G. R. I. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 34 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. R. I. Corporation and Its Division and Cynthia
Holmes and Darlene Allen. Cases 13-CA-12967
and 13-CA-13005
January 3, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO
On May 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Paul
E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, General Counsel filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an
answering brief as well as cross-exceptions and a
brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that on
December 11, 1973, James Rehak, Respondent's
clerical manager, accosted employee Cynthia
Holmes, telling her that she could not give him one
good reason why they needed a union. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge concluded that because this
incident is "not interrogation in the normal sense of
the word, rather it is an attempt to enter into an
argument concerning the advocacy of a union in
Respondent's plant," it is not violative of the Act.
We disagree.
On December 11, the day before the election,
Rehak approached Holmes outside the mail opening
department, and, in the presence of several people
said, "See Cindy, you can't even give one good
reason why we need a union in." Holmes walked
away toward the cafeteria, but Rehak followed her
and continued the harassment telling her that she
"couldn't give him a good reason about the union."
When they reached the cafeteria, Rehak stated,
"Anyway, I know about your mission." Holmes
replied that she didn't know what he was talking
about and left. We find, contrary to the Administra-
tive Law Judge, that Rehak's continuing remarks to
Holmes, 1 day before the election and in the
presence of others, as to why she favored the Union,
constitute unlawful conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.' Indeed, we have held that
1 McCann Steel Company, Inc., 184 NLRB 779 (1970).
s Gates Air Conditioning, Inc, 199 NLRB 1101 (1972).
s The Administrative Law Judge incorrectly stated that the date of the
comments and remarks of this type need not be cast
as a query in order to be unlawful.2 Considering all
the surrounding circumstances, including Respon-
dent's demonstrated union animus, the seeking out
of Holmes by Respondent's clerical manager, and
the implicit inquiry as to her union sympathies,
constitutes interrogation as to union activities, which
was calculated to, and would reasonably be inter-
preted by the employee involved as an attempt to,
interfere with her organizational rights. Such interro-
gation was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed two
additional allegations relating to interrogations of
Holmes, on the basis that they are of minimal
coercive impact and are isolated incidents that took
place before union organization became overt. We
disagree.
In the fall of 1973, the Union commenced an
organization campaign among certain employees of
the Respondent, and a representation petition was
filed on October 4, 1973.3 Holmes played an active
role in promoting the Union. She spoke with
employees about the Union, distributed authoriza-
tion cards, and passed out literature. In response to
the organizational efforts, Respondent engaged in a
vigorous campaign to defeat the Union. According to
the credited testimony, Harriet Schlenker, a supervi-
sor, asked Holmes if she (Holmes) had heard any
rumors about a union trying to get in. Holmes
responded that she had not. Sometime around the
middle of October, according to the credited testimo-
ny, Rehak asked Holmes the same question, and she
again responded in the negative. However, Rehak
replied, "I know you know about it because
everybody talks to you." Such an inquiry is clearly
violative of the Act .4 Where, as here, Respondent
refused to accept the answer given by the employee,
but instead insisted that she did know about the
Union because everybody talks to her, Respondent's
continuing interrogations are even more repugnant
to the Act. Rather than being isolated incidents
which do not require a remedial order, we find that
these interrogations, especially when considered with
the unlawful interrogation of Holmes by Rehak on
December 11, Respondent 's repeated harassment of
Holmes, and Respondent's antiunion campaign, are
blatantly coercive in nature and violative of Section
8(axl) of the Act. We shall therefore order the
appropriate remedial action.
filing of the petition was April 4, 1973.
4 Amon International, Inc., 205 NLRB No. 157 (1973).
216 NLRB No. 14
G. R. I. CORPORATION AND ITS DIVISION 35
THE REMEDY
We have found, contrary to the Administrative
Law Judge, that the Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. We shall therefore order that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the record as a whole, we make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Bakery and Confectionery Workers Interna-
tional Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Local
No. 552, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning union
activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
5. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint which are not
specifically found herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
G. R. I. Corporation and its Division, Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union membership, activities, and sympathies,
and the union membership, activities, and sympa-
thies of other employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees
concerning their union membership, activities,
and sympathies, and the union membership,
activities , and sympathies of other employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights under the Act.
G.R.I. CORPORATION
AND ITS DIVISION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E. WELL, Administrative Law Judge: On January
30, 1974, Cynthia Holmes filed with the Regional Director
for Region 13, of the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter called the Board, a charge alleging that G.R.I.
Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging
Cynthia Holmes . On February 12, 1974, Darlene Allen
filed with the said Regional Director, a charge alleging that
G.R.I. Corporation and its Division violated Section
8(aX3) and (1) by discharging her. On March 22, 1974,
Martin H . Schneid, the Acting Regional Director for the
Board's Region 13 issued an order consolidating the two
cases and a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing.
The complaint alleges that Respondent discharged employ-
ees Allen and Holmes because of their union membership
and activities in violation of 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and
that Respondent further violated Section 8(axl) of the Act
by various acts of interrogation by Respondent's superviso-
ry employees. By its duly filed answer, Respondent denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices. On the issues
thus joined , the matter came on for hearing before me in
Chicago, Illinois, on April 24 and-25, 1974. All parties were
present or represented by counsel and had an opportunity
to call and examine witnesses and to adduce relevant and
material evidence . At the close of the hearing the parties
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
waived oral argument. Briefs have been received from the
General Counsel and Respondent.
On the entire record in this matter and in consideration
of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
• Respondent, a corporation operating a plant and
facilities in Chicago and Countryside, Illinois, is engaged in
the, distribution and sale of cosmetics by mail. Respondent
annually purchases and receives materials and supplies
valued in excess of $5,000,000 from points directly outside
the State of Illinois and annually ships directly to
enterprises located outside the State of Illinois goods
valued in excess of $5,000,000. The Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II.' THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union
of America, AFL-CIO,CLC, Local No. 552, hereinafter
called the Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
Respondent operates a mail-order cosmetic business
from its Chicago plant. In the fall of 1973 the Union
commenced an organizational campaign among certain
employees of Respondent, which culminated in the filing
on April 4, 1973, of a petition seeking an election among
certain of Respondent's employees. On November 15,
1973, the Regional Director directed that an election be
conducted and it was duly conducted on -December 42,
1973. The Union lost the election by a vote of 46 to 136
with 7 challenged ballots.
. Cynthia Holmes was one of 20 employees employed by
Respondent to open mail from its customers , sorting out
cash and checks accompanying customers' orders or paid
on account. She commenced her employment in April or
May 1973, and was discharged on January 16, 1974.
During the union organizational period Miss Holmes was
an active union adherent, which was known to her
supervisor, Harriet Schlenker.
Darlene Allen was employed by Respondent on January
31, 1973, as a proofreader and continued in that job most
of her employment. She apparently took a small part in the
organizing campaign , other than attending meetings .and
.was one of the Union's observers at the election held on
December 14, 1973. Mrs. Allen was discharged on January
14, 1974.
The General Counsel contends that the discharges of
Cynthia Holmes and Darlene Allen resulted from. their
union membership and activiEy.
I Unscheduled days appear to be days in which an employee is asked by
the employer to take off because of a shortage of work. -
Darlene Allen
Respondent contends that Darlene Allen was discharged
for absenteeism . Respondent has a personnel policy which
is posted on the employees ' bulletin board laying down
rules for attendance and tardiness which , it is uncontro-
verted , are rigidly followed . The general rule provides that
an employee will receive a verbal warning if he has two
unexcused absences during any 8-week period. If an
employee has four unexcused absences in his latest 8-week
period of employment , he is placed on probation for the
following 8 weeks . While on probation an employee may
not have more than three unexcused absences and an
employee who has more than three unexcused absences
while on probation will be discharged . An employee who
has fewer than three unexcused absences while on
probation will be taken off probation at the end of the 8-
week period . No employee may have more than two
probationary periods within any 12-month period regard-
'less of the reason for the probation . If an employee having
two probationary periods within a 12-month period during
that period has four more unexcused absences he is
automatically separated.
The personnel policy defines an excused absence as an
absence due to death in the immediate family , jury duty,
paid vacation , leave of absence for 1 week or more, any
sick leave with a doctor's certificate , unscheduled days,'
and finally days on which the employee reports in on time,
works a minimum of 2 hours and is excused by the
manager if he (1) becomes ill while at work (2) receives a
-telephone call at work pertaining to an emergency which
must be handled immediately such as a senously ill child
or relative etc., (3 ) has official verifiable business by
appointment which cannot be handled during regular
working hours , provided the employee notifies the manager
the day before.
There is no- question that Darlene Allen had had
,probationary periods on two occasions , one in April and
one in July. Gertie Powell, who had been a group leader, a
nonsupervisory position , became the supervisor of the
department in which Mrs. Allen worked on November 5.
About a week later she was going over the records and saw
that Darlene Allen had had two probationary penods. She
called ' Mrs. Allen to her desk , discussed the probationary
period -with her and reminded her that she had only one
more within 12 months before - she would be let go. Mrs.
Allen had been absent without excuse on November 5 and
7 and was again absent on December 17. At this time Miss
Powell again spoke to Mrs. Allen reminding her that she
was in the danger zone for her absences and that one more
absence within the 8-week period would lead to her
discharge.
., On, January 9, Miss Powell received a telephone call
.from a person who stated she was Darlene Allen's mother
and asked that Darlene come home -because her baby was
very ill. Mrs. Allen was given the message and shortly
thereafter, at about 3 : 30, in the afternoon left Respon-
dent's plant . Mrs. Allen testified that she telephoned on the
following day,_Thursday, and told Gertie Powell that she
G. R. I. CORPORATION AND ITS DIVISION
could not come in because her child was still ill and that he
had the mumps . She did not call Friday and on Monday
evening Miss Powell called Mrs. Allen and told her that
she had talked to her bosses and they said it was no excuse
for Mrs . Allen to be off work because her child was in.
Miss Powell testified that after Mrs. Allen left on
Wednesday she did not call Thursday but called on Friday
to inform Respondent that her child was ill with the
mumps and that she had to take the child back to the
doctor on Monday . On Monday Miss Powell called Mrs.
Allen and reminded her that this was her third consecutive
day of absenteeism and Mrs . Allen said something to the
effect that she was keeping her baby in . Thereafter, on
Tuesday, January 15 , according to Miss Powell , she called
Mrs. Allen and told her that her "bosses" had decided that
an absence because of a sick child was an unexcused
absence and that accordingly Mrs. Allen was discharged.
Under the strict order of the rules posted by Respondent
with regard to absenteeism, it is clear that Darlene Allen,
with two prior probationary periods during the last
preceding 12 months and with an unexcused absence on
December 17 , was slated for discharge if she had three
more unexcused absence . Under the letter of the rule the
absence of Wednesday , January 9, was excused. She had
worked more than 2 hours and she left for home in an
emergency situation precisely like that posted in Respon-
dent's rule . However, there is nothing in the rule that
provides that the absences of Thursday, Friday and
Monday would be excused . The General Counsel pro-
duced no evidence that Respondent customarily waived its
rules with regard to absenteeism . The only evidence on the
record resulted from the cross -examination of Cynthia
Holmes by Respondent 's counsel which adduced evidence
that she was terminated in 1973 after a period in the
hospital and was reinstated only after presenting a doctor's
certificate which brought her within the letter of the rule
that personal illness becomes an excused absence with the
presentation of a doctor's certificate . The testimony of
Respondent's witnesses that the absentee rules are rigidly
enforced is therefore unrebutted and it is clear that under
the rule Mrs. Allen was subject to discharge.
Nevertheless , the General Counsel contends that Mrs.
Allen was discharged because of her union activities. The
record does not reveal that Mrs. Allen took part in union
activities to any greater extent than any other employee
except that she was an observer for the Union at the
election. Other union observers at the election, however,
were not discharged and I do not believe that the inference
that the General Counsel would have me reach is sufficient
to overcome the proof of Respondent that Mrs. Allen
would have been discharged for cause under any circum-
stances . Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has
not sustained its burden of proof in this regard and I shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as the
discharge of Darlene Allen is alleged to be a violation of
the Act.
Cynthia Holmes
Cynthia Holmes testified that in September, while she
37
was discussing a holiday with her supervisor, Harriet
Schlenker, Mrs. Schlenker asked her if she had heard any
rumors about a union trying to get in and she answered
that she had not.
After the union organization became overt the Respon-
dent met the organization with a flurry of letters containing
Respondent's argument against the union organization of
its employees with particular emphasis on the possibility of
strikes. In addition , Respondent 's supervisors read some
material to the employees individually or in small groups.
On one occasion Cynthia Holmes and Prenie Patterson
were being talked to by their supervisor, Mrs. Schlenker.
The two employees raised arguments against the Compa-
ny's position and Mrs. Schlenker got a little disturbed and
cut them off, telling them that they were adults and could
make up their own minds . Apparently the argument waxed
heated because it ended up with Mrs . Schlenker telling
Cynthia Holmes that she knew she had not initiated the
petition for the Union because she did not have enough
guts to do so .2 After the election , in the week after
Christmas, Mrs. Schlenker approached Cynthia Holmes in
the presence of Mrs . Patterson and asked her to take a no-
workday because work was slow . Mrs. Patterson told her
that she needed the money because she was going on a
vacation the following week . Mrs. Schlenker responded
that she did not see why Miss Holmes should have money
problems, asking her if she did not get paid by the Union.
As Miss Holmes was preparing to go on a vacation, Mrs.
Schlenker asked her if she remembered promising that
after her mission was over she would be quitting and asked
her if she intended to keep her promise . Miss Holmes
answered that she had never made any such promise.
On the day before the election James Rehak, Respon-
dent's clerical manager , accosted Miss Holmes in the hall
going toward the cafeteria, telling her that she could not
give him one good reason why they needed a union. As
they got to the cafeteria door, Rehak said that he had
witnesses that she had made a statement about having a
mission. She answered that she did not know what he was
talking about.
On January 16 Rehak called Miss Holmes into his office
and said that it had been almost 6 weeks since she told him
about her mission and that he had accepted that as her
resignation and had hired a replacement for her. She
answered that the replacement could go out and find a job
just as she had. He reiterated that he had to have a definite
date for her resignation and she said she would not give
him a definite date because she never made any such
statement. The conversation ended when Miss Holmes said
to Rehak "look you're holding me up as far as me doing
my work , so, unless you can come up with a pretty dam
good excuse for firing me, I'm going back to my desk and
finish my work."
Rehak's version of the conversation was similar. He
testified that he called her into his office and asked when
she was going to leave because previously she had told him
that she had a mission and upon her completion of the
mission she was leaving. She told him that she had decided
to stay and he answered "Cindy that isn't fair since we did
have a girl to replace you I accepted your resignation." She
2 This is taken from the tesmnony of Mrs. Patterson, whom I credit.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
answered "well let her go out and find a job just like I
would have to." Rehak answered "Cindy that' s not fair
because she would have to go out and look for a job, I
would like to know definitely when you are going to leave."
He testified she gave him no definite answer and left.
Rehak was not asked to testify where he got the
impression that Miss Holmes was going to leave. On the
completion of his examination and cross-examination I
asked him about it and he testified that sometime in
November he called her into his office and said that he
understood that she was going to leave and she said "yes
she had a mission to accomplish and when the mission was
over that she would leave ." I asked him where he achieved
this understanding that Miss Holmes was going to leave
and he testified that Harriett Schlenker told him.
Mrs. Schlenker was never asked anything about any
conversation in which Miss Holmes said anything about a
mission . On the other hand Miss Holmes never denied in
terms that she had made a statement about having a
mission , although she testified that she denied to Rehak
that she had made such a statement.
Within half an hour of her interview with Rehak, Miss
Holmes was called back into his office , told to bring her
wastebasket , informed that she had failed an honesty test,
and was discharged.
Honesty tests are constantly administered to all employ-
ees whose jobs require them to handle payments to
Respondent from its customers . Normally the supervisor,
Mrs. Schlenker, takes customers ' letters in which checks or
currency are enclosed and replaces the payment with
certain currency of Respondent which is marked or
otherwise identified . The envelope then is placed in the
workbox of an employee . When the workboxes are picked
up, at frequent intervals during the day, the group leaders
are warned by the supervisor that they should contain the
identifiable currency, if they do not the employee who
handled the currency is called into Rehak 's office and told
to bring her wastebasket . The wastebasket apparently is
searched and the employee discharged. There is no
evidence that any employee who failed to pass a test in the
past had not been discharged.
Mrs. Schlenker testified that she tries to administer the
test at frequent intervals so that each employee is tested at
around 10-day intervals, however inasmuch as the tests are
only given with a certain type of work, the employees
handling that type of work are more frequently tested than
other employees. She writes in a looseleaf notebook the
name, address , amount, and the clerical employee involved
in each such test and thus is readily able to go back
through her notebook and ascertain when tests were given
specific employees .3
On January 16, 1974, according to Mrs . Schlenker's
testimony she arranged tests for several employees includ-
ing Miss Holmes . She did this during the morning
coffeebreak at 9:30 a.m., before the first interview of Miss
Holmes by Rehak . When the boxes were collected between
10 and 10 : 30 the group leader informed Mrs. Schlenker
that Miss Holmes' tests had not shown up . Mrs. Schlenker
3 Apparently sometimes the tests are vaned, according to the testimony
of one of the group leaders , but by and large the system outlined above is
followed.
told her to wait for the next collection of boxes and check
them because Miss Holmes might not have completed all
the work by the time the boxes were first collected. When
the boxes were collected the second time the test had still
not shown up and Mrs. Schlenker reported to Rehak that
Miss Holmes' tests were missing, Rehak exclaimed about
the coincidence of this occurring just after he had talked to
Miss Holmes about quitting. All of the boxes were taken to
Rehak's office, the two group leaders were called in as
witnesses to the transaction, and Miss Holmes was called
into Rehak's office. On her arrival with her basket,
according to Miss Holmes ' testimony, she placed the
basket by Holmes' desk, turned around and faced the wall
and said "search me because I don't have it."4 Rehak
answered "Cindy you know it is company policy where we
give an employee an honesty test and it comes up we have
to discharge the employee." Miss Holmes again suggested
he search her and stated that she did not have it. Rehak
searched the trash can and the cashbox. Miss Holmes
suggested that it might be in somebody else's cashbox and
told him that she believed that this was a frameup. He sent
Group Leader McGill out to check the other cashboxes.
She reported that she could not find the test and Rehak
said "Cindy you have to give me an explanation of where it
is." Miss Holmes again said she did not know where it was,
she had never seen it. She was thereafter discharged.
According to Rehak's testimony when Cynthia Holmes
came into his office he told her that a test case was missing
and wanted to know if she had an explanation, she
answered "well I knew it was a test case and I gave it back
to sign-out" he answered "what did you say?" and she
answered "forget it." He agreed that she asked him to
search her, which he declined to do. He testified that he
and the two group heads went through all the cashboxes
without finding the test case and that at noontime when
the employees left for lunch Miss Holmes commented "I
bet your test case is punching out now." He answered,
"what do you mean by that, Cindy, are you telling me
we've got thieves working for me?" and she answered "no."
Accordingly Miss Holmes was discharged.
According to Group Leader Shirley McGill who was in
the office when Miss Holmes arrived, Rehak told her that
her tests did not show up and she answered "I knew it, I
just knew it, I knew I was going to test that day and I
passed it on" Rehak asked her to repeat that and she took
it back and said that she was not saying anything.
Miss McGill said that sometimes employees pass to some
of their friends some of their work when they get behind, it
is not unusual and they could easily pass on a test as well.
Therefore according to Miss McGill on this occasion, they
checked the other cashboxes but did not find the test.
Shirley Muldrow, the other group leader who was called
in to Rehak's office on this occasion testified that she did
not recall Cynthia Holmes saying anything about passing
on the test, however her general recollection of the incident
was so poor that her failure to recall any particular part of
it leads me to no inference whatsoever.
4 It is obvious that all the employees knew the significance of being sent
to Rehak 's office with their wastebaskets.
G. R. I. CORPORATION AND ITS DIVISION 39
Discussion and Conclusions
Respondent presented no evidence and made no
contention that Miss Holmes stole anything, she was
discharged for failure to follow the procedure laid down by
Respondent. If Miss Holmes was in fact administered an
honesty test on January 16 and failed the test, in the
normal course of Respondent's business she was bound to
be discharged. The only explanation in view of her denial
that she took the money is that she passed on the test to
someone else who then stole it. It might be inferred that her
silence in this regard resulted from her reluctance to "put
the finger" on a fellow employee.
The General Counsel argues that Respondent was
motivated by antiunion considerations and that the test
was not validly administered.
I believe that Respondent's antiunion animus is amply
demonstrated by the letters, both those sent to the
employees and those read to the employees and explained
by supervisors. I further believe that Respondent recogniz-
ed Miss Holmes as an ardent union advocate and picked
up some expression she had used regarding her mission as
an indication that she was working for Respondent for the
purpose of organizing it for the Union and would leave
Respondent's employ after the election. There is no
evidence that in fact Miss Holmes ever said that the union
organization was her mission or that she would leave after
the election. It is equally inferrable that her mission was to
complete her college education after which she would leave
Respondent's employ. Nevertheless Rehak attempted to
use her statement about her mission to force her to resign
on January 16, a month after the union election.
There is no question that the issue is close and that
Respondent's actions arouse a suspicion with regard to the
validity of the "honesty test." However Miss Holmes did
not deny the statement attributed to her by Rehak and
McGill that indicated that she had recognized the honesty
test and passed it along. I therefore find insufficient
evidence on the record as a whole to convince me that no
honesty test was given or that she had not in fact failed it.
This being the case, although it is clear that Respondent,
for reasons connected with her union activity, was anxious
to terminate Miss Holmes, I cannot find that the General
Counsel has sustained his burden of proof that in fact her
termination resulted from Respondent's antiunion motiva-
tion. Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as her termination is alleged to be an
unfair labor practice.
Union asked her if she really knew if the girls wanted a
union, to which Mrs. Allen answered "yes." After further
conversation about the pros and cons of organization, Miss
Powell told Mrs. Allen that she really wanted her girls to
vote no because she did not feel that they needed a union.
The General Counsel alleged that Gertie Powell interrogat-
ed employees on October 19 and on an unknown date in
November 1973, presumably this was the first of those
allegations and there is no evidence to support the second.
The record reveals that Miss Powell was not a supervisor
until November 3, 1973.
Miss Holmes testified that in early September, her
supervisor, Mrs. Schlenker, asked her if she had heard any
rumors regarding the Union and that sometime in October
Rehak asked her the same question.
Miss Holmes also testified that on the day before the
election Rehak asked her to give him one good reason why
she should vote for the Union in the conversation in which
he told her that he knew about her mission. This too is
alleged as a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
I find that the last allegation, Rehak's December 11
badgering of Miss Holmes to give him one good reason
why the employees should be represented, is not violative.
It is surely not interrogation in the normal sense of the
word, rather it is an attempt to enter into an argument
concerning the advocacy of a union in Respondent's plant.
I believe that the remark of Gertie Powell to Darlene
Allen was equally argumentative and not interrogative. It
took place during a conversation when Powell was
debating with Allen about the benefits the Employer
offered versus those that the Union promised during the
course of which Allen had clearly demonstrated her union
adherence. At any rate, at this time Miss Powell was a
nonsupervisory group leader.
With regard to the two occasions when Mrs. Schlenker
and Mr. Rehak asked Miss Holmes if she heard any
rumors regarding the Union, these constitute interrogation
within the meaning of the Act, however they are of
minimal coercive impact and are isolated incidents that
took place before the Union had even filed its petition and
before organization became overt. I do not feel that a
remedial order is warranted under all the circumstances
herein. Accordingly I shall recommend that all the
allegations of interrogation be dismissed.5
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
The 8(a)(1) Allegations
Darlene Allen testified that on some day in October her
supervisor, Gertie Powell, in a conversation about the
S 1 specifically credit Miss Holmes and Mrs. Allen that the statements
they attributed to Mr . Rehak , Mrs. Schlenker, and Miss Powell were made
by those individuals
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
ORDER6
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes