Dependable Machine Co.,Inc.

DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 21 WE WILL NOT enter into, renew, or enforce any provisions in any collective- bargain- ing agreement with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 208, or any other labor organization, which requires employees or applicants for employment to join, or maintain membership in, such labor organization as a condition of employment, unless such agreement shall have been authorized as provided in the Act. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Building Service Employees International Union, Local 201, AFL, or any other labor organization of our employees, by failing or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminate against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with, and, upon request, WILL BARGAIN collectively with Building Service Employees International Union, Local 201, AFL, as exclusive representative of the employees in the unit set forth below, with respect to grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, and if agreement is reached, embody the same in a written collective-bargaining agreement with said union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Building, Service Employees International Union, Local 201, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in 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 af- fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make whole each of the employees who went on strike on April 10, 1952. and who made unconditional application for reinstatement, on April 14, 1952, for any loss of earnings each may have sustained, as a result of the discrimination, in the manner set forth in the section in the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order entitled "The Remedy." All hourly rated janitors, janitresses, and all other janitorial employees, commonly referred to as bull cooks, employed by UniversalFood Service, Inc., at Hanford Works, North Richland, Washington, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of Building Service Employees International Union, Local 201, AFL, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We will not discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condi- tion of employment of any employee or applicant for employment because of membership or nonmembership in, or activity on behalf of any such labor organization, except as aforesaid. UNIVERSAL FOOD SERVICE, INC., Employer. Dated .......................................................... By .................................................. (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL AS- SOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL, LOCAL 729 . Case No. 11 -CA-411. April 13, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On February 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in 104 NLRB No. 3. 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,: and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, 3 with the following additions: We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union on and after November 17, 1951, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. As found in the Intermediate Report, the Union asserted its majority status4 and requested recognition in aletterwhichthe Respondent received on November 17, 1951.6 The Respondent made no reply to the request, but within a few days met with representatives of the Board and the Union. At the meeting, the Respondent questioned the Union's majority and requested an election. A consent-election agreement was executed on November 23, setting the election for November 30. Meanwhile, before the election, the Respondent engaged in a course of conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as detailed in the Intermediate Report. The Union lost the ensuing election by a vote of 15 to 14.6 Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent, in proposing and proceeding to an election, was not motivated by a good-faith doubt as to the Union's representative status, but, rather, by a rejection of the col- lective-bargaining principle. Under these circumstances, we further find there was no genuine question concerning repre- 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]. 2 The request by the Respondent for oral argument is denied because the record, exceptions, and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner was biased be- cause he resolved every material conflict of evidence in favor of the General Counsel and against the Respondent. N. L R. B. v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 337 U. S. 656, reversing and remanding 167 F. 2d 126 (C. A. 6). 4At the hearing, the Respondent alleged that a number of union designation cards had been obtained "under pressure " However, the record fails to substantiate such allegation. Ac- cordingly, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Union, on November 13, 1951, and at all times thereafter, was the exclusive representative of the employees involved herein. Furthermore, contrary to the Respondent's contention, the Union was not obligated, in the circumstances of this case, to offer proof of its majority status by showing its authorization cards to the Respondent, as the Respondent never requested such proof. N.L R.B v. Everett Van Kleeck & Company, Inc., 189 F. 2d 516 (C A. 2), enforcing 88 NLRB 785. 5On the same day o' the next day, the Respondent also received notification that the Union had already filed a petition for certification. 6On December 5, the Union filed objections to the election. However, on January 24, 1952, the Union was permitted to withdraw its objections without prejudice and then filed the charge in this proceeding. On January 25, the Regional Director certified the election results. DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 23 sentation among the Respondent's employees and therefore regard as a nullity the election proceeding.i ORDER Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Dependable Machine Co ., Inc., Greensboro , North Carolina , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Asso- ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, Local 729, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit. (b) Threatening to close or sell the plant in the event the Union is successful in coming into the plant , warning that the men would more likely get improvements in working conditions if they voted against the Union , warning that the Respondent could eliminate its GI training program, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist the aforesaid or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activity for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all of such activity , except to the extent that such rights 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) Upon request bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all of its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employ- ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its plant at Greensboro , North Carolina , copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix B."8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it fora period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable 7See, e g , N.L. R.B. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F. 2d 79 (C.A. 9), enforcing 95 NLRB 410; The M. H. Davidson Company, 94 NLRB 142; Joy Silk Mills, Inc v . N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 732 (C.A., D.C.), enforcing as modified 85 NLRB 1263. 8 This notice, however, shall be amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommenda- tions of a Trial Examiner," in the caption thereof, the words , "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this order is enforced by 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 a United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing , within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, Local 729, herein called the Union. the General Counsel by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued his complaint dated October 21, 1952, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947. 61 Stat. 1-5, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charge together with notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleges that the Respondent beginning about October 1, 1951, has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that since about November 13, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union. The Respondent 's answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on November 17, 18, and 19, 1952, at Greensboro, North Carolina, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The charging party appeared through its representative and the General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel. Fullopportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded the parties . The General Counsel and the Respondent presented oral argument at the close of the testimony and filed briefs with the undersigned.t Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses , the under- signed makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a North Carolina corporation , has its principal place of business at- Greensboro, North Carolina, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of woodworking machinery and related products . The Respondent uses annually raw materials consisting of, among other things , metals and electrical equipment , valued at about $150,000 of which about 5 percent comes directly from outside the State of North Carolina. The Respondent ships annually finished products valued in excess of $25,000 to points outside the State of North Carolina. The undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, Local 729, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. i At the hearing the undersigned denied the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint under the proviso to Section 10 (b) of the Act. See, Cathey Lumber Co., 86 NLRB 157. The original charge filed January 24, 1952, alleged a request to bargain about November 13, 1951, that the Respondent refused to recognize the Union, that thereafter Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices to destroy the Union's majority, and by this and other conduct the Re- spondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The first amended charge filed October 6, 1952, iterated the original charge and added certain allegations of violations of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The second and last amended charge filed October 20, 1952, merely dropped the allegations of violations of Section 8 (a) (3). In its brief the Respondent asserts that the record shows that "the original charge was withdrawn during the latter part of March 1952, without prejudice, and so far as Respondent knows it was never reestablished." The undersigned has not been able to find support in the record to sustain this assertion. DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 25 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The refusal to bargain; and interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The appropriate unit The parties agree and the undersigned finds that all production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Greensboro plant, excluding office clerical employees , purchasing agent, salesman, foundry employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 2. The majority Assuming without deciding that all issues raised by the Respondent concerning the majority status of the Union were resolved in the Respondent 's favor, the record shows a sufficient number of union designation cards to constitute a majority. It is accordingly found that the Union on November 13, 1951 , and at all material times thereafter was and now is the exclusive representative of the Respondent 's employees in the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 3. The events Beginning about the latter part of October 1951, Therman Dagenhart , then an employee, solicited his fellow employees to join the union. At about this time in the course of events, according to the credible testimony of employees Otto Rierson and Robert Van Slaughter and former employee W. H. Stinson, Samuel Inmon, the plant superintendent and a vice president at the time of the hearing, came around to them at the plant with a pad and pencil and asked for suggestions towards the improvement of working conditions , and the matter of bathing facilities was raised. 2 By November 12, Dagenhart received designation cards from a majority of the employees and then turned them over to Julian Head, the Union's international representative . The next day. November 13, Head, on behalf of the Union, filed a petitions with the Board for certifi- cation as representative of the Respondent's employees in the production and maintenance unit and also wrote the Respondent asserting that the Union represented a majority of the employees and requested recognition and bargaining . This letter was received by the Respond- ent on November 17 and notification ofthefiling of the petition was received by the Respondent on the same day or a day later. The Respondent did not reply to the Union's request for recognition and Inmon. Head, and a Board field examiner among others , met in Greensboro within a few days . Inmon took the position that the Respondent doubted the Union 's assertion of majority status and requested an election . It does not appear that Head was asked to exhibit the designation cards and Head did not offer to disclose the cards. A consent-election agree- ment was executed on November 23. setting the election for November 30. About 10 days prior to the election and over a period of a day or so Inmon interviewed most of the employees of the unit individually in his office. During these interviews , among other things, Inmon stated to some of the employees, in substance , that if the Union was successful in coming into the plant, John C. Inmon, the principal stockholder , would close down or sell the plant. a Former employee Wallace Wyrick also testified credibly that Charles Monett, then sales manager- and a vice president at the time of the hearing, who was present during some of the interviews Inmon conducted , stated while he, Wyrick, was interviewed that the men would come nearer getting improvements such as hot water and household cleanliness if they voted against the Union. s Contrary to Inmon's denials and according to the credible testimony of former employee Harry Keck, who among others had been employed as a GI =Inmon admitted having talked with various employees about bathing facilities in August and September, but denied talking to any employees about improvements in the plant within the 2 weeks preceding a representation election on November 30. SCase No. 34-RC- 360. 'This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Rierson, Dagenhart, Stinson. em- ployee Robert Van Slaughter, and former employees Wallace Wyrick and Gilmer Flynn. Inmon's denials are not credited. SMonnett denied having engaged any of the employees in conversation with reference to the pending election. Z6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD trainee, Inmon stated during Keck's interview that John C. Inmon had brought the GI training in and he could throw it out of the window. Shortly before the election, officials of another firm in town which handles some of the same products as does the Respondent, were seen in the plant examining the products and the machinery. It appears also that a person who was a stranger to the men was seen going through the plant checking the name plates on the machinery used by the men and making notations on a pad. On November 28, 2 days before the election, the Respondent mailed a letter to each of its employees which is reproduced in its entirety as Appendix A. This letter closed with the following paragraph: Men I have about all the regulations , competitions , and trouble with our little business that I can stand. I certainly hope you don't think it necessary to add an outside union organization to our present struggle for survival. Stick with me. Lets continue to work together. Think seriously before you vote Friday. Together and without a foreign union we can build this company and make it pay all of us better. On November 30 the election was held as scheduled Of the approximately 29 eligible voters, 14 cast votes for and 15 cast votes against representation by the Union. On December 5, the Union wrote the Regional Director requesting that the results of the election be set aside. asserting that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices immediately prior to the election and stating that formal charges would be filed later. On January 23, 1952, the Union requested and the next day the Regional Director granted withdrawal of the Union's objections in the representation proceeding without prejudice. On January 24, the Union filed the charges initiating the instant case and the next day the Regional Director certified that the Union did not receive a majority in the consent election which had been conducted. 4. Conclusions After the Respondent was notified of the Union's assertion of majority status and the filing of the representation petition it immediately set upon a course of conduct calculated to undermine the Union's majority status. Thus, and by the following conduct, it is found that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act: (1) Inmon at first threatened employees with sale or shutdown of the plant in the event the Union was successful and then this threat was emphasized by the Respondent's letter dated 2 days before the election; (2) Monnett warned that the men would more likely get improvements in working conditions if they voted against the Union; and (3) Inmon warned that the Respondent could eliminate its GI training program. It is accordingly further found that the Respondent's request for an election was not based upon a good- faith doubt of majority, that the representation proceeding did not affect the Union's prior majority designation, and that beginning November 17, 1951, when the Union made its request upon the Respondent for bargaining , the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.6 In view of the Respondent's explanation that it and another firm in town are joint dealers of certain machines and on occasion buyers and officials of the other firm are taken through the plant in an effort to promote the product, and the Respondent's explanation that on occasion persons such as lubrication salesmen, Government inspectors, and insurance inspectors, who are strangers to the men, come through the plant and examine the machines and make notes, the undersigned is oftheview that the General Counsel has not met the burden of proof and no findings of unfair labor practices are based upon the incidents the Respondent thus explained. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found tnat the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 6See, Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263; Dependable Wholesale Co., Inc., 102 NLRB 656, and cases there cited. DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC. 27 Having found that the Respondent refused to bargain it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from this conduct and upon request bargain collectively with the Union with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours , and other terms and conditions of employ- ment. Having found that the Respondent threatened to close or sell the plant in the event the Union was successful, warned the men that they would more likely get improvements in working conditions if they voted against the Union, and warning that the Respondent could eliminate its GI training program, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from his conduct. The Respondent's infractions of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act, herein found , disclose a fixed purpose to defeat self-organization and its objectives . Because of the Respondent 's unlawful conduct and its underlying purposes , the undersigned is persuaded that the unfair labor practices found are related to the other unfair labor practices prescribed by the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventative purposes of the Act will be thwarted, unless the remedial order is coextensive with the threat . In order , therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices , and thus effectuate the policies of the Act , it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, Local 729, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent 's Greensboro plant, excluding office clerical employees , purchasing agent, salesman, foundry employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. The above-named labor organization was on November 13 , 1951 , and at all times material thereafter, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appro- priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on November 17, 1951, and at all times thereafter to bargain collectively with the above- named labor organization as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By threatening to close or sell the plant in the event the Union is successful in coming into the plant , warning that the men would more likely get improvements in working conditions if they voted against the Union, andwarningthat the Respondent could eliminate its GI training program, and by refusing to bargain and thus interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise 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 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. 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.) APPENDIX A To. Employees of Dependable Machine Company, Inc. Do you know the difficulty in trying to start a little business today? Let me tell you some of my experience. I am a machinist. In 1917 I started in the shop as an apprentice. After four years of apprenticeship I was recognized as a machinist. For twenty years I worked for the other fellow. Those were the most carefree, happy years of my life I have run and can now operate every type of machine tool we have in our shop I know many of the thoughts that run through an operator's mind as he attends his machine You do not have to worry about meeting the pay roll Friday You do not have to worry about getting materials on which to work. You do not have to worry about advertising and selling the product you make You do not have to worry about the many government regulations that are 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD imposed upon businesses You do not have to worry about the competition of the big, well established company You do want good working conditions, you want to be compensated fairly; you want recognition of what you do; and you want to be treated right In 1937 I took a part of what I had saved while working for the other fellow, bought a few secondhand machine tools, and started a little shop of my own. I named it the Dependable Machine Company. In 1934 I move the shop to our present location. All the time I have been putting more and more money into this business trying to make it go, trying to establish its name, trying to develop our line of Grinders, our Rip Saws, and lastly our Moulder The first of this year I mortaged the real estate and all of our equipment to get $35,000.00, with which to develop and promote the sale of our Moulder. We have had considerable trouble and lots of expense with our Moulder I have not drawn any salary out of the business in three years. I long for the carefree days I enjoyed from 1917 to 1937 when I did not have the responsibility, the burden and the trouble of trying to operate a business. Now some strangers come along; some union organizers whose only source of income is union dues, they tell you they can do more for you than I have been able to do; they tell you that even a little shop like ours should be unionized; they promise great and better things; they don't have to make good on their promises. The only way I can continue to do anything is for our production men, our engineer, our sales manager, our officestaff, andmetowork together as a team, make some good machines, sell them at a profit, and thereby get some money with which to do the things that you and I both would like to see done. We have hospital insurance in our group. You pay a part of the premium and I pay part. We had a one week paid vacation and also a small bonus last July. Back in years when the Company made some money I paid the men bonuses. The first half of this year I suggested a profit sharing plan which we abandoned by mutual agreement because the profits we are making were very small. You men know that if you will work with me and if we can make some money that I will share it liberally with you. We are now working 50 hours a wok and paying for 55 hours each week. The take home pay of our men is about as good as hi any machine shop in this section. Men I have about all the regulations, competitions, and trouble with our little business that I can stand. I certainly hope you don't think it necessary to add an outside union organization to our present struggle for survival Stick with me. Let's continue to work together. Think seriously before you vote Friday. Together and without a foreign union we can build this company and make it pay all of us better. Sincerely, /s/ John C. Inmon John C. Inmon, President APPENDIX B 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 threaten to close or sell the plant in the event the Union is successful in coming into the plant, warn our employees that they would be more likely to get improvements in working conditions if they voted against the Union , or warn our em- ployees that we could eliminate the GI training program. WE WILL NOT in any other 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 Association of Bridge. Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, Local 729, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purposes 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 membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. PAPE BROADCASTING COMPANY (RADIO STATION WALA) 29 WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, Local 729, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the appropriate unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody such an understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees at our Greensboro plant, excluding office clerical employees, purchasing agent, salesman, foundry employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. DEPENDABLE MACHINE CO., INC., 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. PAPE BROADCASTING COMPANY (RADIO STATION WALA) and JOHN A. THOMPSON LOCAL UNION NO. 1264, RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL and JOHN A. THOMPSON. Cases Nos. 15- CA-412 and 15-CB-84. April 13, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On September 22, 1952, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions with the following modifications.' The principal question of law in this case is whether the Respondent Local 1264 of the IBEW could lawfully require Thompson, an electrician, to surrender his membership card in Local 505 of the IBEW as a condition for satisfying the union-security clause in Local 1264' s agreement with Pape Broadcasting Company, the employer Respondent. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that such a requirement exceeds the measure of union security permitted by the Act and is therefore unlawful.' The Trial Examiner also found, and we I The parties' request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record , includ- ing the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. 2 Union Starch & Refining Co., 87 NLRB 779, enforced 186 F.' 2d 1008 (C. A. 7). 104 NLRB No. 2.