Opinion ID: 235069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board's findings of interference and restraint.

Text: 4 Bargaining conferences were begun on May 14, and there is some testimony, credited by the Trial Examiner and the Board, that while negotiations were being held National's superintendent Elliott told employees, Pritchard and Keith, that they would have already had a raise but for the advent of the union in the plant, and that he would guarantee their jobs if they would withdraw from the union, but that if they ever walked out they would not have a job back in the plant. According to further testimony, another employee, Harry Hall, whose authority to bind respondent National is strongly disputed, told a then recently hired worker, James Heard, that it was a pretty good thing he did not belong to the union, or he would not have a job any more. 5 The above recited testimony incorporates substantially all of the probative evidence upon which the Board's findings of interference and restraint may lawfully be based, 2 though admittedly there is other credited testimony properly referable to the refusal to bargain charge which purports to quote remarks by Superintendent Elliott to employees Smith, Sanders, and Cole to the effect that National's president, Wellhouse, would never sign a contract with the union. Elliott denied making these statements, and both he and Wellhouse further denied making any remarks concerning Wellhouse's aversion to an agreement with the union, though their testimony was rejected by the Trial Examiner and Board. Elliott testified affirmatively that, in order to dissipate a rumor circulated by the union in June, 1951, to the effect that National would discharge any employee who withdrew from the union for prior activity in its behalf, he informed the employees that, whether they renounced the union or not, they wouldn't lose their job as long as anyone come there and did their work,    that they could feel safe. Credibility of the witnesses was primarily for the Trial Examiner's determination, and if we accord to his Intermediate Report and to the Board's findings based thereon the usual presumption that the Examiner had the best opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses and to judge of their credibility, we would hold that the Board's findings of interference and restraint are supported by substantial evidence. For reasons hereafter to be stated, we cannot in this case accord to the Examiner's report and the Board's findings based thereon the full measure of the usual presumption of correctness.