The Lewis Engineering Co.

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. By causing and attempting to cause the Respondent Company to discriminate against Vincent, Welsh, Teets, Curtis, Knapp, and Valley in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 7. By restraining and coercing the Cadillac employees of the Respondent Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 9. Neither of the Respondents committed any unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint except those specifically found herein to have been committed. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK- ERS OF AMERICA UAW-CIO), PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 1RC-2299 and 1-CA-1033. November 21, 1952 11 Decision and Order On May 15, 1952, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also rec- ommended that the Union's objections to the election held in Case No. 1-RC-2299 be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Re- spondent, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 1 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, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu sions, and recommendations, with the following modifications and additions : 1. As set forth in detail in the Intermediate Report, during the 2-week period immediately preceding a Board-conducted election held 3 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, Styles, and Peterson]. The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. 101 NLRB No. 98. THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY 485 on September 17, 1952, the Respondent announced its intention, in a notice posted on the plant bulletin board on September 5, of applying to the Wage Stabilization Board for permission to grant a 12-cent per hour increase for all of its employees. While keeping the em- ployees apprised of the progress of its activity to obtain such wage increases, the Respondent utilized the fact as part of its antiunion propaganda. In a personal letter of September 14, 1952, mailed to all employees on the last working day before the election, the Re- spondent explained its wage increase application as an example of the Company's fairness, upon which the employees could depend with- out the intervention of a union and the attendant cost of union dues. The Union lost the election, and within the period provided in the Board's Rules and Regulations filed objections to the election based upon the foregoing activity of the Respondent. Simultaneously, on the same factual allegations, the Union filed charges of unfair labor practices against the Respondent. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the preelection announcement of the pendency of wage increases made by the Re- spondent at the height of the Union's organizational campaign was a promise of benefit reasonably calculated to deter the employees from voting for the UAW-CIO in the election. By such conduct the Re- spondent coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful conduct and to post notices appropriate under the Board's usual practice. 2. Relying on certain earlier Board decisions, the Trial Examiner concluded that, because the Union had gone to the election with knowledge of the foregoing illegal conduct, it had waived its right to urge it as a ground for setting aside the results of the balloting. Consequently, he found that the objections were without merit and he recommended that the petition be dismissed. We note that more than 13 months have passed since the election. As provided by the statute, either the Union or any other labor or- ganization is now free to request another election among the same employees 2 As a general policy, the Board will decide the merits of objections to an election notwithstanding the fact that the passage of 12 months makes the issues raised by the objections moot so far as they relate to the holding of a new election .3 A basic reason for this policy is the over-all importance of establishing standards of conduct for future elections. In the situation here presented, however, no useful purpose would be served by considering and deciding the merits 2 See section 9 (c) (3) of the Act. 3 The American Thread Company , 96 NLRB 956. 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the objections. Whether the objections be sustained or overruled in this consolidated proceeding, the Respondent will be required to cease and desist from the conduct of which the Union complains. Accordingly, in view of the special circumstances of this case, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions and recommendations as to the objections. Instead, we shall dismiss the petition in Case No. 1-RC-2299 without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by the Union, or by any other labor organization. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)^ of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Lewis Engi- neering Company, Naugatuck, Connecticut, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Announcing wage increases, or proffers of wage increases, to its employees, for the purpose of influencing its employees with respect to their union activity, affiliation, assistance, or designation. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organi- zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America (UAW-CIO), 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, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi- zation 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 its plant at Naugatuck, Connecticut, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof and main- tained 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 * If this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there all be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY 487 that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 1-RC-2299 be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice. 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT announce wage increases, or proffers of wage in- creases, to our employees for the purpose of influencing our em- ployees with respect to their union activity, affiliation, assistance, or designation. WE WILL NOT in any like or related 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 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), 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, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY, Employer. By --------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated ------------------------ This notice must remain posted for 60 days after its date and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CAGE On September 21, 1951, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, filed unfair labor practice charges in Case No. 1-CA-1033 against The Lewis Engineering Company , herein called the Company, and also objections to a representation election conducted by the Regional Director for the First Region <Boston, Massachusetts ), among the Company's employees on September 17, 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1951, in Case No. 1-RC-2299. Copies of the objections were duly served upon the Company on September 21, 1951, and copies of the charges on September 22, 1951. On December 13, 1951, the Board, upon consideration of a report made by the Regional Director on November 7, 1951, recommending the setting aside of the election, and also of a subsequent motion by the Company to amplify the record, decided that the Union's objections and the motion of the Company raised sub- stantial and material issues of fact, and accordingly ordered that a hearing be held upon these issues, and a report with findings and recommendations be sub- mitted by the hearing officer. On March 5, 1952, the Regional Director issued (1) a complaint based upon the Union's charge in Case No. 1-CA-1033 alleging that on and since September 5, 1951, the Company had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act; (2) an order consolidating Cases Nos. 1-CA-1033 and 1-RC-2299 for the purposes of hearing; and (3) a notice of hearing in the consolidated cases. Copies of the order of consolidation of the charge and complaint in Case No. 1-CA-1033 and of the notice of hearing were duly served upon the Company and the Union. The complaint in Case No. 1-CA-1033 and the Unions' objections to the election in Case No. 1-RC-2299 both alleged in substance that on and since September 5, 1951, the Company had made offers and promises to grant a wage increase to its employees for the purpose of discouraging membership in, or assistance to, the Union. As the "First Defense" set forth in the answer which it filed both to the com- plaint and to the Union's objections to the election, the Company denied that it had offered or promised to grant a wage increase to its employees for the purpose of discouraging membership in or assistance to the Union, or that it had com- mitted any unfair labor practice. As a "Second Defense" also set forth in its answer, the Company further asserted that, although the Union had full knowl- edge of the Company's posting of a notice as to a wage increase on September 5, 1951, it "elected to use the [Company's] action . . . for its own campaign pur- poses," proceeded with the representation election on September 17, 1951, failed to file an unfair labor practice charge "until after the results of the election were made known," and thereby "waived any right to object to the results of the election." Pursuant to the notice already mentioned, a hearing was held in Waterbury, Connecticut, on March 31, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel of the Board, the Company, and the Union, through their respective counsel, participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. During the course of the hearing, the undersigned reserved decision upon motions made by the Union's counsel for the dismissal of the "Second Defense" set forth in the Company's answer and for the adoption of the Regional Director's report recom- mending that the election be set aside. The undersigned disposes of these motions in accordance with the conclusions and considerations set forth in this Report. Before the conclusion of the hearing, the parties, waiving full oral argument, briefly discussed the issues, their respective contentions, and the authorities upon which they rely. Since the conclusion of the hearing, the under- signed has received briefs from the Company and the Union. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY 489 The Lewis Engineering Company, a Connecticut corporation, is engaged at Naugatuck, Connecticut, in the manufacture of electrical aircraft temperature measuring instruments for the United States Army Air Corps. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, the Company purchased raw materials of a value in excess of $50,000, of which more than $30,000 by value were shipped to the Company's plant in Naugatuck, Connecticut, from points outside the State of Connecticut. During the same 12-month period, the Company' s sales exceeded $100,000 of which more than $100,000 represented sales and shipments to points outside the State of Connecticut. The undersigned finds, and the Company concedes, that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. M. THE FACTS On June 20, 1951, the Union filed its petition to the Board for certification as bargaining representative of the Company's production and maintenance employees ; on August 28, 1951, the Board issued its decision and directed an election be held ; and on September 7, 1951, the Company, the Union, and an agent of the Regional Director agreed that the election should be held on Sep- tember 17, 1951. At the election on the date thus set, only 98 of 231 valid votes were cast for, and 133 were cast against, representation by the Union. On September 13, 1951, and thus only 4 days before the election, the Company applied to the Wage Stabilization Board for permission to grant the employees a 12-cent per hour increase. Moreover, its president, C. H. Austin, informed the employees that the Company was making this application, both in a notice posted on the plant bulletin board on September 5, and again in a letter to the employees posted on September 14. Complete copies of this notice and of the letter are attached as Appendixes A and B, respectively. As will appear from these copies, the Company's notice of September 5 was merely an announcement that, pursuant to its policy and practice of paying the wage rates prevalent in the area, the Company was apply- ing, and would continue to press its application, to the Wage Stabilization Board for permission to grant a 12-cent per hour wage increase retroactive to April 1, 1951: and that, although the Company had felt for months that a wage increase "was indicated" and had discussed the whole problem with one of its principal customers and "the Office of the local Wage and Hour Board at Hartford," it had not made an earlier application for approval of the wage increase because only recently had the area wage pattern become clear. The Company's letter of September 14, however, outlined and explained its wage increase application as an example of the Company's fairness, upon which the employees could depend without the intervention of a union and the attendant cost of union dues, and thus as a part of a frank, general appeal to the employees to vote against the Union in the election the following Monday because, as President Austin put it in the letter, "we have gotten along well up to now without any Union, and I don't see why we need one." 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union learned of the Company's proffer of the wage increase to the em- ployees subject to approval by the Wage Stabilization Board at least by Sep- tember 12. Instead of withdrawing its representation petition and participation in the election, or filing an unfair labor practice charge, it issued mimeographed circulars to the employees on September 12, 13, and 17, in an attempt to counter- act the effect of the Company's action and announcement upon the election. Thus in the circular distributed on September 12, the Union urged the em- ployees : "Insure that 12¢ vote Yes-Monday, September 17. The Company wants to buy off the Union with that 12¢ offer. Don't be fooled ! The majority of workers at the Lewis plant wants you to vote Yes on Monday, the 17th so that you'll be positive of getting that 12¢. With the UAW-CIO, you can be sure! You've just begun to get results from the Company. DON'T STOP NOW- vote Yes." Then, in the circular distributed on September 13, the Union warned the em- ployees that the Wage Stabilization Board might not grant the increase, charged the Company with making the application only because of the appearance of the Union at the plant "to get you to think that you don't need a Union," and urged the employees to "Play Safe" and thus insure themselves of the Union's help in securing employment benefits generally, by voting for the Union in the election. And finally, in the circular distributed on September 17, the day of the election, the Union exhorted the employees to vote for representation by the Union in order to "insure that promise of 12¢" as well as other enumerated benefits which (the circular state) "are now enjoyed by your neighbors in UAW-CIO." IV. CONCLUSIONS The undersigned believes it clear and therefore finds, contrary to the Company's primary contention, that, by announcing to the employees immediately before the election that it was applying to the Wage Stabilization Board for permission to grant them a wage increase, by promising them the increase if permission were granted, and by frankly using this promise of benefit to induce the employees to vote against the Union, the Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their right freely to designate their collective- bargaining representative as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby com- mitting an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and making impossible the fair representation election contemplated and required by Section 9 (c).' The Company also contends, however, that the Board should not make this unfair labor practice finding nor set the election aside because the Union, with knowledge of the Company's conduct affecting the election, chose to proceed with the election and waited until after it had lost before filing the unfair labor practice charges. Upon the facts of the case, the undersigned agrees with the Company that, under the Board's decision in the Denton Sleeping Garment case,' the Union thereby waived its right to make the instant objections to the election and recom- mends that the Board dismiss the Union's objections and refuse to set the elec- tion aside. In reaching this particular conclusion, the undersigned has rejected various opposing arguments urged by the Union. Thus, the undersigned feels that, in directing the instant hearing for the consideration of substantial issues raised by the Company's motion to amplify the record in the representation case, the Board has already foreclosed the Union's argument that the Board should 1 Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608 (and cases therein cited ) ; Direct Laboratories, Inc., 94 NLRB 380; M. H. Davidson Company, 94 NLRB 142; Squirrel Brand Co., 96 NLRB 179. 2 Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, Inc., 93 NLRB 329, and cases therein cited. THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY 491 adopt the Regional Director's report recommending the setting aside of the elec- tion because of the Company's failure to file exceptions to the report within the 10 days limited by the Board's Rules and Regulations' Furthermore, in view of the Board's enunciation of, and continued adherence to, the "waiver" rule of the Denton case (supra), the undersigned also rejects a second union argument gen- erally attacking this rule on the ground that, contrary to the statutory policy of encouraging and expediting collective bargaining when a majority of the em- ployees desire it, the "waiver" rule improperly requires a union, upon learning of employer misconduct prejudicing an impending election, to make an immutable choice between (1) taking its chances on winning the election to secure a desir- ably early certification despite the employer's interference, and (2) pursuing the more cautious but longer (and in that respect, the less satisfactory) route of a complaint proceeding to establish its collective-bargaining status. Finally, the facts of the instant case do not fall within the premise of a third argument made by the Union, I. e., that the Union, by proceeding with the election, cannot logi- cally or fairly be held to have waived its right to object to the result, because the Company's interference so shortly preceded the election that the Union was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to appraise the extent to which the inter- vention might affect the election, and then (if it desired) to withdraw from the election and to file unfair labor practices charges.4 For, in the present case, the Union had sufficient time to prepare and distribute three circulars among the employees in an attempt not only to counteract, but to turn, the Company' s action to its own advantage. The undersigned therefore finds that, under the Denton decision, the Union waived its right to object to the election. However, the undersigned does not agree with the Company that the waiver extended to, or that it could extend to, the unfair labor practices committed by the Company. For the Act, concerned as it is with the elimination of practices interfering with commerce, has created public rights, the enforcement of which it has entrusted to the Board. Violations of the proscriptions of the Act, there- fore, may not be waived or settled without the Board's approval. The under- signed will accordingly recommend that the Board issue an order requiring the Company to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Company described in section I, 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 of commerce. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : "It should be noted that Section 102 61 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations does not make adoption of the Regional Director's report automatic in the absence of timely objec- tions, but provides merely that in such event the Board "may decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case." * This was in substance the reason given by Board Member Reynolds for his concurrence in the Board's decision that there was no waiver in Squirrel Brand Co., 96 NLRB 179. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act the Company has engaged in and is 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. 4. By continuing to proceed with, and failing to withdraw from, the representa- tion election in Case No. 1-RC-2299, although it had knowledge of the Company's unfair labor practices affecting the election, International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) waived its right to make the aforesaid unfair labor practices the grounds for objections to the election. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY, NAUGATUCK, CONN. NOTICE As you know, the practice of your Company has always been to pay wages when able which are in line with wages paid in this area. Months ago your Management felt that an increase in wages was indicated, and took steps with one of its principal customers and also with the Office of the local Wage and Hour Board, in Hartford, to discuss the whole problem. At that time the wage pattern had not been established, and it is only recently that the situation has cleared up so that we could determine what to do. In line with our long established policy therefore, and consistent with area practice, your Company is making application to the Wage Stabilization Board for permission to increase wages for all hourly rated employees to the extent of 12¢ per hour, as a total, the same to include fringe benefits in the nature of a new and improved health, sickness, accident and life insurance program, and an improved vacation plan. Our best information at this time indicates that such fringe benefits will cost about 3¢ per hour. We will use our best efforts to obtain the necessary board approval as soon as possible retroactive to April 1st, 1951, for the cash wages involved. THE LEwIs ENGINEERING COMPANY, (S) C. S. Austin, C. S. AUSTIN, Dated : September 5th, 1951. CSA : wrb. Appendix B THE LEWIS ENGINEERING CO., Naugatuck, Conn. President. SEPTEMBER 14, 1951. DEAR FELLOW EMPLoYEEs : After all is said and done we are all "fellow employees" of Lewis Engineering Company. Some of us have known each other for a long period of years, and others for a comparatively short space of time. THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY 493 NEXT MONDAY IS GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT DAY FOR ALL OF US WHO MAKE OUR LIVING AT LEWIS ENGINEERING. We have gotten along pretty well up to now without any union , and I don't see why we need one. Life is no picnic for you or for me. I have to go out and get the business, procure the materials and meet the payroll and the rest of the bills . If I don't do my job efficiently, there is going to be no work for you. After I get the work, you have to be efficient in doing it, or the company will lose money and there will be no jobs for any of us. The fact that the company has been successful is due to your efforts as well as to mine . We have a growing business, and you know that whenever it was possible to do so wages and other benefits were increased. In the last several months you have had union agents telling you all sorts of things about the company, about its officers, and about what the union would do for you. I am sure that you took some of the things that the union has been saying with a grain of salt. We started last March to get permission to increase wages for our people, and it was only the other day that sufficient rulings and regulations came to our attention which enabled us to post the notice on the bulletin board concerning .an increase of a total of 120 per hour. The union had nothing to do with it-and we are not trying to do anything but play fair with our people who have played fair with us. You know that wages are frozen, and that an employer must get permission in order to increase wages. We have been and are now working on the neces- sary papers to obtain this permission from the Wage Stabilization Board. If we get it we will put it into effect immediately, whether there is a union or whether there is no union . We think you are entitled to it, and, as in the past, we are trying to play fair. DON'T BE FOOLED! You certainly must have noticed that the union hasn't been able to say too much about wages or working conditions in Lewis Engineering. You know better than anybody else what the wages are and what the working conditions are in our plant . We are always trying to improve things, and will strive to continue to do so in the future. I don't believe we need strangers to tell us how to run things. THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY LEWIS ENGINEER- ING COMPANY HAS THE REPUTATION OF BEING A GOOD PLACE TO WORK. You have had for years about everything any union could hope to get for you. Just between us , have you ever heard of any of our employees getting a "dirty deal", or being fired unjustly ? You have had steady work , at fair wages, and you have lost no time by strikes or lockouts. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, IT HASN'T COST YOU ANY MONEY TO HAVE A GOOD STEADY JOB. Just realize that these union men who are talking to you and writing to you are anxious to get your $2.00 a month as dues. In our little plant this would mean about $300.00 a month. UP TO NOW IT HASN'T COST YOU ONE DIME IN ORDER TO WORK AT LEWIS ENGINEERING. Look around you, in Nauga- tuck and Waterbury and down the Valley , and see how many of your friends and neighbors have lost hundreds of dollars during the last several years, because of strikes called by unions. Once you join the union you put your neck into the collar , and you will find out who owns the collar if you try to get out of it . Have you heard of union security? Please note that this is union security, not your security. The union wants you to vote for a union , but it will not even trust you to pay your dues. It will insist on the "check-off", so that the company will have to deduct your dues before it pays your wages. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD You are now enjoying many benefits that your friends and neighbors do not enjoy in other plants in this area. Most of you are getting 21/2 hours overtime per week for paid lunch time. Do you know of many plants where this is done? There are many other benefits which you are familiar with and which do not need to be enumerated. No union had anything to do with getting these for you. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17th, IS A VERY IMPORTANT DAY FOR ALL OF US. IT IS ELECTION DAY. BE SURE YOU VOTE! THIS IS YOUR PRIVI- LEGE AND YOUR DUTY. BEAR IN MIND THAT IT IS A MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY WHO ARE GOING TO DETERMINE WHETHER ALL OF US HAVE TO PUT UP WITH A UNION. EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY HAVE SIGNED A CARD FOR THE UNION, YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE YOUR HEAD AND DO A LOT OF THINK- ING. YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO THE BOOTH, WHERE NOBODY WILL SEE YOU, AND VOTE AS YOU SEE FIT. The fact that you have signed a card does not mean that you have to vote for the union. Dan't let anybody fool you and tell you that you may lose your job if you vote against the union. Nobody is going to know how you vote-neither the union organizer nor the company! Look around you and see how many plants in this area have voted against having a union. Workers are getting wise. Talk this situation over with your wife or your family, and BE SURE TO VOTE ON MONDAY. We feel that if you will be wise you will save $24.00 a year for yourself, and not have your neck in the union noose. THINK-AND THEN VOTE! Sincerely yours, LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY, (S) C. H. Austin, By----------------------------- President. CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY and JAMES P. FLAGG. Cabe No. 8-CA-586. November 21,1952 Decision and Order On April 11, 1952, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Complainant and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs. The Board 1 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 Intermedi- 1 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, Styles, and Peterson]. 101 NLRB No. 105.