La Salle Steel Co.

In the Matter of LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 31 In the Matter of LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1100 (C. I. 0.) Cases Nos. 13-C-0-481 and 13-R-2869, respectively.-Decided February 6,1947 Mr. Robert 1'. Drake, for the Board. Messrs. Lee C. Shaw and Eugene F. Scoles, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. Mr. John F. Cusack, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association. Mr. Norman L. Harris, of Chicago, 111., for the Union. Mr. William C. Baisi iger, of counsel to the Board. DECI SION AND ORDER On May 8, 1946, Trial Examiner David Rein issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent, La Salle Steel Company, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. In the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner further found that the respondent had interfered' with an election conducted by the Board on April 20, 1945, among the respondent's employees to determine representatives for the purpose of, collective bargaining, paid he recommended that the election be set aside. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of that allegation. Thereafter, the respondent and La Salle Steel Employees' Association, Inc., herein called the Association, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. On December 3, 1946, the Board heard oral argument at Washing- ton, D. C. The respondent and the Association appeared and partici- pated in the argument; -United Steel Workers of America, affiliated- ' No exception to this finding and recommendation was filed. 72 N. L. R B, No 78 411 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, did not appear.2 The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the respondent and the Association, the arguments advanced at the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reconnnendatious, with the exceptions and modifications noted below : ` 1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent, by the conduct of Vice-President See, Superintendent Evens, and Foremen Sylwes- trowicz and Walker, violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. We agree with the Trial Examiner, except insofar as he relies upon Foreman Walker's remark to employee Skaggs. It is clear from the record that Walker was merely recounting his own previous experience with unions and had reference to the "A. F. L." and not to the union here involved. As to the other conduct embraced in the Trial Examiner's finding, we find no merit in the respondent's contention that it was protected under the constitutional guaranty of free speech. Certainly, the interrogation of employee Balash by Foreman Sylwestrowicz as to whether Balash had attended a meeting of the Union, and Sylwes- trowicz's later solicitation of Balash to join the Association, consti- tuted acts of unlawful interference and intimidation per se. Likewise, Vice-President See's statement to representatives of the Association "that he wanted the Association kept running" and the pressure ex- erted upon employee Sutkowski by Superintendent Evens to enlist his aid in supporting the Association and defeating the Union, were not mere expressions of opinion, but constituted conduct designed to throw the full weight of management's prestige and economic power behind the Association. Indeed, the remarks of these two important repre- sentatives of management, especially when viewed in the light of the attending circumstances, were in the nature of directives or orders which employees do not normally feel free to ignore. 2. With respect to the respondent's no-solicitation policy, we agree with the Trial Examiner insofar as he found that the no-solicitation rule promulgated by the,respondent in its letter of April 19, 1945, which prohibited union solicitation on company property outside of working time, constituted an unreasonable impediment to self -organi- 2 By written motion dated December 5, 1946, the Union requested a further opportunity to argue orally before the Board or to submit a brief. The motion is hereby denied for the reason that all parties were theretofore afforded an opportunity to present oral argu- ment to the Board and to file briefs, and no sufficient season was alleged for granting the relief requested. LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 413 zation and was therefore violative of the Act.3 However, we are not convinced by the record, and we do not find that the respondent other- wise applied its no-solicitation rule in a discriminatory manner. 3. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent's-letter of April 19, 1945, was violative of the Act. He rejected the respondent's de- fense of free speech on the ground that the letter was an integral part ,of the respondent's campaign against the Union, and on the further ground that the respondent unlawfully distributed the letter to its employees by attaching copies thereof to the employees' time cards. We do not share all his views. While the letter may have been, as found by the Trial Examiner, a subtle "appeal to the employees to vote for the status quo, that is the Association," it contained no express or implied threat of reprisal and, with one conspicuous exception, appears on its face not to have contained more than the sort of expression of opinion that is pro- tected by the Constitution. Were it not that the letter contained the first verbal promulgation of an unlawful no-solicitation rule, which forbade union activity outside of working hours, we would not hold that its circulation constituted a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Unlike the Trial Examiner and Mr. Houston, we do not believe that the letter can reasonably be regarded as an inseparable and integral part of the respondent's antecedent unfair labor practices which were coercive in nature, for these all occurred in 1944, approximately 6 months earlier.4 Nor do we agree with our dissenting colleague that statements contained in the letter that employees would be protected in their right to work "irrespective of membership or non-member- ship in any labor organization" and that the respondent would not be "a party to any agreement" whereby employees would be "com- pelled to pay for the right to continue to work for this company," did violence to the employees' rights. These statements did not estab- lish such a fixed determination by the respondent not to bargain later concerning union security as can reasonably be regarded-as constitut- ing interference with the rights of employees within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.5 We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the means employed by the respondent to distribute copies of the letter among the employees was unlawful. Apparently the Trial Examiner analogized the re- See Matter of Republic Aviation Corpoation, 51 N. L. R B 1186, enf'd 142 F (2d) 193 (C C. A 2), affirmed 324 U. S. 793; Matter of Lake Superior Lumber Corporation, 70 N L R B. 178 4 See the separate opinion of Chairman Herzog in Matter of Fisher Governor Company/, 71 N L R B 1291 "Matter of M T Steffens and Sons Company (Merrimack Woolen Mills), 68 N L R B 229, is hardly authority for Mr. Houston's contention, as the majority of the Board did not agree with his views in that case 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent's conduct in attaching the letter to the employees' time cards to the situation where an employer requires his employees to attend a meeting at which he expresses his views on unions. We see no analogy. 4. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent, by an- nouncing, on the very day of the election, that the National War Labor Board, herein called the W. L. B., had approved wage increases for the employees, interfered with its employees' freedom of choice in the election of April 20, 1945, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. In January 1945, the respondent and the Association filed with r W. L. B. a formal application requesting authorization to grant cer- tain wage increases and vacation allowances. On April 12, 1945, the application was approved and on April 18 the formal authorization papers were mistakenly mailed by the W. L. B. to another company which, on April 20, informed the respondent by telephone of the re- ceipt and contents of the papers. Immediately upon receipt of this information and notwithstanding the fact that an election was then being held among the respondent's employees, Vice-President See in- structed Foreman Steward to "Go over there and tell the boys that the 4-cent and 6-cent raise is already in," dictated the notice set forth in the Intermediate Report, and caused it to be posted in the plant. That the respondent was motivated to take this action by a desire to influence the results of the election against the Union, as found by the Trial Examiner, is indicated by the fact that it immediately posted the notice in the plant, without awaiting receipt of the formal author- ization papers and by the fact that in publishing the announcement to its employees, it took particular pains to point out the part played by the Association in securing the wage increases. Moreover, quite apart from the respondent's motive, we are convinced and find that the timing of the announcement prevented a free choice by the em- ployees in the election.° We, accordingly, sustain the Union's objec- tion to the election based on the respondent's publication of the action taken by the W. L. B., and we shall therefore set aside the election held on April 20, 1945. When the Regional Director advises us that the time is appropriate, we shall direct that a new election be held among the respondent's employees. 5. The respondent and the Association contend that, even if the Board adopts the Trial Examiner's unfair labor practice findings, there is no justification for his recommendation requiring the respond- ent to withdraw and withhold recognition from the Association unless and until the Association is certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. We find no merit in this contention. While the record fails to establish a violation of 0 See Matter of Continental Oil Company, 58 N L R B 169 , Matter of Goodall Com- pany, 68 N. L R. B. 252 LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 415 Section 8 (2) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, we nevertheless find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent, by expressing an open hostility toward the Union, while at the same time indicating a preference for the Association, by Vice-President See's statement that he "wanted the Association kept running," by Foreman Sylwestro- wicz's soliciation of one employee to join the Association, and by posting the notice of the W. L. B.'s approval of the wage raise appli- cation filed by the Association and the respondent, assisted the Associ- ation in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. To permit the respond- ent now to treat with the Association as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative would have the effect of perpetuating the respondent's unlawful assistance and would give the Association un- warranted prestige which might affect the employees' choice of representatives in the election to be conducted on some future date. Indeed, under settled Board doctrine, the respondent is already en- joined under the Act from bargaining exclusively with any labor organization until the existing question concerning the representation of its employees has been finally determined by the Board in another election., Therefore, we find that the policies of the Act can best be effectuated by requiring the respondent to refrain from entering into,a collective bargaining agreement with the Association or other- wise dealing with the Association as the bargaining representative of its employees unless and until the Association shall have been certified by the Board as such representative." _ 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, LaSalle Steel Company, IIamuiond , Indiana, and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Encouraging activity on behalf of and membership in La Salle Steel Employees' Association , Inc., while discouraging activity on behalf of and membership in United Steel Workers of America, C. I. 0.; (b) Prohibiting union activity on company property during non- working time; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization , to form ' See Matter of Midwest Piping and Supply Co , Inc., 63 N. L R. B. 1060; Matter of Flotill Products, Inc, 70 N L R . B, 119;' Matter of Lincoln Packing Company, 70 N. L R. B 135. 8 See Matter of Broug7aton's Farm Dairy, Inc., 68 N L R. B. 677. 731242-47-vol 72-28 11 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor organizations, to join or assist United Steel Workers of America, .affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization of its employees, 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, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Rescind immediately its rule prohibiting union activity on company property, insofar as it applies to the employees' non-work- ing time; (b) Refrain from entering into any collective bargaining contract with La Salle Steel Employees' Association, Inc., or otherwise dealing with it as the bargaining representative of any of the respondent's ein- ployees unless and until said Association shall have been certified as such representative by the Board; (c) Post at its plant at Hammond, Indiana, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "`Appendix A." ° Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said ,notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on April 20,1945, among employees of the respondent at its plant in Hammond, Indiana, be. and it hereby is, set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON, dissenting in part : In its preelection letter to its employees, the respondent announced a rule prohibiting solicitation by employees on their own time and declared that membership in a. labor organization would never be a condition of employment in its plant, anticipatorily refusing, there- fore, to bargain concerning union security in the event of a union In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted, before the words "A Decision and Order," the woi ds "A Decree of The United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing " LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 417 victory at the polls. These elements of employer conduct are recog- nized violations of Section 8 ^1) of the Act.10 Consequently, this letter, standing alone, is coercive. Despite the intrinsic illegality of the letter, however, my colleagues have applied a theory of separa- ,bility to it and find It a legitimate exercise of free speech. This metamorphosis is achieved by separating from the body of the letter the two elements I have noted; the excision is then pronounced as having cured the patient. The implications of this sort of surgery disturb me. I am sharply aware, especially in view of recent decisions of the Board," that there is an area for disagreement as to whether inde- pendent behavior of an illegal character by an employer illegalizes a speech or letter which otherwise might be privileged. Such cases involve determinations as to whether the whole course of an employ- er's conduct, including the speech or letter, may properly be found coercive. The promise in those cases is that the speech or letter, except for the impact of the independent behavior, is privileged under the constitution. In deciding that type of issue there may be room for application of a theory of separability. The true test must always be, of course, whether the inter-relation of the independent behavior and the speech or letter is so close as to negative any reasonable inference that the employees affected could -dissociate one from the other. Because this involves an exercise of judgment in matters of degree, there is obviously room for honest difference of opinion. It is a different matter if the speech or letter itself contains elements traditionally vidwecl as coercive. When that happens, it seems to me, reality demands that we examine the speech or letter in the same way the employer presented it to his employees, i. e., as a single entity to be considered as such. If, therefore, within its four corners there is a coercive appeal or threat of reprisal'12 then the speech or letter is not privileged. Refinements such as are sug- gested by the rationale of the majority ignore the concrete fact that employees are affected by everything their employer says or does in these circumstances. I can find, therefore, no basis, either in sound policy or the law for dissecting the preelection letter in this case. 10 See Republic Aviation Corporation , 324 U. S. 793, with respect to the prohibition of solicitation ; see also Bergmann's, Inc, 71 N. L . R. B. 1020, and M. T Stevens and Sons Company ( dissenting opinion and cases cited therein), 68 N. L. R. B 229, with respect to the anticipatory refusal to bargain concerning union security n Bergmann's Inc, 71 N L R B 1020, in which Chairman Herzog did not participate Fisher Governor Company, 18-C-1224, 71 N. L. R B 1291, issued December 31, 1946, but not overruling the Bergmann case issued about 2 weeks before 11 f find a distinct threat in the no-solicitation rule because its clear meaning is that any violation would be met by disciplinary action In view of the fact that the rule is an illegal impediment to self -organization , any discipline for its violation is, in effect. a reprisal for legitimate and protected activity 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Apart from these considerations, however, the letter must also bee rejected as an interference with the statutory rights of these employees for it forms, in my opinion, an integral part of the respondent's pro- gram to stifle self-organization among its employees. Testimony which we have credited establishes that in September and October 1944, when the Union commenced its attempts to organize these em- ployees, the respondent, through its vice president, general superin- tendent and lesser supervisory employees, undertook to dissuade them by engaging in conduct which my colleagues and I agree constitute unfair labor practices. Evens, the general superintendent, called em- ployee Sutkowski to his office (the first time in 12 years Sutkowski had ever visited Evens' office) and told him, in effect, tljat the union would not prove advantageous to older employees. Evens stated, in substance, that the seniority system then operative could no longer be used if the Union became the bargaining representative, because, presumably, of a difference in union seniority standards. Evens also adverted with approval to efforts of several older employees to "stop the CIO," and suggested that Sutkowski follow their example. Evens,, at about this time, questioned employee Coffing in his office as to why the employees approved of the CIO. Evens stated that the respondent would give the employees "anything that the CIO would give," and asked what the employees "wanted from the CIO." Foreman Sylwes- trowicz, also during the initial stage of the organizational activity of the Union, advised employee Balash not to pay attention to CIO hand- bills and that the employees "didn't need any union." Sylwestrowicz stated that he thought that the CIO would never "get into La Salle Steel." On the day following this conversation Sylwestrowicz asked Balash, if he had attended a union meeting, and, at another time, told Balash that the Association was becoming active. He requested Balash to join. The respondent's active preference for the Association and its eagerness to use it as means to forestall self-organization is further disclosed by Vice-President See's conversation, at about the same timer with employee Anderson. See stated that he wanted the Association "kept running" anti that he "didn't want it to the out." 13 These activi- ties by the respondent's officials and supervisors leave no doubt that it was determined to avert the possibility that its employees might select the Union as bargaining representative. Part of its plan in thi& enterprise was to maintain, by indications of its preference and by solicitation for memberships, the status of the Association as the representative of its employees. Its conduct in this latter connection culminated some months later in another gesture of preference for the Association to which I advert below. '3 See evidently had an ilea that lie was interfering with his employee ' s rights under the At beeause he confetsed that he "should not be saving this," and that by doing so "lie [wae ] sticking his neck out too far" LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 419 In evaluating the inter-relationship between these activities in the -autumn of 1944 and the issuance of the respondent's preelection let- ter in April 1945, I am not unaware of the passage'of time between them. -It is a factor which must be accorded proper weight in the determination of the issue as to whether the preelection letter stands as free speech or falls as merely another step in the respondent's illicit ,efforts to defeat its employees' rights. But it is only one factor, and there are others in this case which minimize its significance. The inceptive period of organizational activity at a plant and the normal -peak of that activity in the preelection stage are two periods during which employees may reasonably be held to have special sensitiveness '\u ith regard to iuanifest ations of union hostility by their employer. If initial efforts at self-organization are inet by discrimination and coercion, an atmosphere is established which the passage of a few months will scarcely dissipate. If again on the very day when em- ployees are to vote, a day, I might say, when they have a right tc expect the ballot box alone to decide the issue they are subjected to further coercion, the restraint previously engendered is revived most effectively. In this case the record proves that the respondent utilized precisely these two crucial periods of employee sensitiveness to com- plete its challenge to the statutory rights of its employees. On the day .of the election, and only one day after it issued its letter, the re- spondent, in receipt of informal notice that the War Labor Board had approved wage increases and holiday pay, quickly announced these benefits to its employees and ascribed their attainment to the efforts of the Association and itself. In this fashion the respondent was able to climax its enterprise with the highest success.l" With these considerations in mind, I am at a loss to understand the rigid refusal of the majority to view this case as one in which the totality of its conduct demonstrates the speciousness of the respond- ent's argument that its preelection letter is privileged. Insistence upon the fact that 6 months passed between the commission of these unfair labor practices as the basis for immunity for the respondent's letter not only ignores the events on election day, but assumes that the respondent itself, by the mere lapse in time, has remedied its unfair labor practices of the autumn of 1944. I cannot view the case that way because I am convinced that the letter, in this milieu, clearly con- stituted a refreshment of the fears created by the earlier illegality, and, when taken together with the announcement on election day, became interwoven in the texture of the respondent's coercive tactics to an extent remediable by nothing less than an affirmative order of 14 I note that my colleagues have found this conduct to be an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and have set aside the election because of it. I agree. 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this Board. I must, consequently, dissent from so much of this decision which affords a privilege to the preelection letter. 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 encourage activity on behalf of and membership in La, Salle Steel Employees' Association, Inc., nor discourage activ- ity on behalf of and membership in United Steel Workers of America, C. I. O. We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, 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. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor or- ganization. Employees may engage in union activity on company property on their own time. We will refrain from entering into an exclusive bargaining con- tract with La Salle Steel Employees' Association, Inc., or otherwise dealing with it as the bargaining representative of any of our employees unless and until said Association shall have been certi- fied as such representative by the Board. LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY, Employer. Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------- ( Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Robert T. Drake, for the Board. Messrs. Lee C. Shaw and Eugene F. Scoles, of Chicago, 111, for the Respondent. Mr. John F. Cusack, of Chicago, Ill , for the Association Mr. Norman L. Harris, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On February 1. 1945, United Steel Workers of America. affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called the Union , filed with the LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 421 Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a petition alleging that a ques- tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of La Salle Steel Company, herein called the respondent, at its plant at Hain- mond, Indiana, and requesting an investigation and certification of representa- tives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Pursuant to notice of hearing duly served on the parties, the hearing was held on February 27, 1945, at Chicago, Illinois. Thereafter on March 30, 1945, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election' providing for an election by secret ballot among the production and maintenance employees of the respondent. This election was, held on April 20, 1945. In accordance with the Direction of Election, the ballot contained the names of the Union and also the La Salle Steel Employees' Association, Inc., herein called the Association. The tally of ballots showed that of 203 valid votes, 106 were cast for the Associa- tion, 93 for the Union and 4 against any labor organization On April 24, 1945, the Union filed an amended objection to the conduct of the election, in which it requested that the Board set aside the results of the election because of alleged activities of the respondent in violation of the Act Thereafter, on May 26, 1945, the Regional Director issued his report on the objections in which he found that the objections raised substantal and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election and recommended that the election be vacated and set aside. Both the respondent and the Association filed exceptions to the Regional Direc- tor's report. On June 11, 1945, the Board issued an Order directing that a hear- ing be held on the objections to the conduct of the election. The Union there- after filed a charge against the respondent, and the Board, on March 25, 1946, by the-Regional Director, issued a complaint based upon such charge, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2s), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Board, by order, dated March 22, 1946, consolidated the cases. Thereafter, copies of the complaint, accompanied by a consolidated notice of hearing on the allegations of the complaint and the objections to the conduct of the election, were duly served upon the respondent, the Association, and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices. the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by urging, warn- ing and threatening employees against joining o assisting the Union, interrogat- ing its employees about union activities and membership, warning employees against talking about labor organizations of company property, disparaging the Union and other labor organizations, war4iing the wife of an employee against her husband's participation in the Union, and requesting and instructing super- visors to discourage membership and activities in the Union The complaint further alleged that the respondent had, on or about April 1937, initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted the Association, and thereafter assisted, dominated and contributed to the support of, and interfered with, the administration of the Association. In its answer the respondent admitted the allegations as to commerce, but denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. The respondent further alleged that the election of April 20, 1945, was a bar to the complaint and that the Board and the Union were guilty of laches. The Association in its answer- denied the allegations of the complaint with respect to it and also alleged, as 1 61 N L R B 151. 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had the respondent, that the election of April 20, 1945, constituted a bar to the ,complaint and that the Board and the Union were guilty of laches Pursuant to notice a hearing was held. from April 8 to April 11, 1946, both dates inclusive, at Hammond, Indiana and Chicago, Illinois, before the under- signed, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent and the Association were represented by counsel and the Union by an international representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing on the issues, was afforded all parties At the close of the Board's case the respondent filed several motions In substance these motions were (1) to dismiss the complaint as a whole, (2) to dismiss each paragraph of the complaint, and (3) to strike certain testimony from the record. The undersigned granted the motions to dismiss the allegations that the respondent had warned the wife of an employee against her husband's participation in the Union and that the respondent had requested and instructed the supervisors to discourage membership and activities in the Union, and also granted the motions to strike from the record testimony relative to a certain Loyalty Club, and the activities of one John Getzinger. In all other respects the motions were denied. At the close of the hearing, the respondent again moved to dismiss the complaint as a whole and to dismiss each paragraph of the com- plaint. The Association also, at the close of the hearing, moved to dismiss the allegation that the respondent had initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted the Association and thereafter assisted, dominated and contributed to its support. 'These motions were denied. Although afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally. Subsequently, a brief was filed by the respondent with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the iitnesses, -the undersigned makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I TIIE BUSINE SS OF THE RESPONDENT La Salle Steel Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in -Chicago, Illinois, and its only plant at Hammond, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of cold drawn steel and shafting During the year 1945 the respondent purchased raw materials amounting iii value to more than $250,- 000, of which in excess of 30 percent was shipped to the respondent from points outside the State of Indiana. For the same period the respondent's sales amounted in value to more than $250,000, of which in excess of 85 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Indiana. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED - United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus- trial Organizations , and La Salle Employees' Association , Inc, are labor organiza- tions admitting to niembeiship employees of the respondent. III rHE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Inteifelence. restraint, and coercion The first efforts of the Union to organize the employees of the respondent's -plant were made sometime in 1937. These efforts, however, were unsuccess- ful At about the same tune, the Association was organized, and shortly there- LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 423 after was recognized by the respondent as the bargaining representative for its employees. Organizational activities on behalf of the Union were begun again in Septem- ber 1944. Several of the employees testified to incidents occurring about this time in which the respondent exhibited its antipathy to the Union and its pref- erence for the Association. Francis Sutkowski "testified, that sometime in October 1944, George Evens, the respondent's general superintendent, called him into his office and spoke to him at great length about his work. Two or three days later, Evens again called Sutkowski into the office and this time emphasized that the respondent wished to rely on the "old men" like Sutkowski because he had a lot of "hilly billies" in the plant. Four or five days later, Evens again called Sutkowski into the office and began a conversation with him as follows : "Frank, there are these hilly billies They go out to these taverns, they get drunk and then they have these union men come in there and sign them up to the union. That is not fair, don't you think so?" Evens then remarked that there were also older men as well as these "hill-billies," and then added, "Frank, I don't see what the CIO, will do you old men in here, and another thing, I don't see how we could apply the seniority in here with the men I have the way the CIO runs their seniority." Evens then closed the conversation by telling Sutkowski there was a lot the "old men" could do and referred to several of the employees who were most ac- tive in behalf of the Association He commented with approval on their efforts- to stop the CIO, and suggested that Sutkowski follow their example! Lloyd Coffing testified that at about the same period, Evens called him into his office and asked Coffing why the men were in favor of the CIO and "what they wanted from the CIO, that [the respondent] would give the men anything that the CIO would- give." Evens denied both of these conversations, but he was not a convincing wit- ness.' The undersigned found Sutkowski and Coffing to be credible witnesses and_ credits their testimony, and finds that the conversation set out above occurred as testified to by them. Similar statements were made by foremen who worked under Evens' direc- tion. Emil Balash testified that sometime in September 1944, his foreman, Andrew Sylwestrowicz, came to him at his work and said, "there is going to be some men out at the gate passing out C. I. O. handbills and that [Balash] shouldn't pay any attention to them, and that he thought La Salle Steel was very equal with their men and that they didn't need any union and he said he never thought that the C'. I. 0 would get into La Salle Steel." The next day, Sylwestrowicz asked Balash if he had been to a meeting of the Union. During the same period, Sylwestrowicz told Balash that the Association was getting active and looking for new members and asked Balash to join it Sylwestrowicz_ denied this testimony but he was an evasive and unconvincing witness. The undersigned credits the testimony of Balash and finds that these conversations occurred as testified to by him. In the latter part of 1944, Foreman Harry Walker came up to employee Lafe Skaggs, in the plant and told him, according 2 Sutkowski testified that prior to these three conversations with Evens in the latter's office, Sutkowski had not been called into Evens' office for 12 years. 3 Evens contradicted his own previous testimony given at the representation hearing and, although given an opportunity to do so, could not explain the contradiction He further expressed ignorance of the rule distributed to all employees against solicitation on company property . He was extremely vague in his testimony as to when he first gained knowledge of union activity , and about instructions as to labor policy which he- gave to foremen. 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to Skaggs' undenied and credited testimony, that "the CIO was no good and all they were doing was trying to bleed the men of their money." Joe Anderson, who was an employee representative in the Association, testified that at a meeting in September 1944 between employee representatives and Mr. See, the respondent's vice-president, in charge of operations, See said, "that he wanted the Association kept running He said he didn't want it to die out and he said he should not be saying this, he says he is sticking his neck out too far." See denied this testimony Of the two witnesses, the undersigned finds Ander- son to be the more credible. The undersigned accordingly credits Anderson's testimony, and finds that the conversation occurred as testified to by him On April 19, 1945, the day preceding the election held by the Board, the re- spondent distributed to each of its employees a letter reading as follow,,,: To all Employees: A number of our employees have asked about the company policy regard- ing organization activities and whether or not it is necessary for them to sign up with a union in order to remain in our employ and continue to re- ceive such benefits as group insurance, vacations with pay, rest periods during the hot weather, the opportunity to work longer hours and many other advantages. We feel that our employees are entitled to know just where we stand and what our policies are. This statement is made and sent to each of you to - make our policies clear. These policies have been the same for many years. They are based on sound principles and will continue to be our policies. 1. Membership in any organization, religious, fraternal or labor, has not been and will not be a requirement for employment by this company. The plant will continue to be operated in the "American way" where any employee can work as long as there is work to do and he applies him- self to his work and without payment of dues, fees, assessments to any- one. We will not be a party to any agreement whereby you will be compelled to pay for the right to continue to work for this company. No employee or group of employees can or will receive any advantage what- soever over any other group because of membership in any organization 2. Solicitation of memberships of any kind on company time or prop- erty has been and will continue to be prohibited 3. It has been and will be our policy to pay wage rates as high as those paid in our-industry. Careful check of wages in other plants shows that our wage rates are as high or higher than those paid elsewhere for equal work. Incentive plans which have been used wherever possible have enabled employees to make substantial earnings above wage rates. 4 Our aim is to make work as steady as possible. Our record in this speaks for itself 5. Every effort has been made to provide the best working conditions possible A comparison with other plants shows that we rank among the best. 6 Your company has always been proud of its employees and has advanced employees as rapidly as employment conditions permitted Length of service is given full consideration 7 Each of you has been and will be protected in your right to present any question to the management of this company whether personal or related to your employment and have it carefully considered and reviewed LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 425 ,Our proposition in this matter is, therefore, that we stand firmly on the proposition that every employee shall be protected in his right to work here irrespective of membership or non-membership in any labor organization A secret ballot election is to be held Friday, April 20, 1945 This is a serious business and everyone should vote and vote in accordance with his carefully considered belief. All I ask is that you think this over carefully and then be sure to vote La Salle is known as a good place to work and we want to keep it that way Our relations in the past have been pleasant and harmonious and we intend to do everything to keep them that way in the future. LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY. (s) THEO. S. SEE, Vice-President in Charge of Operations. This letter was distributed by attaching a copy to each employee's time card On the afternoon of April 20 before the polls opened for the afternoon voting -the respondent posted on the bulletin board in the employees' locker room a notice reading as follows: Notice to all Hourly Employees: We are pleased to announce that the National War Labor Board has approved the application of the LaSalle Steel Company and LaSalle Em- ployees Association's application requesting a second shift premium of four cents per hour and a third shift premium of six cents per hour retroactive to January 1, 1944, together with increased vacations retroactive to the 1944 vacation season. Such premiums will be placed in effect at the earliest possible moment. Retroactive payments will be made as quickly as the work of figuring can be done. (S) THEO S. SEE, Vice President in Charge of Operations, LaSalle Steel Conipany. Also, on the afternoon of the 20th, See told one of the foremen to "tell the boys that the four and six cent raise is already in," and this foreman, Steward, car- ried out these instructions This was done between 3 and 4 in the afternoon before the polls opened for the afternoon voting See testified that knowledge of this approval by the War Labor Board was received by the respondent on the morning of the 20th. Concluding findings It is evident from the events set out above that from the very beginning of the Union's 1944 organizational campaign, the respondent embarked on a course of action designed to discourage membership in the Union and encourage continued activity by and affiliation with the Association. This consistent pattern under- lies all of the activities of the respondent's officials set out above. It is apparent from Evens' conversations with Sutkowski, from the remarks of foremen Syl- westrowicz and Walker and from See's statements to the employee representa- tives. This same pattern is disclosed in the letter of April 19, which was, in essence, an appeal to the employees to vote for the status quo, that is the Asso- ciation, in the pending election. Finally, on the day of the election itself, the respondent gave further assistance to the Association, by posting a notice in which it gave credit to the Association for obtaining a wage increase from the War Labor Board This pattern of conduct, assisting and encouraging membership and activity in one labor organization while discouraging membership and activity in another, is clearly prohibited by the Act 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The unlawful character of the respondent's conduct is even more clearly demonstrated when it is viewed in connection with its no-solicitation rule. As stated in the respondent's letter of April 19, its policy was to prohibit union activity on company time or property.' This prohibition of union activity on company property but on the employees' own time has frequently been held by the Board and the Courts to be in violation of the Act,` and the undersigned, in accordance with such decisions, finds it to be in violation of the Act in the present case. But, assuming that this were a proper rule, the situation would then be one, where the respondent, while prohibiting activity on behalf of the Union on company time or property, was itself employing this favorable oppor- tunity to carry on anti-CIO activity. Clearly, if the respondent, here, discrim- inatorily permitted the Association to carry on activity on company time and property, while prohibiting a similar practice by the Union, such discriminatory conduct would be violative of the Act. A fortiori, where the respondent itself carried on activity on behalf of the Association-on company time and property, while denying a similar opportunity to the Union, such conduct is equally viola- tive of the Act. The respondent argues that its letter of April 19, is protected by the constitu- tional guaranty of free speech as set forth in the doctrine of the American Tube Berulisig case ° But the respondent, here, was utilizing its control as an em- ployer over its employees to campaign actively in favor of the Association and against the Union. The Union, on the other hand, was prohibited from promot- ing its campaign on company time or property, and, clearly, the Union was not privileged to attach leaflets to the employees' time cards, as the respondent did here The respondent cannot claim the protection of the constitutional right to freedom of expression for this practice, whereby it availed itself of its control over its employees on company property and time to engage in pro-Association and anti-Union activity, while denying a similar opportunity to the Union to present its case. For it is here not a question of the respondent's words, but rather its actions that came in conflict with the Act. Whatever one may think about the language of the letter, it is clear that the respondent's conduct here was an illegal use of the respondent's authority to weight the scales in favor of the Association and against the Union. Furthermore, the letter is to be evaluated in terms of the pattern of conduct of which it is a part's So evaluated, it is evident that the letter was a continua- tion of the respondent's campaign which was begun soon after the 1944 organ- izational efforts of the Union commenced The letter was, in this context, not meant to be and would not reasonably be interpreted by the employees as an appeal to their reason or as a submission of the respondent's ideas to the "com- petition of the market," e but rather as an expression carrying behind it the full * Evens testified that the rule did not in fact prohibit activity on the employees' own, time. But this testriuoan- cannot be credited as against the express language of the letter. Further, at least one emplovee, Late Skaggs, was told by Evens not to engage in union activity on company time or propeit^, and the respondent's foreman, Steward, testified that lie understood the rule to apply to activities whenever an employee was on the premises " 5 Matter of Republic Aviation Corporation, 51 N L R B. 1186, enf'd 324 U S 793 ; Matter of Ecusta Paper Corporation, et al , 66 N L R B 1204 • Matter of Hoosier Cardinat Corporation, 67 N L R B 49, Mltattei of I1bco Mfg Co, 67 N L It B 210; Matter of Na- tional Lead Company, 67 N L R. B 177 ° N. L R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co , 134 F (2d) 993 (C. C A. 2) ° See N. L. R B. v. Virginia Electric t Power Co., 314 U. S 469, 479 ; Matter of Reliance Manufacturing Company of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 67 N. L. R. B 515 ; Matter of Grove Regulator Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 1102. 8 Holmes, J , dissenting in Abrams V. United States, 250 U . S. 616, 630. LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 427 weight of the respondent's economic power, in the light of the other events described above. Accordingly, in its context, it cannot be considered to be protected by the guaranty of freedom of speech ; and can, on the contrary, only be viewed as a violation of the Act. The respondent argues that the posting of the notice of the War Labor Board's approval of the wage increase, was not in violation of the Act because the Union had issued a leaflet in which it had stated that it also was asking the War Labor Board to approve the increase. This argument is without merit. This argu- ment does not meet the fact that the respondent's notice specifically credited the Association with obtaining the approval Moreover, it is evident that the re- spondent, since it only received knowledge of the approval on the morning of the 20th, could certainly have waited until the following day to publicize the fact. It is obvious that the respondent hastened to post the notice and inform the employees that the increase had been received, for the purpose of influencing the employees in their choice of representatives in the election then being conducted by the Board. The Board has consistently held that such activity constitutes an interference with an election,' and the undersigned, accordingly, finds that the respondent's action here constituted such interference The undersigned finds that by the activities set forth above and by their total- ity, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , B Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion The Board introduced into evidence a letter addressed to Truman Harris, a foreman of the respondent, and signed by Evens This letter read as follows : DEAR Six: This refers to your conversation with me, General Superintend- ent, in which you advised me that you have joined an organization made up of certain non-supervisory employees of the Company. As a foreman, you are a part of the Management and, under the National Labor Relations Act. the Company is responsible for your statements and activities. Therefore, it will be necessary for you either to sever connections with the organization referred to or to revert to a production job under the same conditions and rate of pay as the non-supervisory employees referred to. Please advise its within three days which course you propose to follow. The Board has held that an employer, although it may, in order to preserve its neutrality, require a supervisor to cease activities in behalf of a labor organiza- tion, it may not under all circumstances require him to give up his membership in a union.'° It would seem, accordingly, that this letter of the respondent to Harris,went too far. The Board, however, failed to introduce any evidence to show the events which led up to the writing of this letter, and the undersigned does not believe that the letter standing alone, without any of the surrounding circumstances, would justify a finding that the letter was sent in order to dis- courage union membership, rather than, as would have been proper, to preserve the respondent's neutrality. There was considerable other evidence introduced by the Board to show inter- ference, restraint, and coercion by the respondent. The undersigned does not 9 Matter of Continental Oil Company, 58 N. L It. B. 169. Matter of Seneca Knitting Mills. 59 N L It. B 754. Matter of Federal Engineering Company, Inc., 60 N. L It. B. 592, -cited by the respondent in support of its contention, is not in point. i" Matter of Climax Engineering Company, 66 N L R. B 1359 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD believe that any of the evidence in the record other than that discussed above- in Section III A of this report warrants such a finding." C The Association The Board introduced no evidence to show that the respondent had, as alleged' in the complaint, initiated, formed, sponsored and promoted the Association at its formation in April 1937. Nor did it introduce any substantial evidence to show -that, after that date, the respondent dominated or interfered with the- administration of the Association or contributed to its support The undersigned accordingly finds that the respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices- within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. However, the evidence discussed above in Section 111, A, reveals that the respondent assisted the Association in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act from the time of the beginning of - the Union's organizational campaign in September 1944, up to and through the election on April 20, 1945, and the under- signed so finds. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACPIOES UPON OOMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, A, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section 1, 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 thereof V. THE REMEDY The undersigned has described above the unfair labor practices of the respond- ent which occurred in connection with the election It is evident that these practices prevented the employees from exercising their free choice in the election and the undersigned will accordingly recommend that the election results be set aside. Since the election results are to be set aside, then the question concerning representation found by the Board to have existed in its prior decision," has not as yet been resolved. While this question concerning representation is still pending, the respondent should not grant exclusive recognition to either of the competing labor organizations." Moreover, it further appears that the majority vote at the election for the Association was obtained with the assistance of the respondent. The undersigned will accordingly, for both of these reasons, recom- mend that the respondent withdraw its recognition of the Association as the exclusive representative of the employees, and further that it not enter into a contract with the Association, unless and until the Association has been certified by the Board. The undersigned has found that the respondent has engaged in a general pattern of unfair labor practices designed to assist the Association and dis- courage activity for and membership in the Union It has done this in various ways-through the activities of its officials and foremen disparaging the Union 11 Among other evidence introduced by the Board was testimony by two active union employees that shortly after the Union began its organizational campaign , the respondent criticized their work both verbally and in writing . Any inference that might be drawn from this testimony was clearly met by the respondent 's evidence that letters of criticism were sent at this time to numerous other employees including some active on behalf of the Association 1261 N L. R B 151 13 Hatter of Bercut-Richards Packing Company, ct aT , 65 N L R B 1052. LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 429) and urging activity on behalf of the Association-by its promulgation of a no- solicitation rule or company property-by its utilization of company time and property to campaign in favor of the Association while denying a similar. privilege to the Union, and by its attempting to influence the outcome of the election These are no mere isolated instances, but, on the contrary, they constitute a general pattern of conduct designed to defeat the employees' freedom of self-organization They reveal an attitude by the respondent of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees gen- erally," and it is accordingly necessary that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with these rights, and the undersigned will so recommend The undersigned will also recommend that the respondent rescind its rule against solicitation on company property so far as it prohibits solicitation on non-working time CONCLUSIONS OF L kw I United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and La Salle Steel Employees' Association. Inc , are labor organ- izations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of _ Section 8 (1) of the Act 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act RECOMMENDATION S Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned hereby recommends that the respondent, La Salle Steel Company, Hammond. Indiana, and its officeis, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1 Cease and desist from : (a) Encouraging activity on behalf of and membership in La Salle Steel Employees' Association. Inc, while discouraging activity on behalf of and niemhership in United Steel AVoikers of America, CIO; (b) Prohibiting union activity on company property during non-working time, (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organ- izations, to join or assist United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bar- gain 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 as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act '2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Rescind immediately the rule prohibiting union activity on company property, insofar as it applies to the employees' non-working time; (b) Withdraw the exclusive recognition granted to La Salle Steel Employees' Association, Inc, and refrain from entering into a contract with said Association unless and until said Association is certified by the Board ; 14 May Department Stores Company v N L. R B., 326 U S 376 -430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Post at its plant at Hammond, Indiana, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to 'be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive clays there- after in conspicuous places, including all places wheie notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material ; (d) File with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that the results of the election held by the Board on April 20, 1945, be set aside. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) dais from the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent has notified said Regional Director that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the -National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) da's from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such a statement of exceptions and/or biief, the party or counsel for the Board filing same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with tile Re- gional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. D.kVID REIN, Trial Examiner. Dated May 8, 1946. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 encourage activity on behalf of and membership in La Salle Steel Employees ' Association , Inc., nor discourage activity on behalf of and membership in United Steel Workers of America, CIO. We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em- ployees in the exeicise of their right to self-organizati5n , to form labor or- .1 . LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY 431 ganizations, to join or assist United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. Em- ployees ma3 engage in union activity on company property on their own time. We hereby withdraw the exclusive recognition previously granted to the La Salle Steel Employees' Association, Inc, and we will not enter into any contract with said Association unless and until it is certified by the Board. LA SALLE STEEL COMPANY, Envployer. 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. 731242-47-vol 72-29