Neco Electrical Products Corp., 481 (1958)

gone to the office around 10 p.m. in response to 'a case of trouble' and Shaver was not there. Shaver testified that he had not advised Boyd that he would be out that evening and that he did go out to attend a union meeting and returned around 10 p.m. The following morning Boyd inquired of Shaver where he had been the night before and Shaver replied that he had attended the union meeting. Shaver further testified that Boyd asked who else had attended the meeting. Shaver replied that he could not answer that. This ended the conversation according to Shaver. In view of Shaver's admitted and known absence from the Respondent's building on the evening before this conversation occurred, the inquiry by Boyd of Shaver as to Shaver's whereabouts was entirely normal and logical and I find that this entire conversation, standing alone as it does in this record, did not carry 'with it more than the implication of curiosity.' N.L.R.B. v. Syracuse Color Press,

Inc., 209 F. 2d 596, 600 (C.A. 2). Under all the circumstances, it did not reasonably tend to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.

Concluding Findings The General Counsel endeavored to establish that the remark made by Estes was not an unusual or uncommon remark among the Respondent's employees and that Estes did not intend the remark in a serious or threatening manner. General Counsel then sought to show that because the remark was intended in a light vein and because Estes was ,the most active union adherent among Respondent's employees, that the reason advanced by Respond...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here