Pacific Moulded Products Co.

PACIFIC MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY 93 ERs OF AMERICA ( UE), or any other labor organization , to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above -named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment , and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is : All our production and maintenance employees at our plant in Louis- ville, Kentucky , excluding clerical and office employees and guards, pro- fessional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. LOUISVILLE CONTAINER CORPORATION, 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. V. S. ANDERSON AND M . C. ANDERSON , COPARTNERS D/B/A PACIFIC MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY and UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINO- LEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 21-CA- 104. May 14, 1952 Decision and Order On September 14, 1951, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications and exception. 99 NLRB No. 8. 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board 1 does not rely upon the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by stating in its November 28 bulletin that employers dealing with Respondents would not order merchandise if they knew that Respondents were having labor troubles and this would result in a lack of work for the employees of Respondents? Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that Respondents, V. S. Anderson and M. C. Anderson, copartners, doing business as Pacific Moulded Prod- ucts Company, Los Angeles, California, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Threatening to close their plant before they recognize United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, or any other organization. (b) Threatening to deprive their employees of overtime work if United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization is selected as the bargaining representative of their employees. (c) Interrogating employees concerning their votes in Board-con- ducted elections. (d) Instigating the formation of a company union. (e) Promising better treatment and granting wage increases in return for antiunion votes in Board-conducted elections. (f) Falsely attributing responsibility for the withholding of bonus payments from employees to United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization. (g) Falsely accusing United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of trying to cheat employees of their withheld bonus. (h) Falsely attributing to the National Labor Relations Board an order reducing wages or eliminating a prior wage increase if the em- i Board Member Houston, however , would find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that this statement of the Respondents constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 'Board Member Murdock believes it to be unnecessary to this decision and therefore would not rely upon certain additional statements of the Respondents sunrmarized on page 106 of the Intermediate Report (2 to 6, inclusive ), alleging that the Union was responsible for the nonpayment of a part of the employees ' Christmas bonus. Although these statements apparently were slanted by the Respondents to show the Union in an unfavorable light, it is clear that the Union made the bonus plan an issue in its campaign to organize the Respondents' employees and the Union Organizer welch did, in fact, actively assist several former employees in their attempt to secure part of the bonus Under these circumstances, Board Member Murdock questions whether the Board should hold, as a matter of law, that these statements constituted promises of benefit rather than obvious campaign propaganda , the truth or falsity of which the Board will not police. PACIFIC MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY 95 ployees vote in a Board-conducted election in favor of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization. (i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Rubber, Cork, Lino- leum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at their plant at Los Angeles, California, copies of notices attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." s Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by Respondents for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defacetl, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of this Decision and Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith. Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their votes in National Labor Relations Board elections. WE WILL NOT instigate the formation of a company union. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant before we recognize 'etln the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant , to a Decision and Order". the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Oider." I= 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNITED RUBBER CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT promise benefits and grant wage increases in re- turn for voting against UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, in elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT falsely accuse UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, of being responsible for withholding bonus pay- ments from employees. WE WILL NOT falsely accuse UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, of trying to cheat our employees of their withheld bonus. WE WILL NOT falsely attribute to the National Labor Relations Board an order reducing wages or eliminating a prior wage in- crease if our employees vote in favor of UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , or any other labor organization, in any elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members in good standing of the above-named union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. V. S. ANDERSON AND M. C. ANDERSON, COPARTNERS D/B/A PACIFIC MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY, Employer. By ----------------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) Dated -------------------- PACIFIC MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY 97 This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, ank must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a com plLaint.dated June 8, 1951, based upon a charge and amended charge duly filed on February 26 and April 26, 1951, respectively, by United Rubber, Cork, Lino- leum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Union, against V. S. Anderson and M. C. Anderson, copartners, doing business under the firm name and stlye of Pacific Moulded Products Company, herein called Respondents. The complaint alleged that Respondents had committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were. duly served upon Respondents. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Respondents, up to and including the date of the complaint, had interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em- ployees by: (a) Offering monetary and other inducements to employees in order to discourage membership in the Union; (b) interrogating employees concerning their union membership, sympathies, and intentions with respect to votipg; in a representation election; (c) threatening the loss of wages and other benefits if the Union won the representation election ; (d) threatening to close their plant if the employees selected a union to represent them; and (e) suggesting and assisting in the promulgation and formation of a labor organization. Re- spondents, in their answer, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, from August 13 through 16, 1951, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett. All parties were represented by counsel who participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witneses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the isues. During the hearing, the undersigned denied a motion by Respondents to dismiss the com- ploi t; insofar as it described conduct taking place after the date of the chargeg. Kansas Killing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 185 F. 2d 413 (C. A. 10) and Cathey Lumber Co. v. N. L. R. B., 185 F. 2d 1021 (C. A. 5), set aside on other grounds 189 F. 2d 428. After the General Counsel rested, Respondents moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the Union was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The General Counsel announced that the office of the General Counsel had administratively determined such com- pliance to have been timely achieved. No evidence of any defects in said com- pliance or of a failure to achieve compliance in any respect was offered by Respondents and the undersigned denied the motion. Red Rock Company v. N. L. R. B., 187 F. 2d 76 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 341 U. S. 950, and U. S. Gypsum Co., 94 NLRB 112. The undersigned also denied a motion by Respondents to dis- miss the complaint on the merits. All parties, at the close of the hearing, were afforded an opportunity to argue orally upon the record as well as to file briefs and/or proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The General Counsel presented oral argument and, the time for filing of briefs having been extended, a brief has been received from Respondents. 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS V. S. Anderson and M. C. Anderson, copartners, doing business under the firm name and style of Pacific Moulded Products Company, maintain their principal office and place of business at Los Angeles, California, where they are engaged in the manufacture and sale of moulded rubber products. During the 12-month period ending October 10, 1950, Respondents sold electronic rub- ber parts valued at approximately $370,000, of which in excess of 90 percent was sold to firms engaged in national defense production or was otherwise used in national defense production. The Board has previously asserted jurisdiction over the operations of Respondents (76 NLRB 1140) who admit herein that they are engaged in commerce. The undersigned finds that Respondents, area engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Machine Products Co.; 94 NLRB 668, and Westport Moving and Storage Co., 91 NLRB 902. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers, CIO, is a labor organ- ization•ladmitting to membership employees of Respondents. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of events 1. Background The conduct by Respondents considered herein took place. during a recent' attempt by the Union to organize the employees of the former in the period be- tween November 1950 and June 1951. Actually, the Union has been attempting for, some years to gain recognition as the collective bargaining representative o£, these employees. Thus, as far back as 1944, an organizational campaign was conducted and, because of Respondents' conduct, unfair labor practice charges were filed and the case tried before a Board Trial Examiner in 1946. The matter was decided by the Board on April 6, 1948, and Respondents were found to have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of,the Actl 2. The new organizational campaign Despite the prior unfair labor practice proceeding and the resulting order to bargain, inter alia, it appears that Respondents did not enter into a contract with the Union. At some undisclosed date; the Union decided to again conduct organizational activities among the approximately 70 employees and Field Repre- sentative Herbert Welch commenced the distribution of leaflets outside the plant in, November of 1950. Insofar as the record indicates, union activities inside the plant were largely carried on by employee Harold Kimball, a pressman. Commencing on or about November 1, Kimball passed out union leaflets to the employees and urged them to join and vote for the Union. -,He continued this activity for approximately 7 months during which period, as will appear, 2 $oard- ordered elections were held. 1 At the request of the General Counsel, the undersigned has taken notice of this decision of the Board in 76 NLRB 1140. See N. L. R. B. V. Olin Industrie8, 191 F. 2d 613 (C. A. 5). ' PACIFIC 'MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY 99 On -November 24, 1950, the Union wrote to Respondents and requested recog- nition as the collective bargaining representative for the plant. Volney S. Ander- son replied for Respondents on the same date, stating that there had been no proof of majority and that Respondents believed the Board should handle the matter. The Union, on November 24, filed a petition in Case No. 21-RC-1676 for certification of representatives in a production and maintenance unit, excluding supervisors, executives, and office employees. An election was directed on Jan- uary 26, 1951, and was duly held on February 20. Of the 72 eligible voters, 67 cast ballots , 28 in favor of the Union and 39 opposed. Timely objections were filed by the Union and investigated by the Regional Director. On April 26, the latter recommended that the election be set aside on the basis of Respondents' preelection conduct and, on May 10, it was set aside by the Board. On May 23, the Board directed the holding of a second election which was thereafter held on June 19. The record does not supply the results or post-election history with any accuracy. It was against this framework of the union organizational campaign, which was strongly resisted by Respondents, that the conduct alleged herein to be violative of the Act took place during the periods preceding the Board-ordered elections. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The bulletin campaign ; the incentive system - As stated, union leaflets were periodically distributed outside the plant, com- mencing in November of 1950. Respondents also saw fit to issue bulletins to their employees from time to time during the campaign, and these were posted on the plant bulletin board. With one exception, they were written by James Monroe Jefferson, an agent of Respondents,' and approved by Anderson. The one exception was a bulletin which was written and issued by Anderson per- sonally. ' At this point, in order to follow the subject matter taken up by Respondents in these bulletins, the undersigned deems it in order to describe briefly the opera- tion of Respondents' incentive wage system which plays a part in the matters involved in this proceeding. Respondents, prior to 1950, had been plagued with a turnover of personnel ranging as high as 80 percent. In 1950 they initiated an incentive system calculated to promote stability of employment. Under this system, bonuses were earned by each employee; these varied with the amount of his earnings and were to be paid every 6 months. The initial payment was made on or about June 30, 1950, for the preceding 6-month period, and the second was scheduled for the end of 1950. The latter was paid in two installments, one on December 22, covering the period from the date of payment of the prior bonus to December 22, and the second installment early in January covering the re- maining portion of December. It appears that an employee who left Respondents' employ during the last half of 1950 claimed that he was entitled to a bonus for that portion of the 6-month period during which he had actually worked and produced under the incentive system. Respondents contended that the bonus was payable solely to employees who had remained in their employ until the determination date in December and as a result resisted payment. Suit for payment of the bonus to this employee 2 Jefferson testified that he is a free-lance writer who occasionally engages in labor relations work. For the past 3 years he has been under a retainer with Respondents and devotes approximately one-third of his time to their problems . Included in his duties are advice in labor matters and the composition of letters and releases with respect thereto. All of his writings adverted to herein were approved by Anderson prior to issuance. 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and another in the same category was initiated in the California courts by the California Department of Industrial Relations and the matter is due to come up for trial in October of this year. Approximately 60 persons are in the same category as these 2 ea-employees, inasmuch as they worked for Respondents during the last 6 months of 1950, but left their employ prior to the determination date in December of that year. It is Respondents' desire that the production bonuses earned by these 60 remain in the pool, a separate bank account which Respondents maintain, and be added to the sum to be divided among the employees working on the determination date. Anticipating, however, that an adverse verdict in the California litigation, might result in liability by Respondent to these 60 former employees, Respondents de- cided to withdraw and set aside from the pool a sum representing the bonuses ostensibly earned by these 60, pending the outcome of the litigation, and this was done. Accordingly, the pool from which the bonuses were drawn and distributed in December of 1950 did not include the bonus amounts earned by these 60 em- ployees. This withheld sum totaled $719. As will appear below, the bulletins by Respondents, as well as circulars from the Union adverted to this fight con- cerning the unpaid bonuses. 2. Statements in Respondent's bulletins' On November 28, 1950, the Union distributed a circular which referred to the pending representation petition and informed the employees that an election would be held. The employees were urged to join the Union in order to obtain better working conditions. On the same date, Respondents posted a bulletin on the plant bulletin board which reminded the employees that the bonus would be paid before Christmas and urged them not to join the Union. However, the bulletin then went on to state pointedly : P. S. Don't forget when a Company is dealing with us and they know that we are liable to have labor trouble orders fall off, business falls off, resulting in unemployment. Business then goes elsewhere. We have spent years building up our volume. Do you want to loose (sic) this volume? Manage- ment cannot concentrate on bringing in new business or install necessary equipment when they are constantly having outside interference such as we are having now. [Emphasis added.] On December 7 Respondents posted a bulletin which referred to the pending claim for bonuses by the ex-employees who had left Respondents' employ prior to the determination date of the bonus. The bulletin claimed that Union Repre- sentative Welch knew that the bonus was not payable to these ex-employees and was trying to embarrass Respondents by causing them to file "criminal, charges" for payment of said bonuses ; it appears that Welch did assist these former employees in the processing of their bonus claims with the State authori= ties. The bulletin further stated that "HERBERT WELCH, UNION ORGAN- IZER, HAS TAKEN STEPS THAT IS (sic) APT TO HOLD UP A PART OF YOUR CHRISTMAS BONUS." Reference to the impending bonus payments was again made by Respondents on December 21. A bulletin posted on that date said, in part : Each of you will be given your share of the bonus tomorrow, (December 22nd). Because of the activities of the C. I. O. Rubber Workers Union, tit will $ These bulletins are in some detail and much of their content is not germane to the present issues. Only those parts deemed to be pertinent are therefore adverted to herein. In addition, some matter, although not devoid of materiality, Is not discussed in view of its cumulative nature. PACIFIC MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY 101 be about one-fourth less. . . We are opposing the Union in their unfair attitude of taking money away from you, and giving it to those who did not help you earn it. . . We have deposited in a special bank account the money that the Union is demanding. We are taking the position that it belongs to you. . . . [Emphasis added.] In a release dated December 28, the ITnion pointed out certain facts con- cerning the bonus claims pending before the California Department of Indus- trial. Relations and claimed that Respondents had originally intended to pay the bonus on a quarterly basis. On January 2, Respondents again raised the bonus question with the employees. As stated, the December 1950 bonus was paid to the employees in two installments, on December 22, 1950, and shortly after the first of the year. Respondents withheld from the pool a sum representing the amounts to which those employees who had left prior to the December 1950• determination date might be entitled. This bulletin of January 2 stated, inter alia, as follows : UNION HOLDS UP PART OF YOUR BONUS They ask you "What about the balance of your bonus?" That is a good question for them to ask of you. You should ask the CIO why they are holding up the amount that has been deposited in the bank to your credit- meaning, that part of the bonus that you didn't receive but will receive if 1 management has its say. MANAGEMENT FIGHTING FOR YOUR BONUS We think and hope that we will be able to get this balance for you. It would have been easier for the Company to pay the amount held back to those who did not earn 'it-but, it is your money and we are fighting for you. The CIO is trying to take it away from you with false 'testimony.-Yet the CIO tells you that they will not fine you or assess you. What is it but a fine when the Union is trying to make us pay the remainder of your bonus to those that didn't help you earn it? UNION AGAINST BONUS The Union is against bonuses that inspire you to turn out more ware'(sic) materials to fight the war against communism but the men that are fighting and dying in Korea need your best efforts. Many of you have friends and relatives who are fighting our battle for freedom in Korea. [Emphasis added.] The second installment of the December 1950 bonus was paid on January 5, 1951. In a release posted on that date, Respondents informed the employees that "The bonus check you are given today is for the last weekly pay period in 1950. You will recall the half year's bonus was paid before Christmas. There is still $719.76 being held back due to the activities of the Union. This sum will be distributed to you as soon as we get a final determination of the question. [Emphasis added.] After the Union issued a bulletin on January 24, the company replied on January 26. Again the bonus was discussed and, inter alia, the bulletin states : THE UNION TELLS YOU IT WILL NOT FINE NOR ASSESS YOU IN ADDITION TO THE DUES THEY CHARGE YOU. HOW ABOUT THE TWENTY PERCENT OF YOUR BONUS THAT THE UNION IS TRYING 216233-63-I-8 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD TO CHEAT YOU OUT OF, IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO THE EX-EMPLOY- EES WHO DIDN'T HELP YOF1 EARN IT. . . . WHAT ABOUT THAT 20ofo OF YOUR LAST BONUS THAT THEY ARE HOLDING U P ? . . . MANAGEMENT IS FIGHTING THE UNION TO GET THIS MONEY FOR YOU: WE WILL WIN. WE ARE ORGANIZED. MOST OF YOU ARE ORGANIZED WITH US IN OUR EFFORTS. REMEMBER THAT YOUR BONUS CANNOT BE FROZEN. NEXT WEEK WE ARE GOING TO TELL YOU ALL THE DETAILS OF HOW THE UNION IS TRYING TO CHEAT YOU OUT OF YOUR BONUS. [Emphasis added.] As heretofore noted, the Regional Director set aside the first election and an- other was held on June 19, 1951. On June 8 (the date of the instant coinplai`nt) Respondents circularized their employees as follows : ,1' 11, The Union-dominated National Labor Relations Board has ordered an- other election. The former election was set aside because the company raised your wages in order to keep them from being frozen. If the Union wins the next election, (Regional Director) Le Baron will make another capricious ruling which will order your wages set back to where they were before the company raised them. The National Labor Relations Board intends to force you to deal with the Union if possible. The company has informed the Board's agent that it will resist every effort to deprive you of your democratic rights as they were expressed at the election of February 20th, 1951. Come next week, you will start working six days. A copper shortage was the reason for the last several 5 day weeks. The Union doesn't like over- time, it wants a five day week. It wants to slow down production at any cost. The Union is trying to get the company to settle the bonus suit by giv- ing others a share in it. The Union knows it cannot win the suit. We cannot give your bonus money away to the friends of the Union. It is your money. At the end of each month the company deposits your bonus money in the bank. 3. The wage increase As noted, the first election in the representation proceeding was held on February 20. On the previous day, February 19, the entire complement of per- sonnel, save two, was notified by Respondents without any advance notice that a wage increase had been granted them.` The circumstances of the increase are as follows. On or about February 19, but in any event prior to the election, the employees were given a booklet by Respondents. This booklet dated January 15, 1951, had not been distributed previously ; it stated that it had been issued in order to clarify working condi- tions in the plant. The booklet discussed, among other things, the operation of the bonus plan, as well as general working rules. It stated that the hourly wage rates would be found in an attachment at the rear of the booklet. This one-page attachment, entitled "Hourly Wage Scale," listed the various classifica- tions in the plant and their respective wage scales. All these scales were in 4 These two had received a wage increase several weeks earlier. PACIFIC ` MOULDED PRODUCTS COMPANY 103 excess of the scales prevailing' immediately 'prior to the distribution of the Iamphlet. Stapled to the cover of each pamphlet was a printed slip of paper, the contents of which appear below. In each instance, the name of the employee and his new wage rate were filled in 8 (Employee's Name) This wage scale and the rules set out in this booklet is not a promise it is an offer to you. [Emphasis added.] If the Company wins the election, the wage scale in the back of the book will go into effect February 26, 1951, Your classification will be (Classifica- tion), your hourly rate will be $(rate), including shift differential, and, with this wage scale you will still have your bonus system. This offer is made to you in order to protect you against a wage freeze. Protect yourself, vote no against the C. I. O. If you fail to vote it will be a vote for the Union and a vote against an increase in wages now. Anderson testified that Respondents' wage rates were compared semiannually W;ith'those inYcompetitive-firms and that publication of the pamphlet had been under consideration for sometime; that it head been received from the printer but several days prior to its distribution ; and that its distribution immediately prior ,tb the election was pure coincidence. He further testified that the wage increase was, of a pattern with,prior, sincreases in January 1950 and August 1950, based upon his semiannual study of the rates paid by competitors. He further claimed that another raise was again considered in July 1951, but was not granted. Basically, he contended that Respondents desired on this occasion to avoid having their employees caught in a wage freeze. The increase went into ,effect February 26. Initially, it may be noted that the timing of.the increase in mid-February, immediately prior to the election, serves to refute this claim. Moreover, the very language of the attached slip, cited above, demonstrates that Anderson's claimed purpose was not the true purpose. It is all too clear that the granting of the increase was made contingent upon the Union losing the election and that Respon- dents were expressly so motivated in attempting to influence the vote by a bribe. Significant also is the fact that the record contains no evidence of any employees seeking a wage increase at that time. Any lingering doubt of Respondents' motivation isidispelled by the testimony of Jefferson, who stated, with reference to the wage increase, that "it was offered to them (the employees) and they, by their vote, accepted it. That's the only thing I could assume." Hence, the under- signed rejects Anderson's testimony herein. 4. Additional interference, restraint, and coercion In November of 1950, Anderson delivered a talk to the female employees of the trimming department. According to the credited testimony of former employee Catherine Sawyer, he informed the group that Respondents were doing all they could to make things comfortable for the girls. He stated that he did not want a union in the plant because, unions meant trouble and strikes and that "he would close his doors before he would Jet a union in there." Anderson pointed out that he expected the girls to cooperate with him and "if the girls would form a committee and appoint some of the girls to come to his office and discuss things with him that the girls weren't satisfied with, he would 6 In several cases clerical errors had been made which were later rectified. 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be well pleased." Employee Abbie Moses, who testified for Respondent, par- tially corroborated the testimony of Sawyer. She testified that Anderson suggested the formation of a committee ; although at first uncertain as to the date, she ultimately placed the talk sometime prior to the February election and identified Sawyer, who left the Company's employ in March 1951, as among those present' Some of the female employees were at the time disturbed over the prospect of continuing on a 6-day, 48-hour workweek. Consistent with Anderson's sug- gestion, they formed a committee of three on the day following his speech and this committee, which included Sawyer among its members, did visit and confer with Anderson 2 days after his speech concerning the desire of some for a re- duction in the workweek to 5 days. Shortly before the election on February 20, 1951, James Jefferson, Respond- ents' consultant in labor relations and admittedly its agent, engaged in cer- tain conduct pertinent to the instant issues. Jefferson testified for the General Counsel at the outset of the hearing as an adverse witness but was not called to the stand by Respondents who indicated on the record that a sudden illness of Jefferson prevented his being recalled to the witness stand. Although the undersigned indicated that he would extend the hearing in order to give Respond- ents an opportunity to present Jefferson's testimony, Respondents ultimately stated that they did not desire to proffer this testimony. As a result, the state- ments attributed to Jefferson by the credited witnesses for the General Counsel who are named below are undenied by Jefferson and are uncontroverted, except as hereinafter indicated. * On the day before the election, Jefferson summoned employee Marjorie Basel to the office and informed her that he and Anderson were aware that she was the "instigator" of the Union in the plant and that if the Union "didn't come in" the employees would receive a raise. Immediately thereafter, Jefferson sum- moned employee Catherine Sawyer to the office. He pointed out that Respondents had considerable Government orders on hand and, in order to fill them, the employees would be able to work on Saturdays and Sundays at time and one- half and double time, respectively. Jefferson told her that the Union opposed overtime work, that the loss of overtime would mean a substantial loss of pay, and that the girls should therefore use their discretion about having the Union represent them. He concluded by telling; Sawyer that Respondents would treat the employees "even better" if they won the election and that she +would (find a surprise that evening when she left work: That evening the employees were notified of the wage increase, described hereinabove, and were given slips an- nouncing their respective increases. Sawyer, through an oversight, was not given a slip, but did receive the increase at the same time as the others. In a talk with employee Harold Kimball immediately before the election, while the latter was at work in the pressroom, Jefferson asked Kimball how he intended to vote; Kimball replied that this was a secret. Testimony by several 6 Anderson denied that he had suggested the formation of a company union in this talk, which he placed as occurring on October 16 or 26, but admitted that he had invited the girls to visit his office "singly or in groups." He also denied that he had threatened to close the plant before he would recognize the Union. However, as will appear below, Sawyer testified that a committee-of -three was selected by the employees on the day follow- ing Anderson's speech and the testimony of the latter is that a committee did call upon him at about that time. Accordingly, the undersigned does not credit the denials of Anderson herein. Moreover, it is noteworthy that in the prior proceeding against this employer the Board found that Anderson made closely similar statements, then suggesting the formation of a company union and announcing that he would close down the plant before he would recognize a union. PACIFI'G MOULDED PRODUOIFSP COMPANY 105 coworkers of Kimball that they did not observe the two men in conversa- tion in the pressroom does riot rebut Kimball's impressive testimony which the undersigned credits in full. During this preelection period, Jefferson also addressed the midnight shift of the pressroom. After telling the group that they already enjoyed all the benefits that the Union was proposing, for them, he went on to say that he was aware of some discussion in the plant relative to the formation of a company union? Jef- ferson stated that lie_had been in plants where company unions existed and that they had been most satisfactory. He concluded by telling the employees that they could accept his statements for what they were worth e 5. Conclusions From the foregoing factual recitation it -is readily apparent, in the belief of the undersigned, that Respondents have engaged in an illegal course of con- duct. Specifically included in this conclusion are the threats by Anderson in his November 1950 speech to close down the plant before he would recognize a union, Arlington-Fairfax Broadcasting Co., 95 NLRB 846, and his suggestion that the employees form a company, union., Also-included is=the conduct of Jefferson, prior to the February 1951 election, in questioning an employee concerning his vote in the election ; accusing an employee of being the leader of the Union in the plant and coupling this accusation with the promise of a wage increase for all employees if the Union was defeated in the election ; threatening another employee with loss of overtime if the Union was selected by the employees ; an- nouncing that if the Union lost the election the employees would receive better treatment from management ; and suggesting, as had Anderson previously, the formation of a company union. Coupled with the above promises of a benefit was the actual announcement to employees who had not sought it of a benefit in the form of a plant-wide wage increase on the day before the election. The slips informing the employees of the increase urged them to reject the Union in the election and expressly prom- ised that the increase would go into effect if Respondent won the election. As Jefferson put it, "It was offered to them and" the employees "by their vote, ac- -cepted it." That an increase so motivated is violative of the Act is fundamental. N. L. R. B. v. Valley Broadcasting Co., 189 F. 2d 582 (C. A. 6) ; N. L. R. B. v. Ver- mont Furniture Corp., 182 F. 2d 842 (.C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp., 179 F. 2d 323 (C. A. 8) ; and D. H. Holmes, Ltd. v. N. L R. B., 179 F. 2d 876 (C. A. 5). ' The above conduct is found to constitute in- terference, restraint, and coercion. Much of the content of the bulletins issued by Respondents during the pre- election period is found to constitute an invasion of the rights of their em- ployees. So considered are the following : (1) The November 28 bulletin announcing that employers dealing with Re- spondents would not order merchandise if they knew that Respondents were 'Not only was there in fact such discussion, but it will be recalled that Anderson in an earlier talk had suggested to the employees the formation of such an organization. 8 Findings herein are based upon the testimony of Kimball heretofore credited. Edward Vanderslice, still in Respondents' employ, testified under subpena and substantially cor- roborated Kimball. Employees Poole and Lancaster testified for Respondents that they were present at this talk; that they heard no references to the formation of a company union ; but that they did not pay much attention to the talk and recalled only parts of -it. Foreman Plano adopted the testimony of Poole and Lancaster as his version of the talk. The undersigned believes and finds that the testimony of Kimball, a clear and forthright witness, supported by that of Vanderslice, is the more reliable and It has therefore been credited herein as elsewhere. 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD having labor trouble and that this would result in a lack of work for the em- ployees of Respondents. This is clearly a threat of loss of work, particularly in view of the lack of any evidence of an impending loss of orders for this reason. Cf. A. J. Showalter Co., 64 NLRB 573. (2) The statement in the December 7 bulletin that as a result of the action by Business Representative Welch of the Union a part of the Christmas bonus due the employees would be held up. Not only was a portion of the bonus actually withheld by Respondents and responsibility therefor falsely placed upon the Union, but furthermore, in the present context, this and other statements which attributed to the Union responsibility for the loss of part of the bonus were linked by Respondents with their promises to provide the remainder of the bonus to the employees . Hence, the present statement, and similar statements set forth below, are regarded as parcels of an illegal promise of a benefit. See D. H. Holmes, Ltd. v. N. L. R. B., supra, and Medo Photo Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 678. (3) The announcement in the December 21 bulletin that as a result of the "activities of the C. I. O. Rubber Workers Union " the bonus would be one-fourth less. (4) The January 2, 1951 , bulletin accusing the CIO of holding up a part of the bonus but promising, if management had its way, payment thereof. This bulletin also accused the CIO, which Was allegedly opposed to bonuses , of trying to take away from the employees a portion of the bonus and pay it to others. (5) The January 5 release stating that part of the bonus was still held up "due to activities of the Union." (6) The January 26 release again accusing the Union of holding up payment of the bonus and attempting to cheat the employees of 20 percent of their due bonus, and stating that management was fighting the Union in order to obtain the bonus for the employees. (7) The bulletin during February asking the employees if they wished to give up their overtime because of the opposition by the Union to it . There is no evidence of such opposition by the Union during the campaign and this statement under the circumstances constituted an implied threat to remove overtime work if the employees voted in the Union. (8) The June 8 bulletin announcing that if the Union won the second election the Regional Director of the allegedly union -dominated Board would order that the February wage increase be rescinded : this of course is completely contrary to customary Board policy in cases where such increases have been found to have been illegally motivated . This prediction constituted a threat of a reduction in wages if the employees selected the Union in the election . That this threat was predicated upon an allegedly capricious action by the Regional Director is no, defense. The fact is that a threat of reprisal consisting of a cut in pay was made ; moreover, it was made with no factual basis therefor. The undersigned further finds that by the foregoing enumerated conduct Respondents have interfered with , restrained , and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Western Cottonoil Company, 95 NLRB 1433, and Edwards Brothers, Inc., 95 NLRB 1451. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents , set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with their operations described in Section I, above , have a, close, WHITING CORPORATION 107 intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Inasmuch as the unfair labor practices found above reveal on the part of Respondents a fundamental antipathy to the objectives of the Act and therefore justify an inference that the commission of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated in the future, the undersigned will recommend that Respondents be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the right, guaranteed by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the ease, the undersigned makes the following : ConcLusIONs OF LAW 1. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (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. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] WHITING CORPORATION, SPENCER AND MORRIS DIVISION and INTERNA- TIONAIl BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LODGE No. 92, A. F. OF L. Case No. 21-CA- 1081. May 14,1952 Decision and Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on April 3, 1951, by International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America, Lodge No. 92 A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued his com- plaint dated May 10, 1951, against Whiting Corporation, Spencer and Morris Division, Los Angeles, California, herein called the Respon- dent,,alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging ' in "unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of 99 NLRB No. 27.