Michigan Scrap Co.

MICHIGAN SCRAP COMPANY 569 Company has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Respondents United, District Council, and Local 1337 have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] David Goldstein, Leonard Goldstein and Manny Goldstein, Co- Partners, d/b/a Michigan Scrap Company and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 7, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind. Cases Nos. 7-CA-3003 and 7-CA-92006. August 18, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On May 18, 1959, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondents 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 Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac- tices as alleged in the complaint and recommended that the allegations of the complaint relating thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, the Re- spondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermedi- ate Report and supporting briefs. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dation of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, David Goldstein, Leonard Goldstein and Manny Goldstein, Co- Partners, d/b/a Michigan Scrap Company, Benton Harbor, Michi- gan, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 124 NLRB No. 74. 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating employees concerning their knowledge, attitude, and feelings about the Union and as to whether they had signed, or had been solicited to sign, union authorization cards, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (b) Promising paid vacations or other benefits to employees to induce them to reject the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. (c) Threatening employees with loss of jobs or other economic re- prisals, directly or by implication, for designating or adhering to the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 7, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at their plant and place of business in Benton Harbor, Michigan, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, of ter being duly signed by the Respond- ents' duly authorized representatives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ- ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondents have taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint, insofar as they allege that the Respondents violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act with respect to the discharge of Frank Hopkins, be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 1 In 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 Order." MICHIGAN SCRAP COMPANY APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 571 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 interrogate employees concerning their knowl- edge, attitude, and feelings about the Union and as to whether they had signed, or been solicited to sign, union authorization cards in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and co- ercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT promise paid vacations or other benefits to em- ployees to induce them to reject the Union as their collective- bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of jobs or other economic reprisals, directly or by implication for designating or adhering to the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 7, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., 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, 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. DAVID GOLDSTEIN, LEONARD GOLDSTEIN AND MANNY GOLDSTEIN, CO-PARTNERS D/B/A MICHIGAN Sor COMPANY, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 7, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind., herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued his complaint dated November 26, 1958, against David Goldstein, Leonard Goldstein and Manny Goldstein, Co-Partners d/b/a Michigan Scrap Com- pany, herein called the Respondents. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance that: (1) Respondents discharged employee Frank Hopkins on or about June 25, 1958, and therefore refused to reinstate him, all be- cause of his union membership and concerted activities; (2) on or about June 13, 1958, Respondents interrogated their employees concerning their membership in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of, the Union, and coerced their employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of, the Union by threats of reprisals and promises of benefits; and (3) by the foregoing conduct Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. . In its duly filed answer, Respondents admit the jurisdictional allegations and deny the unfair labor practice allegations. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on April 7-8, 1959, at St. Joseph, Michigan. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument at the close of the hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon the entire record I in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS David Goldstein, Leonard Goldstein, and Manny Goldstein are partners doing business as Michigan Scrap Company, with their principal place of business at Benton Harbor, Michigan, where they operate a scrap yard. During the calendar year 1957, which is representative of all times material herein, Respondents sold and shipped scrap metal, valued in excess of $100,000, from their yard in Michigan to points located outside the State of Michigan. Upon the above admitted facts, I find that Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and I find, that Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 7, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The issues in this case are whether Respondents (1) discriminatorily discharged employee Frank 'Hopkins in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act and (2) en- gaged in specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Sec- tion 8(a) (1) of the Act. The Respondents contend that Frank Hopkins was dis- charged.for cause and that they did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce their employees in the exercise of their self-organizational rights. A. Interference, restraint, and coercion During the latter part of May 1958 employee Frank Hopkins spoke to Fred Randall, the Union's business agent, about organizing a union among Respondents' employees. Thereafter, Hopkins discussed the matter with Respondents' employees in the scrap yard and at their homes, and invited them to attend a meeting at his home. This meeting was held on June 12, 1958, and was attended by about 9 of Respondents' approximately 13 employees, consisting of yard employees, crane operators, and drivers. All three classifications were represented at the meeting and all in attendance signed union authorization cards. The next day, June 13, Re- spondents received a telegram from the Union's secretary-treasurer advising that the Union represented a majority of Respondents' employees and expressing a desire for a meeting at a later date at the Respondents' convenience. During the next lI hereby note and correct the following inconsequential but obvious typographical error in the typewritten transcript of the testimony : On page 114, line 21, "Trial Examiner" is corrected to read "Mr. Crow." MICHIGAN SCRAP COMPANY 573 2 weeks, Respondents Leonard Goldstein and David Goldstein engaged in the following conduct: Leonard Goldstein admitted interrogating a number of the employees,2 in-- dividually, in the yard during working hours as to what they knew about the Union organizing the plant, telling them that he did not want a union in the Company, that he was not in favor of the Union and that he did not think the Union could do them any good. He further testified that, with the exception of employee Willie Williams, the employees replied that they did not know anything about the Union, and that Willie Williams stated that he had attended a meeting at Frank Hopkins' house and that everybody had signed union cards. According to the credible testimony of employee Eugene Green, Leonard Gold- stein had the following two conversations with him: The first one occurred shortly after Green had signed a union card at the meeting at Hopkins' house. Goldstein came over to him in the scrap yard and asked if anyone had approached Green about signing a union card. Green replied that they had not. The second conversa- tion occurred shortly thereafter on a Saturday afternoon when Green was getting ready to leave work. On this occasion Goldstein stated that he knew about the signing of the cards and everything about the Union, that there was going to be a vote and an election and he wanted to know how Green felt about it. Green replied that he was with the majority. Goldstein stated that Green did not have to be with the majority and that Green could vote the way he wanted to. Goldstein added that the employees did not know what they were getting into if they got the Union in, that there would be a $50 initiation fee and $8 dues. Goldstein also said that "you guys are due for a vacation and raise and now I can't give it to you because the Union will think I'm trying to bribe you." He pointed out that if the employees get a union in and the union puts pressure on the Company, the Goldsteins would put pressure on the employees, that this could be the "sweetest place to work" or the "most miserable place to work" and that it will get so tough that "you won't even want to see the place." According to the credible testimony of employee Frank Hopkins, he had the following conversations with the Goldsteins: On the first occasion, Leonard Gold- stein asked if anyone had talked to him about the Union. Hopkins replied in the negative. At that point, David Goldstein came over and either David or Leonard said, "you know, I have been good to you guys . . . I got you out of jail, I got your drivers' license back ... all you guys are going to get a vacation." One of the Goldsteins also added that if it comes to a vote, "you know how to vote, don't you." Hopkins replied that he did. Shortly thereafter, Leonard Goldstein came over to Hopkins as he was reporting for work and asked him if he had signed a card for the Union. Hopkins replied in the negative. Leonard persisted and asked, "are you sure?" Hopkins replied that he was sure. Elbert Porter credibly testified that when Leonard Goldstein was interrogating him, Goldstein asked if Porter was sure that he had not signed a union card. Porter replied that he had not signed a card. A few days after the receipt of the Union's telegram claiming majority representa- tion, Leonard Goldstein spoke to a group of three employees 3 who worked at the steel cutting shear. Leonard came out in the yard and stated that he wanted to talk to them. The three employees stopped working and came over to listen. Leonard Goldstein told the men that he was not in favor of the Union, that he did not see how it could help them, and that the Union could not do any more for the men than they could do for themselves. He then told them that they were eligible for a paid vacation, and that if it came to a vote they were all grown men and knew what to do. These three employees had never before been told when they would be eligible for a paid vacation and were unaware of that fact. Leonard Goldstein testified that it had been the Company's policy to give an employee with 1 year continuous service a vacation with pay, but only if the employee asked for it. He admitted that a number of employees were eligible for a paid vacation and had not received one because they had not asked for it. He fur- ther admitted that he had never before told the employees as a group that they would be eligible for a week's vacation with pay after a year of continuous service if they asked for it, and that the only time he had ever told individual employees about this policy was when they asked him about it .4 9 Leonard Goldstein specifically named the following employees as having been so inter- rogated : Otis Richardson, James Ross, Elbert Porter, Johnny White, and Robert Johnson. 3 Willis E. Smith, James Bernard, and Robert Johnson. 4 Leonard Goldstein admitted having had the above conversation with the group of employees near the shear house and merely denied telling them that they were. ail grown 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD According to the credible testimony of employee Elbert Porter , he had the follow- ing conversations with David Goldstein : A few days after he had signed a union card at the meeting at Hopkins' house, Porter was approached by David Goldstein in the scrap yard. David asked if Porter had been approached by anyone concerning the Union and if he had signed a union card or had been asked to sign a card. Porter replied in the negative . David then stated that the employees did not need a union or a middle man to come to them and that the employees could always come into the office and settle any grievances with the Company personally. On a subsequent occasion when Porter had just finished loading a truck, David Goldstein came over to him and said, "you, of all people, I am surprised and hurt to think you would go against me to cut my throat in this way, as far as joining the Union." Porter replied that he had merely gone along with the group to see what would come of it. David then asked Porter if he would talk to the men and try to talk them out of joining the Union because they did not need a union there. Porter asked if there would be any reprisals if the men changed their minds about joining the Union or if they withdrew from the Union . David said there would not be any reprisals . Porter promised to speak to the men but stated that he would not report back the decisions reached by the men about joining the Union. David also stated that he and his brother, Leonard , knew at the time when Leonard had questioned Porter about signing a card, that Porter had attended the meeting at Frank Hopkins' house and had signed a card. Porter spoke to the employees as he had promised and repeated what David Goldstein had told him. David Goldstein admitted having had the above conversation with Porter. Employee Emerson Flemming was a reluctant witness for the General Counsel, and repudiated some of the statements contained in his pretrial affidavit . Neverthe- less, he admitted , and I find, that David Goldstein told him that if they got a union in, there "would be less men working." David Goldstein did not deny having made this statement to Flemming. Concluding Findings The conduct of Leonard and David Goldstein in questioning employees, in- dividually during working hours, as to what they knew about the Union organizing the plant, as to whether they had been approached about the Union or about signing cards, and as to how they felt about the Union , constituted unlawful interrogation violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.5 Leonard Goldstein's statements to employees , during the course of the foregoing interrogations, that he did not want a union in the plant and, on other occasions, that he knew about the employees signing union cards , reasonably tended to inter- fere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of their self -organizational rights and hence was also violative of the Act. In view of Respondents' established vacation policy, and the circumstances herein- above set forth, I find that the announcement to employees that they were eligible for a paid vacation , made during the course of antiunion remarks, and coupled with the reminder that they were grown men and knew how to vote in the pending election, was timed to interfere with , restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of a free choice in the pending election and also constituted an inducement to the em- ployees to reject the Union at the polls. Leonard Goldstein's statements that if the Union got in and put pressure on the Company, the Company would put pressure on the employees, that this could be the "sweetest" place or the "most miserable" place to work, and that it will get so tough that "you won't even want to see the place," constituted threats of reprisals against the employees in the event that they selected the Union as their bargaining repre- sentative . David Goldstein's accusation that employee Porter cut his (Goldstein's) throat by joining the Union, and his failure to assure Porter that there would be no reprisals against the employees who decided to join or remain in the Union, while men and knew how to vote . He further testified that he did not remember asking any employees whether they signed a card for the Union. He also denied generally threaten- ing any employees , promising benefits if they voted any particular way, or attempting to coerce or warn employees . Leonard Goldstein impressed me as a witness who was re- luctant to disclose the true facts. He denied having made certain statements until he was shown his pretrial affidavit, whereupon he reluctantly admitted having made such statements. Under all the circumstances , and in view of his admissions, I do not credit his testimony to the extent that it may be contrary to or inconsistent with the findings set forth in the text. 5 See, e.g., Flemming Manufacturing Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 452 , 459, and cases cited therein ; Union News Company, 112 NLRB 420, 424. MICHIGAN SCRAP COMPANY 575 assuring him that there would be no reprisals against those who changed their mind about joining or who withdrew from the Union, carried an implied threat of re- prisals against employees who continued to adhere to the Union. David Goldstein's statement to employee Flemming that if the Union got in, there "would be less men working," constituted a direct threat of economic reprisals in the form of loss of employment in the event the employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative. I find that by the foregoing conduct of Leonard Goldstein and David Goldstein, Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. B. Alleged discriminatory discharge of Frank Hopkins 1. The circumstances surrounding Hopkins' discharge Frank Hopkins was first employed by Respondents sometime in 1956 as a yard worker. He then began driving a one piece truck locally in and around the city of Benton Harbor. After a while, he was assigned to driving a cab and trailer truck on interstate runs. On November 22, 1957, Hopkins was laid off for lack of work and was reemployed when work became available again for a truckdriver in February 1958. He continued to drive a cab and trailer truck on interstate runs until his dis- charge in June 1958 under the circumstances hereinafter described. In late 1957 the Interstate Commerce Commission, herein called the ICC, com- menced a safety survey in regard to private carriers. Pursuant to this survey, Re- spondents were visited in May 1958 by Safety Inspector Gerald Foy, who inspected Respondents equipment and also informed them of the ICC regulation requiring drivers to have a physical examination and a doctor's certificate. As of that time, none of Respondents' drivers had had a physical examination. At Foy's suggestion, Leonard Goldstein wrote to the American Trucking Association for a copy of the ICC's Revised Safety Regulations. Goldstein told Foy that Respondents would get doctors' certificates for their drivers as soon as possible. Hopkins was then sent to Dr. Faber, a general practitioner, for a physical examination. By letter dated June 4, 1958, Respondents were reminded by the ICC that they had not yet taken steps to rectify the violations which had been pointed out by Inspector Foy and that doctors' certificates had not been filed for all interstate drivers. About that time Respondents received Hopkins' physical report from Dr. Faber. This report, dated June 4, 1958, stated that Hopkins had no vision in his left eye but that he may be permitted to drive a truck. One of the ICC's Regulations (Section 191.2(b)) requires a minimum visual acuity of at least 20/40 snellen in each eye. The Goldsteins found Dr. Faber's report con- fusing because it stated on the one hand that Hopkins had no vision in his left eye and on the other hand that he was fit to drive a truck. They had also been told by some local truckers that the ICC made exceptions in some cases of one-eyed drivers. Respondents thereupon contacted their attorney, Mr. Crow, who inquired of the ICC whether any exceptions may be made to the minimum requirements set forth in the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, specifically mentioning the case of a driver who has been found to be blind in one eye. On June 24, 1958, Respondents' attorney received a reply, quoting Section 191.2(b) of the Safety Regulations and concluding that "it is obvious that the driver in question cannot be permitted to continue to drive any vehicle in interstate commerce." Attorney Crow showed this letter to the Goldsteins and suggested that Hopkins be given another examination by an eye specialist. Pursuant to this suggestion, Hopkins received an examination from Dr. Urist, an eye specialist. Dr. Urist's report, dated June 25, 1958, states that Hopkins could not see through his left eye, except for light perception, due to an injury and that his vision could not be improved by the use of glasses. Upon receipt of this report, Leonard Goldstein told Hopkins that he was being discharged for failure to pass the ICC's requirements as to vision. 2. The General Counsel's contentions and concluding findings The General Counsel concedes that the vision of Hopkins' left eye does not meet the ICC's requirement of 20/40 snellen, and that it would constitute a violation of the ICC Safety Regulations to permit Hopkins to drive a truck on interstate runs. He contends, however, that Hopkins should not have been discharged but should either have been returned to yard work or given driving assignments confined to the State of Michigan. Respondents' failure to retain Hopkins in some other capacity was motivated, the General Counsel argues, by Hopkins' leadership in the move- 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD went to organize, Respondents' employees in the Union and by Respondents' oppo- sition thereto. In further support' of the General Counsel's theory, he adduced' evidence in an effort to prove that in 1956 Respondents also discharged employees who were responsible for organizing a union at that time. It is true, as previously found, that Hopkins was the moving figure in getting Respondents' employees interested in the Union and to sign union authorization cards, that Respondents were aware of the fact that the first organizational meeting was held at Hopkins' home on June 12, 1958, and that Respondents were opposed to having the employees select the Union as their bargaining representative and engaged in unlawful conduct in an effort to prevent such a choice by the employees. How- ever, Hopkins was treated no differently from Respondents' other drivers. None of them had previously had a physical examination and all were sent to a doctor about the same time as a result of Inspector Foy's visit to Respondents' plant. Only Hopkins failed to qualify with respect to the vision requirements of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Hopkins himself admitted that he had no vision in his left eye, except for light perception, due to a prior injury. The record further shows that Respondents' drivers are not divided into those who drive wholly intrastate and those who drive wholly interstate, but that all drivers have to engage in both intra- state and interstate runs, depending on the Respondents' needs. The record further shows, and I find, that there was a decline in Respondents' business at that time and that no yard work or other work was available. Thus, Elbert Porter, a witness for the General Counsel, admitted that at that time they were not doing any battery work, which consists of breaking down batteries to get lead. Moreover, the un- disputed evidence shows, and I find, that about the same time Respondents laid off three yardmen, a crane operator, and a driver, all for lack of work. Nor does the record support the General Counsel's contention that employees Satterfield, Ruffin, and Keys were discharged in late 1956 or early 1957 because of their efforts to organize a union at the plant. Upon the basis of the entire record considered as a whole, I find that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the discharge of Frank Hopkins was discriminatorily motivated. I will accordingly recommend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondents 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to their employees by Section 7 of the Act. I will also recommend that Respondents take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By interrogating employees as to what they knew about the Union organizing the plant, as to whether they had signed union cards, as to whether they had been approached about the Union or about signing cards, and as to how they felt about the Union; by telling employees that they did not want a union in the plant and that they knew about the employees signing union cards; by announcing that employees were eligible for a paid vacation for the purpose of interfering, restraining, and coercing the employees in the exercise of a free choice in the pending election and as an inducement to the employees to reject the Union at the polls; by threatening to put pressure on the employees and to make it so tough that the employees would not even want to see the place, if the Union were selected as their bargaining representa- tive; by conveying an implied threat of reprisal against employees who continued to adhere to the Union; and by threatening economic reprisals in the form of loss of jobs in the event the employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative, the Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. SOUTHERN STEEL & STOVE COMPANY, INC. 577, 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging Frank Hopkins in June 1958. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Southern Steel & Stove Company, Inc., Hunter Window Corpo- ration, Southern Tool and Die Co., Inc ., and Southern Ma- chinery Corporation and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 15, Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-2718. August 18, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis Aronin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free front prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties are in agreement that the Employer's production and maintenance employees, excluding foundry employees, constitute an appropriate unit. They are in dispute, however, with respect to the employees of Southern Tool and Die, certain clerical employees, and certain leadmen, all of whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit and the Employer would include. The employees of Southern Tool and Die are classified as machine operators, machinists, and tool and die makers. They work in the same bolding as other employees of the Employer and enjoy the same working conditions and benefits as the other employees. The Southern i The record shows that Southern Steel & Stove Company, Inc., Hunter Window Corpo- ration, Southern Machinery Corporation, and Southern Tool and Die Co., Inc., are four corporations which are subject to common ownership and have a common labor relations policy and a common location (all the employees are housed in interconnected buildings). There is some interchange of employees among the four companies. In view of the fore- going, we find that the four companies constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Jones Sausage Company, at al., 118 NLRB 1403, enfd. 257 F. 2d 878 (C.A. 4). 124 NLRB No. 77. 525543-60-vol. 121-3 8