner found was committed by the
Respondent.'
The Remedy
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's recommendation
of a broad cease and desist order enjoining the Respondent from in
any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by
the Act. Like the Trial Examiner, we are convinced that the unfair
labor practices committed by the Respondent are potentially related
to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that the
danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the,
Respondent's conduct in the past. The, preventive purpose of the
Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat.
I See H. & H. Manufacturing Company, 87 NLRB 1373; Kallaher and Mee Inc., 87
NLRB 410.
2 91 NLRB 1443.
8 See Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544. Cf. Salant & Salant, Incorporated,
92 NLRB 343.
4 See Stokely Foods Inc., 92 NLRB 1290.
929979-51-vol. 92-92
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of` ection 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order
the Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner infringing
>Ipon the rights of employees guaranteed by the Act.5
ORDER
. Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, McKesson & Robbins, Inc.,
Denver, Colorado, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
,-hall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations,
activities, or sympathies, or those of their coworkers, and threatening
its employees with reprisal or promising its employees benefits to in-
fluence their union affiliations or activities or their selection of a bar-
gaining agent;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Pro-
duce Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 452, AFL, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
,extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8. (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
. (a) Post at its warehouse in Denver, Colorado, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked Appendix A ." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirtieth Region, shall,
after being duly. Signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
.including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
5 See N. L. R. B. v. Fitzpatrick and Welter, Inc., 138 F. 2d 697 (C. A. 2, 1943) enfg. 46
NLRB 28; Lerner Shops of 4labama, Inc ., et at., 91 NLRB No. 22.
.16 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a: United States Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice before the words , "Decision and Order," the words , "Decree
pf the United §tates Court of Appeals Enforcing."
MCKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED 1435
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirtieth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to .a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or those of their coworkers,
nor threaten our employees with reprisal or promise them bene-
fits to influence their union affiliations or activities or their selec-
tion of a bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, PRODUCE DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS LOCAL 452, AFL, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such activities,. except to the dx-
tent that such, right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining members of the above-named union or any other
labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
MCKESSON & ROBBINS , INCORPORATED,
Employer.
By ------------ ------------------ ----------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------- ---------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof
and must not.be.altered, defaced, or covered by any other material:
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Mr. William J. Scott, for the General Counsel.
Mr. Jean S. Breitenstein, attorney, and Mr. James Burchard, of Denver, Colo.,
of the Mountain States Employers Council, for the Respondent.
Mr. Robert F. May,. attorney, and Mr. Herbert C. Bailey, of Denver, Colo., for
the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed February 3, 1950 and an amended charge filed March 22,
1950, by Local No. 452, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Gen-
eral Counsel, by the Regional Director of the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City,
Missouri), issued his complaint dated May 18, 1950, against McKesson & Robbins,
Incorporated, herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the
charge, amended charge, and the complaint, together with notice of hearing,
were duly served upon the parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that from on.and after September 1, 1949, Respondent interrogated its employees
concerning their union activities, made promises of benefit and threats of re-
prisal, granted wage increases to discourage activity in the Union, and kept its
employees under surveillance respecting their union activities.
In its answer filed February 28, 1950, Respondent admitted certain jurisdic-
tional and other facts asserted in the complaint, but denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
!Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 6 and 7, 1950, at Denver,
Colorado, before Alba M. Martin, the undersigned Triral; Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The • General., Counsel,.- the Respondent,
and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
Prior to the hearing Respondent filed a motion for bill of particulars and
the General Counsel furnished some of the requested particulars in writing and
some orally, Respondent's counsel expressing himself at the opening of the
hearing as satisfied with the particulars furnished.
Upon the entire record in the case and from observation of- the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
McKesson & Robbins, Incorporated,. is a Maryland corporation engaged in the
manufacture and packaging of drug products, in the importing and wholesaling
of wines and liquors, and the wholesale of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and
toiletries. It has numerous branch offices and divisions throughout the United
States including a branch office and a division at Denver, Colorado, which are
involved in this proceeding. During 1949, Respondent's Denver division pur-
chased or received supplies and drug products in_ the value of over $1,000,000, of
McKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED . 1437
which approximately 90 percent was shipped to the Denver division from points
outside the State of Colorado . During the same period Respondent 's Denver
division sold supplies and drug products in the value of over $1,000 ,000, of which
approximately 90 percent was shipped to points outside Colorado.
Respondent conceded and stipulated that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 452, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference , restraint , and coercion
1. Background
Several wholesale drug companies including Parke-Davis, Sharpe and Dohme,
and Respondent have warehouses near one another in Denver , Colorado. The
Union began an organizational drive at all of the companies by the distribution
of its first handbill on July 8, 1949 , and continued handbilling at intervals from
then until at least October 5 , 1949. Respondent ' s management received copies
,of the handbills shortly after they were distributed . The Union held meetings
for any interested among Respondent ' s employees on July 19 , August 23, Sep-
tember 20 , 23, 26, and October 7, 1949. Pursuant to a petition filed September
27, 1949, and a Board Direction 1 an election was set for February 3, 1950, but
it was indefinitely postponed shortly after the filing of the charge in this case
on that day.
Prior to the Union's organizational drive among Respondent 's warehouse em-
ployees it had been the weekly custom of Respondent's manager , Lyle A. Works,
and operations manager, Merle C. Sperry, to hold weekly meetings of the ware-
house employees for the purpose of discussing problems in' connection with the
work . The employees were called to the meetings by an announcement made
over the warehouse loudspeaker system by Works or Sperry or Lester Robb, the
foreman. These regular meetings were discontinued during the period of the
Union 's organizational efforts upon the advice of the Mountain States Employ-
ers Council with which Respondent is affiliated . At the beginning of the
organizational drive Works called Sperry, Robb , and the group leader together
and told them that the employees were in the process of being organized and
that they were to keep their "hands off." Works testified , however, that "I
wasn't welcoming the union in our place .," and that "We weren 't trying
at any time to stop organizing any more than we can legally . . . "; and Sperry
testified that "I used my influence but didn ' t influence or coerce or interrogate."
2. Interrogations at meeting of employees
On a date much in dispute in the testimony the employees were assembled
by the usual announcement over the loudspeaker system during working hours,
to a meeting which lasted about an hour . The witnesses variously placed this
meeting in July, September , October, and November 1949. Works placed it in
1 88 NLRB 93.
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
July ; Sperry in mid-July. Christine Sekavec, an employee, testified on rebuttal
that the meeting took place the day she signed a union card and that she signed
the union card at the first union meeting she attended on the evening of Septem-
ber 20, 1949, at which meeting the employees put to the union representatives
some of the questions posed by Works to them .in his meeting earlier that day.
It is concluded that the meeting took place on September 20, 1949.
Christine Sekavec, who appeared to me to be a forthright, credible witness,
testified as follows concerning this meeting:
... Mr. Works called a meeting and he talked to us about union, asked us
what assurance we had that the Union would stick by their promises and
would get us wages, higher wages and better working conditions and so
forth and he discussed our wages in comparison to other places, the pay
other people would get, and I think pretty well covers it. I think that is
about all he said about the Union. Just asked what we thought about the
Union. He asked different ones. Several of them he asked what they
thought of the Union. One of them said he didn't think much of it, he
didn't like it. Another didn't care anything about it. He asked me what I
thought about the Union and I told him that I didn't know anything about
the Union or what they were going to give us. I thought I should investi-
gate both things-what the Union could do for me and what McKesson could
and whichever was the better, that is the one I would feel was the best.
Another employee, Fred Carter, testified that at this meeting Works "asked
me if I was interested in the Union and I said `yes';" and also that Works asked
employees Cliff Smith and Christine Sekavec what they thought about the
Union. A third employee, Aubrey Beard, confirmed that Works asked Sekavec
her opinion of the Union. Works, his secretary, and Sperry all denied that
Works interrogated employees as to their views on the Union. Works testified
that he told the employees that according to a recent survey of wages in the
area .Respondent's wage structure was higher than it competition was paying,
that in addition Respondent offered its employees a pension plan, hospitaliza-
tion plan, sick leave, and a vacation plan.
Works testified further that he asked for discussion "on any point that I
brought up in my discussion," that some seven or eight employees asked ques-
tions of him. In his testimony he said nothing about reading to the employees
a• series of questions from Respondent's personnel manual. Also he admitted
that "I cannot remember what I said" at the meeting.
Frances Cohen, who was secretary to Works at the time of this meeting, gave
the following version of this meeting :
... Mr. Works sat down and spoke to them about the advantages of our
company, what we have to offer about the insurance plan, about the pension
plan, and he read something that is in the Personnel Manual that is pub-
lished in our New York office. It is a list of questions. He read the
questions pausing between each one more to let them soak it in, let them
have time to think about it, and then went on. To my recollection he
kind of wondered talking about his personal experiences. He asked no
questions. It wasn't that he was stopping and interrogating anyone; he
did ask these questions stated in the exhibit and then later asked if any
of the employees had comments. A number of them did.
s s • s • ♦ •
I remember Christine said how •do they know they don't like union
if they never had one. Maybe if they had one, it would do a lot of good.
McKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED 1439
Harold said I have had experience with unions and I don 't want any more
experience . Several other employees made comments similar to Harold's
that they were against the union, didn't want to be organized.
Following are the questions Works read to the assembled employees from the
personnel manual, which were stipulated into the record by counsel:
It is entirely up to your good judgment to decide whether you want a
union to represent you or not . Here are a few of the questions you should
ask yourselves . What assurance have you that a union can do more for
you than you can do for yourselves? If a union cannot make good the
promise they make to you, what come-back do you have? What civil rights
will- you give up under a union constitution and by-law ? Have you ever
seen a copy of the union 's constitution and by -laws? If you vote a union,
can you ever vote it out afterwards ? Do you know what initiation fees,
dues , fines, or other charges a union can assess against you? Do you know
whether a union can raise its dues or other charges at any time without
notice? Will such dues and other fees that you will be required to pay if
you belong to a union be worth this added expense to you? Has any union
made you feel confident of its honesty and dependability as a union really
interested in your personal individual welfare and future or is it simply
interested in the money it can collect from you? Is the union interested in
your having steady work the year around or trying to pull out on strike
whenever it suits it to do so? And during a strike will your union leaders
still collect their salaries or will their pay stop like yours? These , and many
other similar questions , should be carefully considered by you before you
finally make up your minds whether you want the union to represent you or
not. Finally , let me assure you that all of our employees are free men and
women and do not have to belong to any union to work here.
2. Interrogations by employees individually by Works and Sparry
b. Christine Sekavec
Several employees testified that Works and Sperry interrogated them indi-
vidually concerning their union interest and activities . Christine Sekavec testi-
fied credibly that several weeks after the September 20 meeting her foreman,
Robb, told her that Sperry wanted to see her in the conference room and that
when she arrived in the conference room not only Sperry was there but also
Works. She related the conversation which then took place as follows
Well, when we first started in, Mr. Sperry asked me if I wasn't satisfied
with my job. I said I was very happy with my job. He wanted to know if
I was dissatisfied with my wages. I told him I was. He showed me the
raises that I had gotten and asked didn't I think I had gotten on pretty well.
The raises I got were close enough together . After that we discussed work-
ing conditions and I told him I didn't like where I worked, the conditions
I had to work with, the people and I didn't get along very well with each
other. It doesn't have nothing to do with this, I am sure . Mr. Works asked
me if I thought the Union could do more for me than McKesson could. I
told him no that the Union had gotten Parke-Davis, that they had organized
and got 17¢, 18¢; or 190 an hour. I thought that we deserved better pay
because at that time I was making 800 or 85 0 an hour-850. I think he
thought that McKesson company could do more for me than the Union
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
could. And Mr. Sperry said that we wouldn't like if it the Union came
in, it would not be very pleasant for us. That was about all I think.
At about this point Works left the meeting and Sperry and Sekavec went into
another room and continued :
[Sekavec] told Mr. Sperry that I wouldn't join the Union if it would
make him happy. I wouldn't join the Union and I wouldn't go to any more
meetings . . . [Sperry] was happy about that. He told me to continue and
when the rating sheet went into Chicago that I would get another raise.
He told me that was fine.
[Sperry] discussed that, the hospital plan, insurance policies that McKes-
son carries for us, old-age pension, things like that, and paid holidays and
so forth.
[Sperry] did say something that I was at the meeting the other night
and I told him yes, I was. He said yes and he named the other three
people that were there and I asked how he knew and he stated he just
knew. . . . He had ways and means... .
She asked if her work was satisfactory and Sperry said it was that she
"did a good job. He wasn't complaining about my job. I was going around
stirring up trouble, getting people dissatisfied with their jobs, with their
wages."
Sekavec testified further that Sperry first brought up the Union. He asked
her if she had signed a card and she replied she had and had sent it in. "He
asked me if I had been to any meetings. . . . I told him yes. . . . I told him we
were having a meeting that night and I wouldn't go and I wouldn't go to any
more meetings if he would rather I didn't."
Sekavec testified further, on cross-examination, that several time Sperry
called her down to his desk and that the "Union always came up regardless of
what I was called for. We always managed to get around to discussing union."
Asked who brought up the subject of the Union, she replied,
Mr. Sperry did, one time, well, he was getting on me about my extended
vacation and different things. I brought the Union up. I said ever since
I been-since they started organizing this and I have participated in the
union activities, you found everything to get on me about. He said that
wasn't the-case at all. But I knew it was union. Every little thing that
happened, I always managed to get called down.
A few days after she was summoned to confer with Works and Sperry as
related above, Sekavec was called by Sperry to come to his desk as she was
leaving the warehouse after completing the day's work. Sekavec testified that
Sperry
asked me if I had heard anything about the Union around the warehouse
and I told him no when he mentioned it. He said that was fine. The
Union has received eleven or twelve, I am not sure, eleven I think. I said
that doesn't make any difference ; that doesn't mean those people are
going to vote. He said I suppose it doesn't. He said keep your ears
open. . . .
b. Betty Carter
Betty May Carter, who appeared to me to be an honest and credible witness,
testified that several weeks after the September 20 meeting Works sent for
her and talked with her in the conference room. Sperry was there at the
McKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED 1441
beginning but left shortly after Carter arrived. Carter testified that at this
meeting Works reminded her how good the Respondent had been to her and
her brother when their mother had died. Then he asked what the Union had
to offer them, how much it cost to join the Union. Asked if Works questioned
whether she belonged to the Union, Carter replied, "Well, he told me did I sign
a card for the Union. I say yes, I did."
Later the same day Carter had a discussion with Sperry about the Union.
Carter testified Sperry "told me things were getting hot around there .. .
about the Union . . . and he told me he had great plans for Freddy (her
brother) and I . . . and he told me to keep up my good work and if I had
any complaints to come to him. He was satisfied with my work. I told him
that I wouldn't vote for the Union. He said he was glad he could depend on
me." On this occasion Sperry asked her who went to the Union's meetings.
In about January 1950 Sperry spoke to Carter on the second floor where she
worked. According to Carter, Sperry asked her if she knew of anyone who
was going to the union meeting the next day. He then said that he was greatly
disappointed with her brother Freddy. Carter "told him what do you mean,"
to which Sperry replied, "You know what I mean."
Carter testified further that at an undisclosed time Sperry asked her if she
knew whether one Shirley Najim was for or against the Union. Carter replied
that she did not know. Sperry asked her to find out.
c. Fred Carter
Fred Carter, an employee and brother of Betty Carter, testified that in about
November 1949 Works stopped him one day and "asked me if my sister sent her
union card in and I said I didn't know . . . he said he knew I had sent my card
in." Works said also, ". . . who do you have confidence in, Mr. Bailey or me.
" Bailey was business representative and organizer for the Union and
Works knew this since he had had conferences with Bailey prior to this time.
Sometime after the above conversation Sperry asked Carter "if I heard any talk
going around . . . about the Union, I guess that is what he meant."
d. Aubrey Beard
Beard, an employee, sought out Sperry and talked with him-in an effort to im-
prove working conditions on "my floors." Beard testified that "Then we talked
about the work. Then he said he was surprised when he heard my name men-
tioned that my card was in the Union." Questioning Beard as to what he pro-
posed to do about the Union Sperry asked, ". . . what I was going to vote-
he asked how I thought I was going. I said I would go right along with the
majority. I would be right along with the majority." Further, ". . . I `bas
just asked if I was planning on going to the Union meeting that night. . .."
e. Denials by Works and Sperry
Concerning the conferences of Works and Sperry with Sekavec and Betty Car-
ter individually, Sperry testified that he did not tell Robb to summon Carter, that
both Sekavec and Carter requested the audiences with Works. Sperry testified
further that Sekavec volunteered information about her membership in the Union
and whether or not any other individuals belonged to the Union or had attended
union meetings, but that Works and he did not ask for it. Works testified that
he did ; not< know who initiated the conference with Sekavec, • that he 'did not
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interrogate her as to her participation in union activities, that he did not know
whether or not she or any other warehouse employees had attended union meet-
ings. He admitted that he did not "remember the details of the [Sekavec] inter-
view very well." Sperry did not deny that at one interview with Sekavec he
asked her if she had heard anything about the Union around the warehouse.
Sperry's unconvincing version of the discussion which took place at his desk
when Sekavec was leaving the warehouse after completing the day's work one
evening was as follows :
She left the narcotic keys, as I recall, in the accountant's desk and she
came by my desk and said "how do you think we are doing?" And I said,
"Well, what do you mean `how do you think we are doing.'" And she said,
"how do you think we are coming along?" That was the very brief conver-
sation with her there.
Works denied that he sent for Betty Carter on the occasion when he talked
with her about the Union, denied that he interregated her as to her participa-
tion in the Union or that of others, stated that he personally had been more
generous with the Carter family than with any others, that he had helped the
Carters when their mother died and at other times. Works stated that Betty
Carter came in to see him, said that she had not "signed a card" but that her
brother Fred had, that her father had asked them both not to join, and that she
asked Works to "talk to Fred for me." On rebuttal Betty Carter denied the version
of the conference given by Works.
Sperry's verson of the Betty Carter interview was substantially the same as
Works'. Sperry, who on several occasions did not respond to the question asked,
did not specifically deny that he interrogated Betty Carter concerning who was
going to union meetings. He testified that Carter volunteered information about
the Union. With exaggeration which he retracted several times later he testified
on direct examination, "I recall her telling me about every five mintes everything
that took place in the union meeting and everything that was going on, the people
who were there, and what was said, and so on."
Sperry did not deny the statements attribufted to him in January 1950 by
Betty Carter or that he asked the latter if she knew whether Shirley Najim was
for or against the Union. .
Concerning Fred Carter, Works denied that Works sought out Carter and
stated that Carter "sought counsel with me." Works denied that he ever in-
terrogated Carter as to his or any other employee's participation in union activi-
ties. Works did not deny asking Carter ". . . who do you have confidence in,
Mr. Bailey or me... .
Concerning Fred Carter, Sperry was asked on direct examination whether he
"remember[ed] any conversation with Mr. Carter where you interrogated him
about union attendance or union affiliations or anything of that sort?" Without
responding to the question, Sperry answered as follows :
Well, Freddy Carter asked for an audience with Mr. Works and Mr. Robb
and myself and I talked to Mr. Works and I called Less down and we had
a meeting with him; at that time he said he had been told that be would
lose his job or there was a good chance that he might lose [sic] his job if he
didn't go along with the union and that he wanted us to know that he wasn't
interested in it, that he had seen where he had made some mistakes, and so
on. And at that time I specifically told Freddy for him to make up his mind
as to what he wanted to do about the union, that it was his own privilege
McKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED 1443
and prerogative the way he wanted to vote and no one else was to tell him
how he was to vote.
In reply to a question as to whether Sperry had any recollection of asking
Beard if he was going to attend a union meeting, Sperry replied, unresponsively,
"I remember Mr. Beard telling me he wanted to go to a union meeting, he wanted
to see what the other side had to offer." Asked if he raised any objection, to
Beard's attending the meeting Sperry replied, "It was his privilege I told him."
Asked if it had been his practice "generally" to interrogate the warehouse
employees "as to their affiliation with the Union and their attendance at Union
meetings" Sperry replied :
I think they have been told repeatedly that it' was their privilege to vote
the way they wanted to vote. They have been told that in the bulletin that
we have handed out here, many of them, and for them to vote the way that
they saw fit to vote and not to be told that they might lose their jobs or that
anything might happen to them if they didn't vote the way someone saw it.
Sperry testified that Works told him to keep his, ears open and to listen to
all he could hear regarding the Union, that this he did and that what he heard
concerning the Union he reported to Works.
3. Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion
Christine Sekavec impressed me as a straightforward, honest witness whose
memory was good concerning the substance of the meeting and conversations
she was relating., This conclusion is based upon her appearance while on the
witness stand testifying .and the immediacy and directness of her answers. I
find that at the conclusion of Works' remarks at the meeting of all employees on
September 20, 1949, he asked the employees, as testified by Sekavec, what they
thought about the Union, that he asked them that question collectively and then
individually one by one. That he questioned them individually as to their
opinion concerning the Union was corroborated by the testimony of Fred Carter
and Aubrey Beard. By such interrogation Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act?
. I find there are other reasons, separate from the above credibility finding,
which impel a conclusion that Works interrogated the employees at the September
20 meeting in violation of the Act. Works testified that he asked the employees
for discussion "on any point that I brought up in my discussion." Such dis-
cussion did not take place in a vacuum or with reference to unionism. in general.
It took place during the period that a specific union was handbilling the ware-
houses of Respondent and several other employers in the area and holding meet-
ings for their employees. The question Works asked the employees, as stipu-
lated, therefore, although phrased except for several questions at the end in
terms of any union rather than a specific one, were spoken at such time and place
as to relate to the specific Union which was passing out the handbills and holding
the meetings. In effect, therefore, Works asked the employees whether they had
ever seen a copy of the Union's constitution and bylaws, knew about its initiation
fees, dues, fines, etc. These and the other questions were clearly designed to
elicit information as to what employees were interested in the Union and what
2 Standard - Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358; Empire Pencil Company, Division
of Hassenfold Bros., Inc., 86 NLRB 1187.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees could be counted on to support Respondent's opposition to it. As such
they were interrogation proscribed by the Act.
Shortly after the September 20 meeting Respondent' s management spoke fur-
ther concerning the Union to those employees who had indicated at the meeting
an interest-.possibly in favor of the Union-Sekavec and.-Fred Carter, and at:each
such interview more than one member of management was present. According
to the undenied, credible testimony of Sekavec, at such conference with her-
Sperry told her that "we wouldn't like it if the Union came in, it would not be
very pleasant for us," which, following closely after the September 20 meeting
carried the clear implication of a threat of reprisal in the event the Union
became the bargaining agent. Likewise credible and undenied were Sekavec's
testimony that after she told Sperry she would not join the Union and would not
go to any more union meetings, Sperry told her to "continue and when the rating
sheet went into Chicago that I would get another raise," and Betty Carter's
testimony that Sperry told her he had great plans for her brother and her, in,
the same conversation in which she told him she would not vote for the Union.
Sperry's threat of reprisal if the Union "came in" and his promises of benefit
to Sekavec and Betty Carter for abandoning the Union were not within the realm
of free speech protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act. I find that this undenied
threat of reprisal and these promises of benefit constituted interference, restraint,
and coercion of Respondent's employees in-the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Sperry did not appear to me to be a convincing witness. By his manner on
the witness stand he indicated a greater desire to give the appearance of telling
the truth than to tell it. Some of his answers were not responsive. His denial
that he knew who attended union meetings is not convincing in the light of his
testimony that Sekavec volunteered such information to him and that he made
a practice of keeping his ears open. His denial that he interrogated Sekavee
as to her having signed a union card and her attendance at union meetings is
not convincing in the light of Sekavec's testimony and Sperry' s admission that
he did not "remember the details of the [Sekavec] interview very well." It is
found that Sperry interrogated Sekavec as to her having signed a union card
and her attendance at union meetings and that such interrogation was a viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Sekavec's undenied and credited testimony that Sperry asked her if she had
heard anything about the Union around the warehouse is held to be interrogation
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Betty Carter's undenied and credited testimony was that several weeks after
the September 20 meeting Works asked her how much it cost to join the Union,
that in January 1950 Sperry asked her if she knew of anyone who was going
to the union meeting the next day, and that at an undisclosed time Sperry
asked her concerning the attitude towards the Union of Shirley Najim. It is
held that these interrogations contravened Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Fred Carter's undenied and credited testimony that Works asked him who he
had confidence in "Bailey or me," and that Sperry asked him if he had heard
any talk going around about the Union, are held to have interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
At different times between October 10, 1949, and February 3, 1950, Respond-
ent either mailed or handed leaflets to the employees or the employees were
McKESSON & BOBBINS , INCORPORATED 1445
assembled and Works read to them from a prepared manuscript . These leafletq
and manuscripts were written by the Mountain States Employers Council and
were introduced into evidence by Respondent . An examination of their contents
reveals that they contained no express or implied threats of reprisal or force
or promises of benefit . All of this material falls, therefore , within the realm
of free speech protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act.
The complaint alleged that Respondent granted wage increases to discourage
activity in the Union . The testimony showed that for some time before the
advent of the Union Respondent gave increases on a merit rating basis and that
it continued to do so after the organization period began . There was no convinc-
ing evidence that any increase made after the advent of the Union was other
than on a merit -basis at the time of the regular 6 -month review of each em-
ployee's work . Accordingly it will be recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed with respect to this allegation as lacking sufficient proof to be sustained.
The complaint alleged that Respondent kept its employees tinder surveillance
respecting their union activities . The only proof in support of this allegation
was that Sperry indicated to some employees that he knew who had attended
certain union meetings and how many had signed up for the Union, and that
Sperry told some employees to keep their ears open or to find out whether a
certain employee was for or against the Union. This proof does not sustain
the allegation in view of Sperry's undenied testimony that several employees
volunteered information to him concerning the Union and the absence of any
proof that he obtained any information in any other way. Accordingly it will be
recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to this allegation.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent 's activities , set forth in Section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with Respondent 's operations described in Section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Respondent having engaged in unfair labor practices , it will be recommended
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Because of the Respondent 's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose
and tendency , I am of the opinion, upon the entire record, that the commission
in the future of acts of interference and of other unfair labor practices may be
anticipated from Respondent 's conduct in the past ' The preventative purpose
of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In
order , therefore , to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices , and thereby to minimize in-
dustrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce , and thus effectuates the
policies of the Act, I will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case , I make the following :
3 N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426.
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Produce Drivers, Warehousemen and, Helpers Local 452,
AFL,. is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
2. By interrogating its employees as to their opinion of, interest in, member-
ship in, attendance at meetings of, and cost of joining International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Produce
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 452, AFL, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of. the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. By threatening its employees with reprisal if International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Produce Driv-
ers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 452, AFL, became the bargaining agent,
and by promising its employees the benefit of a wage increase and of great plans
for them for abandoning or voting against said Union, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]