Flemingsburg Manufacturing Co.

492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations of Respondent as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8 (a)(1) and (3 ) of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment, and the terms and conditions of employment, of Coombes, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. The Trial Examiner will also recom- mend that the Respondent make Coombes whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of rein- statement, less his net earnings during that period. Loss of pay shall be computed and paid in accordance with the formula adapted by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent are of such a character and scope that in order to insure Respondent 's employees their full rights guaranteed them by the Act it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with , restraining and coercing its employees in their rights to self -organization. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 628, Bartenders & Culinary Workers Union, Hotel & Restaurant Em- ployees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Coombes, thereby discouraging membership in the Union , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Flemingsburg Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Cloth- ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-92149. May 12, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On February 9, 1961, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommend- ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative 13 1.NLRB ,No. 81. FLEMINGSBURG MANUFACTURING COMPANY 493 action as set forth more fully in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint pertaining thereto.' Thereafter the Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a. three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon 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 Respondent, Flemingsburg Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in or activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing `Yorkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, to form labor organizations, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities, 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, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 1 As no 'exceptions were filed to these findings we adopt them pro forina and shall dis- miss the pertinent complaint allegations. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Post in its plant at Flemingsburg, Kentucky, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respond- ent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply therewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by two speeches to the employees given by Plant Manager Hazelrigg in March and May 1960. 2In 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem- bership in or activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing- Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, in a mariner constituting interference, restraint,. or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). VVE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Amalgamated Clothing- Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended- by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.,- FLEMINGSBURG MANUFACTURING COMPANY 495, All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from, becoming or remaining, members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. FLEMIINGSBURG MANUFACTURING 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 This proceeding, with the Respondent and the General Counsel represented, was. heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner, in Flemingsburg, Kentucky, on October 25, 1960, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Flemingsburg Manufacturing Company, herein called the Respondent or the Company. The issues litigated were whether or not the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. Both parties also filed helpful briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the. following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Kentucky corporation having its place of business in Flemings- burg, Kentucky, where it is engaged in the manufacture of clothing. During the past 12 months, which is a representative period, the Respondent had a direct outflow of its products, in interstate commerce, of a value in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from its plant in Flemingsburg, Kentucky, to points outside the State of Kentucky. I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning, of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union„ is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and events The complaint in this proceeding alleges that the Respondent informed its employ- ees not to speak to representatives of the Union who were attempting to organize the employees, nor should the employees permit the union representatives to enter their homes. The complaint further alleged that: if the Union was selected by the employees to represent them the Respondent's plant would close; any employee who, had anything to do with the Union would lose his job; if the employees did not select the Union, and other companies did, it would mean more work at the Respondent's plant; the Company knew employees who were in sympathy with the Union and that they would be discharged; and the Respondent interrogated an employee as to, his union sympathies and accused him of signing numerous authorization cards on behalf of the Union. The Respondent contends that the statements and interroga- tions of its agents were not coercive, but rather expressions of views, opinions, and predictions which were permissible under Section 8(c) of the 'Act, and therefore privileged. It is conceded by the Company that Frank R. Hazelrigg is the Respond- ent's plant manager and is a supervisor as defined by the Act. The record established that the Respondent has a contract with the Crown Overall Company of Cincinnati, hereinafter called Crown, under which the 'Respondent marks and cuts material supplied by the Crown company, and then returns the semi- finished product to Crown for further manufacturing processes. The Respondent operates its Flemingsburg, Kentucky, plant exclusively in work for Crown. 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD During 1959 a representative of the Union came to Flemingsburg, Kentucky, and began contacting various employees of the Respondent in organizational efforts. By March 1960,1 some of the employees had signed union authorization cards, and the record also shows that the Respondent's employees, at this time, were repre- sented by the Needleworkers Association of America. On May 16, the Union filed a representation petition for an election with the Regional Office of the Board in Case No. 9-RC-4103. B. The issues at to the violation of Section 8(a) (1) 1. The speech by Hazelrigg In March the Respondent's plant manager, Hazelrigg, gave a speech to all the plant employees. The speech was given in the plant, the machines were stopped, and a foreman directed the employees to assemble in a certain area of the plant. The General Counsel introduced testimony through employee Roy Payne, to the effect that in the March speech to the employees, Plant Manager Hazelrigg told them, that there was a "union woman" going around talking to the employees, that they should not talk to her or allow her in their homes and that if the union efforts con- tinued the plant would close down. Employee Hensley Burke testified that Plant Manager Hazelrigg brought up the union matter in his March speech, and then told the employees that he knew there was a union representative going around Flemingsburg who had been going to employees' homes talking to them. Burke further testified that Hazelrigg also stated, on this occasion, that if the employees talked to the union representative, "and got the Union in, the employees would probably lose their jobs," in that the plant would be closed down. Burke also agreed that Hazelrigg had told the employees in his March speech that if the Union organized the Crown and Falmouth clothing plants located in the area, but was not successful in organizing the Respondent's plant, there would be more work for the company employees. Charles Lester testified that Plant Manager Hazelrigg had told the employees in his March speech that there were union workers around contacting employees, that if the Union was put in the plant would probably close, that Hazelrigg had also mentioned that a union representative was going to "people's homes" and that he "wouldn't talk to them," and that if the plant was organized the employees would be out of work as the plant would close. As to what was stated to the employees in his March speech, Plant Manager Hazelrigg testified that he had called this meeting of employees for production reasons, but had also spoken on other matters. Hazelrigg credibly testified that he then told the employees that there was a possibility of the plant closing if the Union came in, that he had merely mentioned that a union representative was in Flemings- burg, and at which time many hands went up with employees telling Hazelrigg "she's been to my house," and Hazelrigg replying to the employees, told them, "If you were not interested in what she has to say, you do not have to permit her to come in," and that it was up to each individual employee to do what he wanted to. Hazelrigg further testified, that in response to questions at his March meeting, he also told the employees, "that if Cincinnati and Falmouth did choose a Union to represent them, Cincinnati [Crown] takes Falmouth's output the same as they do ours, and we might prosper by it." As to remarks in his speech on production costs, Hazelrigg testified that he had stated to the employees, "If we had to pay the same wages in Flemings- burg to have these garments made as they did in Cincinnati, there would be no purpose for Crown to send the material eighty-five miles to us to be made up and then turn around and haul it back, if they had to pay as high a wages here." In addition to the testimony of Hazelrigg, the Company also produced several other witnesses who credibly testified as to what was said at the March meeting. Velta Baird testified that Hazelrigg had told the employees that it was up to them individ- ually as to whether or not they would permit the union representative in their homes, and that Hazelrigg had also stated that if the plant was organized there was a possibility of it closing, but did not say it would close. Ausal Lee Eubanks testi- fied that Hazelrigg told the employees that it was up to the individual as to whether or not they should talk to the union representative, that Hazelrigg made remarks relative to the costs and economical aspects of the plant, and that there was a possi- bility of the plant closing and moving its operations from Flemingsburg. Marietta Harntestified that Hazelrigg told them that it was up to each employee as to whether or not the union representative should be permitted in their homes, that he did not say the factory would close, and that it would be possible for the Company to get 2 All dates are 1960 unless specified otherwise. FLEMINGSBURG MANUFACTURING COMPANY 497 additional work if other clothing manufacturers in the area selected the Union and the Respondent's employees did not. Edna Marshall substantiated the above testi- mony of the witnesses for the Respondent, in stating that Hazelrigg told employees that there was a possibility of the plant moving if the Union won an election, and that it was up to the employees as to who they talked with. Witnesses for the Company, Baird and Eubanks, also testified that Hazelrigg again talked to employees in a meeting which was held approximately in or about the month of May. Baird testified that on this occasion production and the Union were also mentioned, and in reply to the union matter which other employees brought up, Hazelrigg replied that there "would be a possibility the plant could close," and that he had made the same remarks in his prior talk to the employees in March. Eubanks testified that Hazelrigg talked to the employees in May, and that at this time Hazelrigg may have made the remark, in his answering a question, that if the Union won the election at Crown and Falmouth the Respondent would get more work and profit from it. 2. Interrogations and threats Hensley Burke testified that in the latter part of June, Plant Manager Hazelrigg spoke to him about the Union in the plant office. Burke stated that on this occasion Hazelrigg told him that there were two or three men in the cutting room working for the Union, and that Burke was one of the union men along with Roy Payne. Burke further testified that Hazelrigg then mentioned to him that his wife was also working for the Company and it looked "like we were making decent money," but that Burke was free to do as he pleased. Burke stated that Hazelrigg further told him, "It looks to me like what you and your wife are drawing would be better than nothing." Burke testified that employees Lester and Payne were also called into the office on this occasion. Charles Lester testified that he is employed as a cutter in the plant, and was called into the office the latter part of June. Lester further stated that Hazelrigg then told him that there were two men in the cutting room working for the Union, and that if the Company was organized Ben Berman had told Hazelrigg to close the plant .2 Roy Payne testified that he is engaged as a cutter with the Company, and was called into the office on the same day that Burke and Lester talked with the plant manager. Payne stated in his testimony that Hazelrigg told him that he had heard Payne had been working with the Union along with Burke, and when Payne admit- ted that he had talked to the union representative, Hazelrigg then informed Payne, that Ben Berman had told him to fire Burke and Payne, and that Payne was also told by Hazelrigg that if they continued to work for the Union the plant would be closed down, and the doors would be "padlocked." Payne further testified that in April or May, Hazelrigg had told him, while in the cutting room of the plant, that if Payne had anything to do with the Union he would be fired. Plant Manager Hazelrigg admitted in his testimony that he had conversations in June with cutting room employees, as aforementioned, that he had heard about their union efforts, and that he had then asked that if they were working for the Union. Hazelrigg testified that on this occasion these employees inquired as to his opinion on the plant closing, and that he had replied that it was possible but that he could not state definitely. Hazelrigg further stated that he also told these cuting room em- ployees, hat if the Crown and Falmouth clothing manufacturers selected the Union, then the Respondent might get more business. Hazelrigg denied in his testimony that he had ever told Burke, Lester, Payne, or any employee that they would be discharged for union activities, denied any instructions attributed to Ben Berman to discharge them, and also denied any statement to Burke with reference to his wife being on the company payroll. As to inquiries about the signing of union authorization cards as alleged in the complaint, Hazelrigg testified that he had been informed that employee Thelma Roberts had signed a number of such cards, and had then dropped them in the mailbox. Hazelrigg admitted that he called Thelma Roberts to the office and asked her if she had signed the cards. Hazelrigg further testified that when he heard that Roberts had signed a number of cards he considered it a possible forgery, but that he did not mention this aspect of his inquiry in his conversation with Roberts, and also testified that Thelma Roberts told him that she had not signed the other cards. Thelma Roberts testified that Hazelrigg had asked if she had started the Union, and made the statement to her that he had heard about it. Roberts could not recall in her testimony about any inquiry as to the signing of union authorization cards. 2 The record in this proceeding shows that Ben Berman is the chairman on the board of directors of the Crown Overall Company. 599198-62-vol 131-33 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Conclusions as to the violations of Section 8 (a) (1) The evidence adduced by the General Counsel's witnesses as to Hazelrigg's speech, in March, in ordering employees not to talk to the union representative, was ex- tremely vague and unconvincing. Only one witness testified that Hazelrigg had stated that the employees should not talk to the union representative. Charles Lester testified that Hazelrigg had told them that if he was in their place he would not talk to the union representative. From the testimony I have credited it is clear that after Hazelrigg was questioned about this matter at the March meeting, he told the employees that it was up to the individual employees as to whether they wished to discuss union matters with the representative, and that if Hazelrigg was an em- ployee he would not do so. There is no credited evidence that the employees, in so exercising their individual discretion in this aspect, would lose their jobs or in any other way suffer retaliations, and, therefore, I fail to see any violation of the Act in this statement by Hazelrigg. I consider it as privileged, and I so find. From the testimony I have credited, Plant Manager Hazelrigg also told the em- ployees during his March speech, that there was a "possibility" of the plant closing and moving if the Union organized due to increased costs of production, which would leave no purpose in Crown sending material to the Respondent, and Hazelrigg further stated that if other clothing manufacturers in the area were organized and the company plant was not, the Respondent might "prosper" by it. There was con- siderable testimony as to whether Hazelrigg used the word "possibility," or, on the other hand flatly stated that the plant would close if the Union came in, but in this respect even Lester testified for the General Counsel that Hazelrigg had told them that the plant would "probably close." It appears to me that these statements by Hazelrigg in March contained no promises or threats that the Respondent would take any steps to induce the happening of possible future events, and that the statements were the personal views and an economic explanation of the plant operations by Hazelrigg. In accordance with the above I find that these statements are no more than predictions of possible future actions of the Company and a third party should the Union win the election, and were privileged under Section 8(c) of the Act and do not constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1). Neco Electrical Products Corpora- tion, 124 NLRB 481. In so finding I am not unmindful of the Board' s decision in Sanford Dress Corporation, 123 NLRB 1106, and that at least a portion of the factual situation involved in this decision is somewhat parallel to the case at hand. The record in the instant proceeding established that the Respondent had no office force, and that Crown takes care of all the bookkeeping and payrolls as the Com- pany had none of these facilities. However, in the Sanford Dress Corporation de- cision, the speech by management to employees flatly stated that certain customers would withhold orders if the union therein involved succeeded in organizing the plant, and was a positive, absolute, and definite statement as to subsequent action which was not in the realm of speculation, and was therefore held to be coercive under the theory that the company was part of a subsidiary of its sole customers. In the instant case for determination here, we have no specific or concise statement as to what the Respondent or third party would do in event of union organization, but merely a discussion by Hazelrigg on the economic situation involved, and then his own predictions on what could possibly happen in the future. Hazelrigg's speech in May contained nothing more than repeating what he had told the employees in March, and which I have found herein to be privileged. Plant Manager Hazelrigg admitted in his testimony that he had conversations in his office with three cutting room employees in June, and had on this occasion in- quired if they were working for the Union. The Respondent offers no explanation or reason of any kind for these separate and individual interviews relative to the Union in the office of its plant manager. Hazelrigg further admitted that he had also inquired of Thelma Robert if she had signed authorization cards with other employees' names, as aforestated, that he suspicioned Roberts might have signed the cards, and that he wanted to find out about it. Hazelrigg also admitted that in his inquiry of Roberts about the signing of union cards, he did not mention in any way his concern with possible forgery. In view of Hazelrigg's testimony that the only reason he made the inquiry was that he suspicioned Roberts had signed the cards, it appears to me that this interrogation was based on ascertainment of who were the active union employees, and the concern over forgery was a mere afterthought or at the most coincidental to his main purpose. Thelma Roberts then testified that Hazelrigg asked her if she had started the Union, and which statement credibly attributed to the plant manager was not specifically denied. The test of interference, restraint, and coercion under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act turns on whether it may reasonably be said that the conduct in which the employer or its representative engaged tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act. FLEMINGSBURG MANUFACTURING COMPANY 499 The foregoing instances of admitted interrogation are not instances of objective inquiry as to the propriety of recognizing a labor organization; they are not "casual friendly, isolated Instance[s]' of interrogation by a minor supervisor." See Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. Neither.do they amount to the mere exercise of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution nor to protected ex- pressions of views under Section 8(c). N.L.R.B. v. Minnesota Mining d Manu- facturing Company, 179 F. 2d 323 (C.A. 8); National Shirt Shops of Delaware, Inc. et al., 123 NLRB 1213. Rather, they include an attempt to inquire into the insti- gator of unionization and the implication that the employees would be better with- out the Union; they therefore constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1). Raymond Pearson, Inc., 115 NLRB 190, enfd. 243 F. 2d 456 (C.A. 5); Shell Oil Co. (Suc- cessor to Shell Oil Company, Incorporated), 95 NLRB 102, enfd. 196 F. 2d 637 (C.A. 5). Based on the above I conclude and find that the following interrogations by Hazelrigg violated Section 8(a) (1) : (a) interrogations in June as to whether Lester, Payne, and Burke were working for the Union; (b) interrogation of Thelma Roberts as to the signing of union authorization cards; and (c) interrogation of Roberts as to who started the Union. It is also argued and alleged in this proceeding that the Respondent would dis- charge employees because of their sympathy and efforts in behalf of the Union. One reference to such a remark came in the testimony of Payne who stated that Hazelrigg had told him in their June conversation, that Ben Berman of Crown had told Hazelrigg to fire Burke and Payne. Hazelrigg denied any such statement and Burke in his testimony categorically stated that Hazelrigg had made no such state- ment to him. It would appear highly unlikely to me that Hazelrigg would threaten to discharge Payne and Burke, and yet, while talking to Burke and Lester on the same day on the same subject never mentioned any similar threat to them. Payne also testified that on another occasion Hazelrigg had told him that if he had any- thing to do with the Union he would be fired. Payne's testimony in this respect was extremely vague, and he was not definitely sure of the year or where it sup- posedly took place, nor was there any corroborated statements in support thereof, and I do not credit this testimony. The only other reference to any discharge be- cause of union activities was the testimony of Burke, to the effect that in the June conversation with the cutting room employees, Hazelrigg had mentioned to him that Burke's wife was also working at the Company. However, Burke admitted that Hazelrigg had then also told him that he was free to do as he pleased. The General Counsel must sustain the allegations of a complaint by a preponderance of the sub- stantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to accept a conclusion. It is found that the evidence in this case with respect to the discharge of employees because of their union activi- ties give rise to no more than suspicion, speculation, and surmise. Certainly, it does not equal the substantial evidence necessary to support the allegations of the commission of an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the complaint in this respect will be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of 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 that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which it is found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Inasmuch as Respondent's antiunion activities are not so extensive in manner and scope and are not of such an aggravated character as to indicate an attitude of gen- eral opposition to employees' rights, it will be recommended that Respondent only be required to cease and desist from in any like manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees as to their union activities and sympathies, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The activities set forth in paragraph 3 above are unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Western Truck Lines, Ltd., Gillette Motor Transport, Inc. and Office Employees International Union, Local 45, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1379. May 12, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On January 12, 1961, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw 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 found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommended that these particular allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of his exceptions, and the Respondent filed a reply brief thereto. 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 Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report,' the exceptions, the briefs and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner 2 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 1 The Trial Examiner, under section B of the Intermediate Report, failed to clearly note that the person about whom witness M. I. Jennings was speaking was Bill C. Merrett, a supervisor in Respondent's I.B.M. department. 3 Absent exceptions, the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act are adopted pro forma. 131 NLRB No. 77.