O. N. Jonas Co., Inc.

958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE HAVE disestablished Koehler's Employees Union as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning terms or conditions of employment. KOEHLER'S WHOLESALE RESTAURANT SUPPLY, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, Telephone Number, Melrose 2-1551, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. 0. N. Jonas Co., Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases Nos. 10-CA-4912, 10-CA-4950, and 10- CA-1953. November 15, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On August 14, 1962, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not en- gaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter, the General Coun- sel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. 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 In- termediate Report and the entire record in the cases, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, except that the last clause of paragraph 1(d) of the Order and the last clause of the last indented paragraph of the Appendix, both beginning with the words "except to the extent," are hereby deleted. 139 NLRB No. 83. 0. N. JONAS CO., INC. INTERMEDIATE REPORT 959 STATEMENT OF THE CASE These proceedings, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, were heard before Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon at Dalton, Georgia, May 22 to 24, 1962, pursuant to due notice with all parties being represented. The consolidated complaint issued by the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board) on May 1, 1962, and based upon charges fled on February 7 and March 12, 20, and 21, 1962, and duly served, alleged in sub- stance that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging employee Donald Jay Cross on March 19, 1962, and by reducing the work hours of certain other named employees on February 12, 1962, because of their union or concerted activities, and by engaging in various specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion against its employees in connection with their union activities. In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a Georgia corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business at Dalton, Georgia, where it is engaged in the processing and sale of carpeting. During the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of all times material herein, Respondent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its place of business at Dalton, Georgia, directly to points outside the State of Georgia. I find that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Sometime about the middle of January 1962, or shortly thereafter, the Union began to organize Respondent's employees. At that time there were about 50 or 60 employees, at least 35 or 40 of whom apparently supported the Union.' The plant was then operating on a one-shift basis of 60 or more hours a week with all hours in excess of 40 being paid for at time and a half. About the middle of February, Respondent went on a three-shift 40-hour week more than doubling its employee complement in the process? While the General Counsel contends that the reduction in the workweek was discriminatory, he does so only as to nine of the employees so affected? This reduction of hours and the discharge of Donald Cross are the main issues. A. The discharge of Donald Cross There is no dispute, as testified to by Donald Cross, that he was discharged be- cause of his refusal to make the commitment to Respondent that he would dis- continue his support of or activity on behalf of the Union. This occurred on March 19, 1962, a few days after Cross had testified for the Union in a Board representa- tion hearing. About a month and a half before that, according to Cross' further testimony, he had been told by Respondent that he was a supervisor 4 and as such could not engage in union activity. At that time he agreed to honor Respondent's 1 Union buttons were worn In the plant by approximately 35 or 40. 2 Peak employment went to about 120 2 Because of my disposition of this matter, the Charging Party's motion to amend com- plaint or have me amend it is denied. I This occurred on January 27, 1962. According to Cross, this was the first he had heard about being a supervisor. As will be seen elsewhere he testified somewhat inconsistently. 960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD demand during working hours but contended that Respondent had no authority over what he did on his own time. Respondent's defense to Cross' discharge is that he was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and thus not protected in his union activity . While the matter is not free of doubt I am inclined to find , and I do find, chiefly on Cross' own testi- mony, that he was a supervisor . In this connection Cross testified as follows: He was hired in 1960. About a year later he was made shipping clerk. His supervisors in order of importance were Oscar Jonas, Respondent's President, Blaine Wright, the plant superintendent, and Charles Wilson, in charge of receiving and shipping.5 As shipping clerk he usually had 3 or 4 employees working under his direction; but at times he had as high as 25 or 30 . Sometime in July or August 1961 (before the advent of the Union ), he was told he was "the boss in charge, had the responsibility" for, the customer shipping. But Cross did- not take this to mean he was a supervisor on the pay he was making.° Approximately 10 percent of his time was spent in manual work helping load trucks and similar tasks, the rest in paper or clerical work.? He had authority to transfer men within his own unit. He took it upon himself to keep the work area clean because he did not "like to work in a dirty place." Periodically, he would tell his people "when you get caught up with your shipping, let's get the place cleaned up." When work was not at its peak he would do "a lot of clean up work fixing stock and changing around different changes." He would see that the men had something to do and were kept busy. If he needed extra men and he saw one doing nothing, he would ask him to help .8 He also took it upon himself to curtail the `%orse play" because it was dangerous. He admitted that on one ocasion before Christmas when the men were swinging chains on a truck as they were loading it he told them, "Cut out that damn racket and get back to work." 9 On another occasion iO when his opinion was asked by Superintendent Wright about the performance of an employee under him, one Hollifield,11 he testified before me that he told his superiors that Hollifield "liked to talk; that he liked to stand around and talk"; but that he "was working OK, he liked to talk, and we left it at that ." In the "R" case hearing Cross had testified that when he was asked how Hollifield was working out, he said , "He's not working out too good with me. He likes to stand around and talk too much." In any event,•a day or two after his remarks about Hollifield , the latter was transferred out of his jurisdiction. It further appears from Cross' testimony that Wright originally checked his clerical work as a doublecheck matter. Ultimately, this doublechecking detail was taken over by Wilson . But Wilson's work was never checked by Cross. On the other 5 Wilson was described by Jonas as being responsible for all shipping and receiving- "for the entire back end of the plant." Wilson himself testified that he was over the whole back end of the plant including customer shipping. Elsewhere, Respondent's evi- dence would show that Wilson was in charge of all receiving and raw material shipping as distinguished from customer shipping which was Crass ' province Both Wilson and Cross were required to punch the timeclock There was about the same absolute differen- tial between Wilson's pay and Cross' as there was between Cross' and the men in his crew 6 On March 19, his rate was $1 35 an hour ; on the same date the employees working under his direction were getting $1.21 an hour with one of them getting $1.26 an hour. He had received a Christmas bonus of $125 while one of his men had received $100. The differentials were relatively the same prior to March 19 4 He checked production tickets against order tickets ; prepared bills of lading ; arranged for the routing of shipments ; typed stencils and made tickets for rugs ; caused physical inspections to be made ; and searched out missing rugs. 8 On cross-examination he was asked if he had not testified on the "R" case hearing that he believed the men worked better if one asked them rather than gave them a direct order. His answer was, "I don't give anybody direct orders." 9 He explained that he had been hit with one of the chains and felt that it was his duty to stop it. is This was after January 27, 1962, but Cross could not recall whether it was before or after March 2, 1962 n It appears that Hollifield actually worked under the guidance of one Gus Parker whose duties were confined to the shipping of J. C. Penney orders from a warehouse de- voted to that account The evidence shows, and I find, that Parker worked essentially in a subordinate position to Cross and in certain respects under his authority It was Parker who first raised the question of Hollifield's performance with Respondent That Respondent then sought out Cross' opinion as to Hollifield is significant as to the former's supervisory status, I believe, notwithstanding that Cross may not have made any specific recommendation regarding him. O. N. JONAS CO., INC. 961 hand, it appears that Cross did make a check on some of President Jonas' work. In processing orders, Jonas compiled a sheet or list of customers' orders from the order tickets. Both a paper check and a physical check was then made by Cross to see that Jonas had not made an error. The physical check was made by whoever Cross designated for the task. He picked those he felt were the more experienced because if a mistake was made he was responsible. There is no doubt that at no time did Cross have authority to hire or fire or perform on his own any of the statutory functions of a supervisor. On March 2, however, he was informed by Jonas that he had the authority to effectively recommend such action. On that date, according to Cross' testimony, he and five others attended a supervisor's meeting with Jonas and other officials which type of meeting became a weekly affair thereafter. In this meeting he was told that he was over customers' goods and shipping and that he would be working under Wilson; 12 that he (and the others) had authority to recommend hiring and firing and disciplinary action; and that they could sign timecards.13 Several matters pertaining to the running of the plant were discussed among which was an impending reduction of the workweek. Cross and the others were told to call their men together and inform them of the possible cut and apprise them of the fact that all requests or grievances would have to go through them. Jonas explained the March 2 increase of supervisory authority for Cross and the others as follows: That because of the growth of the Company it was no longer convenient for him and Wright to deal directly with the men. Thus the supervisors were going to have to take a more active part in running the plant and that the chain of command, that had somehow broken down, was to be reactivated. Jonas also said, according to Cross, "that because of this union affair that he had to hire extra shifts and put in another plant to protect his interest and the plant's interest: that the orders was getting caught up; with these extra hands, we would go on a 4-day week the following week, possibly a 3, and down to 1, but that nobody would be laid off; that the new hands had just as much right to work as the old hands and the union men." That Jonas had made any allusion to the Union in connection with his having put on the extra shifts was denied in Respondent 's testimony. Al- though Johnny Gravitt was called as a witness by the General Counsel (and the evidence shows he attended the March 2 supervisory meeting), he was not questioned about it. I do not credit Cross' testimony in this connection. B. The alleged discriminatory reduction in hours Respondent's business was relatively new and its growth had "mushroomed rather quickly." Respondent explained that its change to a multishift operation 14 was the result of (1) the criticism of a newly hired firm of auditors to its overtime practices, (2) the desire to build up its "production potential" by increasing its number of employees and the shifts it operated , and (3 ) an increase in standardized orders on which a lower unit profit required a cut in costs. The Charging Party in its excellent brief admits that Respondent 's explanation of its change from a 60-hour week to a multiple shift 40-hour week "has considerable plausibility." I agree. Moreover, the fact that twice in 1961 Respondent had resorted to two 12-hour shifts to meet increased demands certainly is no ground (as the Charging Party apparently contends ) for claiming that the establishment of three 8-hour shifts was abnormal , particularly under the circumstances. The Charging Party points to an apparent inconsistency in Respondent's evidence regarding the decision to increase the number of shifts. Thus it points to Vice President Freedman's testimony that a decision as to "definitely going ahead" with a three-shift operation was made in October or November, while Jonas' testimony shows that the auditor's report was not received until January 16, 1962. It further points out "that although the Company produced certain written recommendations from the auditor at the hearing, it could not produce any recommendation on this 12 Notwithstanding that Wilson testified that he was over the whole back end including customer shipping, he further testified in corroboration of Jonas that he had no authority over Cross. In this connection Jonas testified that Cross was responsible directly to Wright. I find it unnecessary to resolve the discrepancy and conflict because it appears to me that the record establishes Cross' supervisory status notwithstanding that Wilson may have had some authority over him. 13 Before this any timecard corrections had to be approved by Superintendent Wright. 14 In viewing the drop in the workweek to 40 hours I am cognizant of the antiunion arguments made by Respondent to the employees regarding a reduction of hours to 40 or less if the Union came in That Respondent was inconsistent in this respect is not of fatal significance 962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD point in writing." This is a valid observation, but here again I do not believe that it is of such significance as to be fatal to Respondent's position. Having gone on two shifts before it is obvious that a multishift basis of operation was not foreign to Respondent's thinking. A decision in October or November "to go ahead" on this basis may not have been crystallized until the auditor's appraisal. As Freedman testified, the auditors showed them the amount they had spent in overtime and asked what they were going to do about it pointing out, "It's kinda foolish." 15 When the evidence as a whole is considered, I am inclined to find and I do find that notwithstanding several suspicious circumstances in Respondent's action,16 the General Counsel again has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent's action was discriminatory. Accordingly, this count of discrimina- tion is also recommended for dismissal. C. Interference, restraint, and coercion In February Respondent's comptroller, Chawkins, interviewed all current em- ployees individually in the office ostensibly for the purpose of requiring them to fill out application forms-a matter that the company had neglected to do when they had been hired.27 This was done, the company officials testified, as a result of the study made by the auditing firm.18 Whatever the reason they were called in as to these interviews, the following testimony was adduced from witnesses called by the General Counsel: Arlin Broyles: After filling out the application form and signing it Chawkins said, "No doubt you have heard about the union activity inside the plant." He replied that he had and Chawkins asked him how he felt about it. He told Chawkins he thought it was a good thing. "He thought everybody should have a raise and paid vacations and insurance, and things like that " Later, Chawkins called him back into the office and told him that if he "would back out of the Union and go with the com- pany (he) wouldn't have anything to worry about . that there'd always be bread on (his) table." Chawkins further said that he "had a wife and family to think about.. . He then told Chawkins that that was what he had been think- ing about and that was why he had decided he had "better back out." Chawkins assured him that he "was doing the right thing and . . wouldn't be sorry." R. L. Hollifield: On the occasion when Hollifield filled out his application blank in Chawkins' office, the latter told him that if the Union came in they would not get any more than 40 hours a week and asked him if he could make it on 40 hours. When he replied that he though he could-that he had made it on less-Chawkins said that with one child and a wife maybe he could make it but that there were employees with three and four children that might not make it. He told Hollifield that some of those would probably quit and might not find jobs elsewhere and advised him to think it over. Charles Laster: When Laster filled out his application, he was asked by Chawkins how he felt about the Union. Laster replied that he was going along with it, that he had been in the Union 15 years and would be in the Union all his life if there was one. Chawkins then asked how he thought he could get by on 40 hours a week and how much did he think the Union would pay them. When he answered approxi- mately $1.30 an hour, Chawkins figured up that even on that rate at 40 hours he would be making less than he currently was earning and could not see how Laster could live on it. As to these conversations Chawkins testified that he told the men that he wanted to take that opportunity of telling them what the Company's position was on the matter of the Union. He told them that the Company was against the Union com- ing ino the plant because it felt that the Union could not get the employees any- thing that they could not get for themselves. He further told them it was not a requirement that they belong to a union to work there. He also said it was their prerogative to be for or against the Union. He pointed out that because of the newspaper clippings and radio reports the employees were no doubt aware of the fact that the AFL-CIO unions had been pushing for a 40-hour workweek all over 15 Of course, if the decision was made in October or November, it could not have been discriminatory because the Union was not yet in the picture 19 The timing particularly. 17 Some had been working for as long as a year or more. 18 Here, again, the Charging Party points out that "although the auditing firm had put its other recommendations (and particularly those involving the use of forms) in writing, Respondent could not come up with any written recommendation from the auditor on this matter" O. N. JONAS CO., INC. 963 the country and raised the question with them how they would make out if the Union came into the plant and were successful in achieving its national objective. In this connection Chawkins testified that he was referring and did refer in these conversations to an article from the Journal of Labor on February 9 which Re- spondent had posted on its bulletin board.19 Chawkins also denied that he had called in Broyles for a second interview per- taining to dropping the Union. He testified about a second conversation with Broyles (in which Broyles came to the office on his own initiative) as follows: Mr. Broyles came in and told me that he had been reconsidering his union activity and that he felt that he might want to back out, but that he had heard rumors in the plant that anybody who had worn a union button and backed out would be fired from his job. I assured him of the fact that nobody at our plant would be fired whether they wore a union button or did not wear a union button as long as they did a job, and that I personally felt that if he had changed his mind, he had done a wise thing. I credit Broyles here. in addition to the foregoing 8(l) matters three employees testified as to similar conversations with Jonas. In this connection Hollifield testified as to a conversa- tion with Jonas late in February 1962. Hollifield had been called in the office on this occasion to see if he knew anything about some threats having been made by one employee to another. During the course of the conversation Jonas told Holli- field that he had heard that the latter was a strong union member and that he had been attending meetings . Hollifield admitted it. Jonas then asked him how the Union would help him. He replied that it could help by providing less hours of work and more pay. They then proceeded to discuss the good points and bad points of unions. Jonas told him that he did not think the Union could do any- thing for him that he could not do for himself. He also told Hollifield to think it over. About the same time according to the testimony of J. W. Verner he also had a conversation about the Union with Jonas. This occurred in the shipping depart- ment during a lunch period. Jonas had come in and apparently there was a dis- cussion among the employees going on about the Union. Jonas asked why he wanted a union. He told Jonas he wanted job security and further pointed out that on one occasion he had been kept working when another employee with more seniority and who had a family to support had been laid off. The following day Jonas again talked to him about the Union. On this occasion Jonas pointed out that they would work 40 hours a week and that even if their rate was much higher they would be better off working 60 to 80 hours a week at their current lower rate of pay. During this conversation (or possibly in the preceding one) according to Verner's further testimony they talked about strikes and violence and Jonas told them that he would sit and bargain with the Union and what came out of it is what they would get. Jonas further told them that he knew that there were some complaints on the supervision. He also told them that it was a new business and that as the business grew the people would grow with it-that he always shared what he had made and would continue to do so. Jonas further said that if the Union came in they would work 40 hours a week. Forrest Hall testified that he had a conversation with Jonas on February 14, 1962, about the Union. Chawkins and the bookkeeper were present. Jonas asked him if any supervisor had asked him to sign an authorization card. He said no he had signed one on his own. Then Jonas wanted to know what he thought he would gain by being in a union and he answered that they wanted better working con- ditions, job security, and more money. Jonas asked how much he thought the Union would get him and he replied approximately $1.40 an hour on the first contract. Jonas said that the Union would probably ask 20 cents an hour and he would offer 5 and the Union would not like that and would call a strike and that strikes lead to violence and so forth. Jonas also said that the whole town was com- pletely antiunion and that he would be blacklisted throughout the town if he con- tinued his union activities. There was no substantial contradiction by Jonas of Verner's testimony. Jonas did testify credibly that at the time he talked to Verner the latter was wearing a large 19 This article had to do with the news report of a discussion taking place at the Atlanta Building and Construction Trades Council pertaining to a shorter workweek in the building construction industry. 672010-63-vol. 139--62 964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union button. As for his conversation which Hollifield, he admitted, after first denying that the Union was mentioned at all, that he might have asked him what a union could get for him. As for Hall's testimony, Jonas flatly denied making any comment to him or to any other employee about blacklisting. In this connection it appears that Hall's sworn statement taken by a Board agent the day after his conversation with Jonas makes no mention of any blacklisting comment by Jonas. I credit Jonas' denial. Conclusions Even though Respondent may have couched its comments regarding a 40-hour week in general terms of union objectives and possibilities, I am convinced and find that in the course of its many conversations on the matter with the employees the distinction between conjectural generality and specific fact was lost. Thus, I am inclined to and do find that its comments to the employees about a reduction in the workweek if the Union come in were made as factual threats against continued union support and were so understood. As such they violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As a corollary, Chawkins' promise to Broyles of bread on the table and nothing to fear if he backed out of the Union and went with the Company is clearly a promise of benefit within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and also a violation of that section. In view of these two types of interference, restraint, and coercion on the part of Respondent with rights of its employees, I also find that the various questions posed to the employees about their attitudes and hopes regarding a union were also coercive and in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Southeastern Mills, Inc., 123 NLRB 1783; N.L.R.B. v. Harbison-Fischer Manufacturing Co., 304 F. 2d 738, (C.A. S), enfg. 131 NLRB 885. In its brief, the Charging Party alludes to Respondent's orders to Cross and the others it maintained were supervisors to cease their union activity and support as additional evidence of Section 8(a)(1) violations on the grounds that they were not supervisors. I have found to the contrary regarding Cross. I deem it un- necessary to go any further on the question as to the others since the complaint makes no such allegation and in any event any additional 8(a)(1) finding in this respect would not affect the Recommended Order herein. 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, 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 Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and 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. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organiza- tion, all within the meaning of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac- tices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not engaged, as alleged in the complaint , in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is 0. N. JONAS CO., INC. 965 recommended that the Respondent, O. N. Jonas Co., Inc., its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with a reduction of work hours or other economic reprisals if they join, retain membership in, or engage in activity on behalf of Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization. (b) Promising employees economic benefits for refraining from any of the fore- going union activity. (c) Interrogating employees as to their union attitudes, hopes, and aspirations in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union 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 authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plants at Chatsworth and Dalton, Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, Atlanta, Georgia, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.21 20 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De- cision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" In the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order." 21 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX 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 Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a reduction of work hours or other economic reprisals if they join, retain membership in, or engage in activity on behalf of Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT promise our employees economic benefits for refraining from engaging in the foregoing activity. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their union attitudes, hopes, and aspirations, in a manner constituting inference , restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 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 the Union 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 966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized by the National Labor Relations Act. O. N. JONAS Co., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street, NE., Atlanta 23, Georgia , Telephone Number, Trinity 6-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Hawaii Meat Company, Limited and Meat Cutters Union, Local 594 (AFL-CIO). Case No. 37-CA-2O?. November 15, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On August 9, 1961, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications. Meat Cutters Union, Local 594 (AFL-CIO), referred to here as the Union, was certified in February 1960 as the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of the Employer's employees, including its truckdrivers, helpers, and garage mechanics, referred to here as the delivery department. Bargaining for an agreement continued until July 1, 1960, when the Union struck for its economic demands. About a month before bargaining broke down, the Respondent, con- sidering that a strike was a possible eventuality, undertook negotia- tions with an independent trucking company to subcontract its de- The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 139 NLRB No. 75.