Douglas and Lomason Co.

320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD participate in that election and have never been represented by a union. Neither the contract executed pursuant to the certification nor any subsequently executed contracts included manufacturing engi- neers. In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we be- lieve that the excluded classification may not be added to the existing unit by means of a motion for clarification. Clearly, the manufactur- ing engineers are not an accretion to the existing unit whom we would include therein by amendment of the certificate. They are entitled to vote whether they desire to be represented as part of the historical professional unit. Since the proper procedure for accomplishing this purpose is a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act seeking an election rather than a motion or petition for clarification, we shall dismiss the instant proceeding.4 [The Board dismissed the petition for clarification of unit.] 4 Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation , 132 NLRB 1093, 1095 , Brockton- Taunton Gas Company, 132 NLRB 940; General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233; of D V. Displays Corp ., at al, 132 NLRB 568. Douglas and Lomason Company and International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 26-CA-1298, 26-CA-1303, and 26-CA-1373. April 26, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On February 19, 1963, Trial Examiner Edwin Youngblood issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceed- ing, 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 attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with re- spect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charg- ing Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the former also filed a brief in support of his exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record 142 NLRB No. 36. DOUGLAS AND LOMASON COMPANY 321 in these cases, including the Intermediate Report and the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO,' herein called the Union, a consolidated amended complaint was issued against Respondent on October 9, 1962,2 alleging violations of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by offering, promis- ing, and granting a wage increase to employees effective June 1 and by discrimina- torily suspending J. V. Sitzes on May 24 and discriminatorily discharging J. V. Sitzes on September 5 3 The complaint was further amended at the hearing to allege Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by offering, promising, and granting a wage increase to employees effective August 31. Respondent denies it has com- mitted the alleged violations. The hearing was held before Trial Examiner Edwin Youngblood at Marianna, Arkansas, on November 13. All parties were repre- sented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally upon the record. Dis- position of Respondent's motion to dismiss the amended complaint made at the hearing, upon which ruling was reserved, is disposed of in accordance with the findings herein. General Counsel made oral argument at the hearing, and Respond- ent filed a brief, both of which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, including their demeanor while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Michigan corporation, has plants in Detroit, Michigan, Newman and Carrollton, Georgia, and Marianna, Arkansas, the plant involved herein, where it is engaged in the production of automotive parts. During the past 12 months, Respondent purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to its Marianna plant from points in other States. During the same period, Re- spondent shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Marianna plant directly to points in other States. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The wage increases of June 1 and August 31 In October 1960 the Union started an organizing campaign culminating in an election on May 4, 1961, which the Union lost. In February and again in March 1962, employee J. V. Sitzes advised the Union of a renewed interest among employees. In April Sitzes and International Representative Bingaman met and discussed an organizational campaign, and the first organizational meeting with employees was held on April 30. Plant Manager Boccarossa assembled the employees on May 18, i The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates mentioned are in 1962. 8 The charge in Case No 26-CA-1298 was filed on June 7, in Case No 26-CA-1303 on June 15, and in Case No. 26-CA-1373 on September 11 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and announced a wage increase to be effective on June 1. The Union filed its petition with the Board on May 21 and by letter of the same date notified Respondent of the names of employees on its organizational committee. A Board election was conducted on June 14. In substance , the position of the General Counsel is that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by announcing the wage increase on May 18 and granting said increase on June 1 in order to influence its employees to refrain from supporting the Union. According to the testimony of employee Treat, Boccarossa began his May 18 speech by telling the employees that he wanted to talk to them "about the way he felt about a union." Then he referred to an occasion in the past when Respondent made a substantial reduction in the number of employees at its Detroit plant because of excessive union demands. Boccarossa also talked about his efforts to get a swim- ming pool built for employees and their families. Further, Boccarossa said "if they got the pool built there would be 97 percent of the employees and their families that would be welcome, but the other three percent he didn't care whether they came or not ...." Boccarossa informed the employees they would get a 10-cent raise effective the first of June and said "we would get the dime raise without the union which we did." 4 Boccarossa testified that the decision to grant this wage increase was reached at a meeting in Detroit with Respondent 's president and other plant managers during the week of May 14. According to Boccarossa the tool program for the coming year was discussed as well as labor relations and the general overall insurance program for the Company. Further, Boccarossa stated he recommended a wage increase for employees at Marianna and admitted on cross-examination that he was the only manager to suggest an increase at that time. Boccarossa denied any knowledge of a union campaign at the Marianna plant either when the Detroit meeting was held or when he made the May 18 speech.5 Boccarossa admitted however that he referred in the speech to Respondent's experience with unions at its Detroit plant and the substantial reduction in the number of employees there. Boccarossa further testified that he told employees of Respondent's policy to grant as many wage and other benefits to them as possible. Respondent contends that Boccarossa did not know of the union activities of the employees until after the May 18 speech I reject this contention for reasons stated herein It is improbable that Boccarossa would have referred in his speech to Respondent's experience with unions at Detroit if he had not known of the union campaign at Marianna . It is apparent from Boccarossa's testimony that he stressed Respondent's beneficial working conditions and wage policies , I do not consider it likely that he would have done so absent knowledge of the campaign Boccarossa was an evasive witness on cross-examination and gave equivocal answers. On the other hand, Treat testified in a straightforward and convincing manner. Accord- ingly, I reject Boccarossa 's version of the speech insofar as it contradicts Treat's version It is apparent from Treat 's credited testimony as to the contents of the speech that Boccarossa knew of the union activities of the employees . For example, Boccarossa started the speech by stating he wanted to talk to the employees about the way he felt about a union. In view of the foregoing factors, I reject Boccarossa 's assertion he did not learn of the Union until after the May 18 speech . In its brief Respondent contends that as- suming arguendo that it had knowledge of the union activities when the wage increase was announced , the increase was lawful because it was in accord with a general wage plan and was granted independently of the union activity . Although the record contains some evidence of Respondent's general wage policy, it does not establish, in my opinion, that there was a definite policy providing for wage increases at any particular time or at definite intervals For example, Respondent 's Exhibit No. 5 reveals that employees at Respondent's Newman and Carrollton, Georgia, plants were granted wage increases on January 7 of the next calendar year after opening of the plants in the fall of the preceding year. Employees at Respondent's Marianna plant were not given an increase until March 31 of the next calendar year after the plant 4 According to employee Sitzes, Boccarossa stated "effective June the 1st that they'd get a 10-cents an hour raise if the men would leave the union alone " Sitzes' demeanor was not impressive and this version of the speech seems illogical to me. Boccarossa would probably not have conditioned a raise on the employees leaving the Union alone and then granted a raise on June 1 which date preceded the election by about 2 weeks . 'Aecord- ingly. I reject this testimony 5 Foreman Joyner also denied knowledge of a union campaign at the time of the speech of May 18 . Joyner stated that while he did not specifically recall what Boccarossa said in the speech, "to his knowledge" nothing was said with reference to the Union. DOUGLAS AND LOMASON COMPANY 323 was opened in the fall of the preceding year. In addition, employees at Marianna were the only employees in the southern plants to receive a wage increase on June 1, 1962; employees in the Newman and Carrollton plants did not receive an increase that year until August 31. Significantly the wage increase of June 1 could hardly have been announced at a more strategic time coming as it did so soon after the first union organizing meeting of employees. Moreover, Boccarossa admittedly was the only manager at the Detroit meeting to suggest a raise for his employees at that time. Finally Treat's credited testimony concerning Boccarossa's antiunion speech demonstrates Respondent 's purpose in promising and granting the wage increase was to convince the employees they did not need a union in order to get wage increases, thereby deterring their union activities. For example, during this antiunion speech Boccarossa stated that the employees would get the wage increase without the Union. In view of all the foregoing factors, I do not find Respondent's explanation for the granting of the wage increase to be valid and infer and find Respondent was aware of the organizational activities of its employees prior to the decision to grant the increase. Accordingly, I find the wage increase was offered, promised, and granted in order to discourage the union activities of the employees and Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Acts We turn now to General Counsel's contention that Respondent violated the Act by announcing a wage increase on August 10, which became effective on August 31. This contention is based on Sitzes' testimony that Boccarossa announced a 71/2-cent increase in a speech on August 10 because "the employees had showed him on two occasions " General Counsel contends an inference should be drawn from this testi- mony that the increase was granted to reward employees for having rejected the Union in two Board elections. Board elections which the Union lost were con- ducted on May 4, 1961, and June 14, 1962. Although other witnesses were called by the General Counsel who were working for Respondent on August 10, they did not testify in support of Sitzes' version. On the other hand Boccarossa specifically denied making the statement attributed to him by Sitzes and this denial is supported by the testimony of Production Superintendent Joyner and Foreman Kroll. Sitzes' demeanor while testifying on this point was very unimpressive and I reject his testi- mony and credit the testimony of Boccarossa. There is no evidence of a union cam-4 paign being conducted at this time. Accordingly, as the evidence does not establish the increase had any connection with the union activities, I find Respondent did not violate the Act by offering, promising, and granting the wage increase of August 31 7 B. The suspension and discharge of J. V. Sitzes Sitzes was employed by Respondent as an are welder on September 18, 1960. The Union commenced an organizational campaign in about October of 1960 which con- tinued until the election was held on May 14, 1961. Sitzes acted as a union observer in the election. On January 9, 1961, Sitzes was discharged and was reinstated in April 1961, pursuant to a settlement agreement executed after unfair labor practice charges had been filed. We consider now the events occurring after Sitzes' reinstatement. According to the testimony of Production Superintendent Joyner, Respondent has a practice of giving an unsatisfactory employee at least three or four verbal warnings and if he does not improve, a written warning is placed in his personnel file. Joyner further testified that Sitzes was informed each time a written warning was placed in his file. Documents from Sitzes' personnel file reflect four written warnings for burning trim wires off and four written warnings for either holding up production or low produc- tion in the period between April 1961 and December 7, 1961.8 Another document reflects that on December 7, 1961, Foreman Kroll reported in writing to Joyner that Sitzes had been assigned to several different jobs and had failed to make the production standard on any of them.9 On December 8, 1961, according to another document capitioned "Performance Record" and signed by Joyner, Sitzes was given a 3-day suspension from work for "flipping" a production meter by hand instead of letting the machine turn the meter.lo 8 Standard Rated Data Service, Inc, 133 NLRB 337, 342; Holland Manufacturing Com- pany, 129 NLRB 776, 786; see also Hawkins-Hawkins, Inc., 121 NLRB 740, 747; Avildcen Tools and Machines, Inc, et al, 112 NLRB 1021, 1025 7 Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation, 129 NLRB 1084, 1092 8 Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20. 9 Respondent's Exhibit No 21. 10 Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. 712-548-64-vol 142 22 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sitzes, as referred to above, contacted the Union on two occasions in February and March 1962, met with Bingaman in April and the first organizing meeting with employees was held on April 30. A "Performance Record" dated May 9, 1962, and signed by Kroll reflects that Sitzes was given a warning by Kroll for low production as an operator on "federal seat welder opr. No. 120." 11 Another "Performance Record" signed by Kroll and dated May 23, 1962, reflects that Sitzes was told he was being taken off the "federal" machine because "he was holding back on production" and was reassigned to a similar are welding job.12 This job required the welding of seats on part No. 197. A "Performance Record" dated May 24, 1962, and signed by Joyner reflects the following: At 1 p.m. today on federal seat welder the operator Harpole called Foreman C. Kroll to his job, and told him the frames were not being welded together properly as they were falling apart, as he would obtain them from skid rack. C. Kroll then called No. 142 Sitzes and both together checked the quality of the parts on the skid rack that Sitzes had welded. They checked 30 pcs and all 30 pcs broke apart from poor weld. At this time Foreman Kroll came to me H. Joyner, and I inspected the quality of this man's work. I called this man in the office and told him that this was not the first time that I had talked to him in regards to his quality. He told me and C. Kroll that there was no reason for the poor weld but it just happened. I was not satisfied with this answer and told him that I was giving him 2 weeks off to stress the importance to him that he must do good quality work. Also that if any more complaints came up about his work I would discharge him.13 Joyner testified with respect to this incident of May 24, substantially in accord with the performance record to which reference has just been made. In addition he testified he explained to Sitzes that if one of the seats defectively welded by Sitzes got by the inspector and into the assembly of the automobile, it could cause a very serious accident. Then he referred to several jobs that Sitzes had worked on and Sitzes' poor workmanship. Further he told Sitzes he "had bent over backwards" for him and shown him more consideration than any man in the plant simply because he was a union man. Then Joyner told Sitzes that he did not know to which job he should be assigned, that he had already worked on 10 different jobs and asked "if there was any place in the plant that he felt that he would like to work and could produce a quality product at a standard to any other normal operator in the plant." Sitzes replied there was one job he felt he could do as well as other operators and identified this as job 167. Joyner then told Sitzes he would be laid off for 2 weeks to stress the seriousness of his defective performance on this particular job. Further Joyner said he would assign Sitzes to the job he requested and then his work would be evaluated as to quality and quantity in comparison with that of other employees. Kroll testified he gave Sitzes "many" verbal warnings when no written report was made. Kroll testified further that he asked Sitzes on the occasion when he was given the 2-week suspension why he was doing poor quality work. Sitzes replied that he "should have done better" and when Kroll asked why he "didn't do better" Sitzes just "shrugged it off," and said "he didn't know why." Kroll stated "that's been my experience with him all the time" that Sitzes worked under him. Further Kroll testified he tried Sitzes on several different jobs and he "never made out on them. To my estimation, I don't think he tried." On June 14, as noted above a Board election with Sitzes as an observer for the Union was conducted which the Union lost. Joyner testified that for the first few days after Sitzes returned to work on June 8, he seemed to do "reasonably well" on job 167. Then during the second and third weeks Sitzes complained about the functioning of the fixture and the parts. Joyner notified the maintenance and toolroom to check the fixture daily. According to Joyner there was no evidence that Sitzes had excessive trouble compared to other employees on the job. Joyner further testified he called Sitzes into his office on June 22 and told him that his performance had not improved as Sitzes had told him earlier he thought it would. A "Performance Record" dated June 22 and signed by Joyner reflects the statement that Sitzes' performance was 65 percent of normal pro- duction and Sitzes was warned that he had to improve.16 "Performance Record" dated August 7, 1962, and signed by Foreman Senapole reflects that Senapole had n Respondent's Exhibit No. 22. Respondent's Exhibit No. 23. is Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. is Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. DOUGLAS AND LOMASON COMPANY 325 spoken to Sitzes several times about his production . It also reflects that Sitzes had complained about tubes being too short or too long and on August 6 new tubing was made.15 "Performance Record" dated September 5, 1962, and signed by Joyner refers to Sitzes having requested reassignment to job 167 on May 24 and Sitzes' poor production rate on this job. It also reflects that Joyner talked with Sitzes about his poor performance and Sitzes displayed a poor attitude toward his job. Further that written warnings had been made on his performance. Also Joyner noted on the record that he felt he had shown Sitzes "more consideration than was required of [him]." 16 Joyner testified that he discharged Sitzes on September 5, 1962, after informing him that he had "exhausted all efforts in trying to make a qualified workman out of him." Joyner also testified that he did not know of any other employee who had received 14 or 15 warnings without being discharged. Further Joyner testified that neither the suspension nor the discharge of Sitzes was related to union activities, and that there was no union activity of any kind going on when Sitzes was dis- charged. Also Joyner testified he had discharged other employees for substandard work and normally three written warnings were all they received before discharge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 is the performance record of four employees includ- ing Sitzes' who worked on job 167, the job Sitzes worked on from June 8 to Septem- ber 5.17 This exhibit reflects that Sitzes' production was the worst of the four employees and was about 15 percent worse than the next lowest employee. Further, it reflects that a year's work by Sitzes on this job would have cost the Company more than twice the next lowest employee in costs in excess of standard. On rebuttal Sitzes denied that he flipped the production counter, denied that he requested a transfer to job 167, and denied that he ever told Joyner he knew he was not performing his work correctly and would try to do better. Sitzes was asked to name the occasions when any supervisor criticized his work or gave him verbal warnings. Sitzes admitted being called into Joyner's office in December 1961, when the production meter was discussed, admitted being called again to Joyner's office in May when bad seat frames were discussed and the suspension occurred, and admitted being called into Joyner's office on September 5 when his low produc- tion was discussed and he was discharged. Sitzes denied recalling any other occasions when any supervisor spoke to him about his job performance or gave him any verbal warnings. Although Sitzes denied as a rebuttal witness any criticism or warnings other than those related above during the General Counsel's case in chief, Sitzes testified that in May, Foreman Kroll told him he was holding up production and assigned him to a different job. Sitzes did not deny being assigned to some 10 different jobs On cross-examination Sitzes was asked to explain all the written warnings and denied knowledge of them. When counsel for Respondent pressed the point, Sitzes denied knowing there were "that many" but stated that he knew of two or three. When counsel attempted to ascertain what these two or three warnings were, Sitzes then testified he did not know of any written warnings. Sitzes was an evasive witness and gave contradictory testimony. As noted above, his demeanor was not impressive. On the other hand Joyner and Kroll gave straight- forward and convincing testimony. Accordingly, I discredit Sitzes' denials and credit the testimony of Joyner and Kroll. I also accept as authentic the docu- mentary evidence referred to above. We consider now certain aspects of the evidence which tend to support General Counsel's contention that Sitzes' suspension and discharge were violative of the Act. Respondent's knowledge of Sitzes' union activity is admitted and I have found above that the wage increase of June 1 was motivated by a desire to deter the union activities of the employees. In addition, there is no evidence of any criticism of Sitzes' work from Decem- ber 7, 1961, until May 9, 1962, which was after the second union campaign started. Then on May 23, 1962, Sitzes was transferred to a different job and suspended the next day. Sitzes, it will be recalled, was discharged after the first union campaign started. The foregoing facts give rise to a strong suspicion that Sitzes' suspension and discharge were motivated at least in part by his union activity. But aside from the fact that suspicion is not proof and the General Counsel must establish his case 15 Respondent's Exhibit No. 12. 19 Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. 14 Job 167 is also described as operation 350. Sitzes and other production employees were laid off for about 3 weeks in August and September. This layoff is not alleged as violative of the Act. 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by a preponderance of the evidence as a whole there are certain considerations which weaken that suspicion. Sitzes was transferred to approximately 10 jobs during his employment, generally because of low production or holding up production. Thus, the transfer on May 23 for the reason assigned is entirely consistent with Sitzes' past performance. Also it should be noted, that the transfer was not made until after Foreman Kroll had warned Sitzes at least once about his low production. As to the suspension itself clearly the reason assigned has validity. Respondent would logically be concerned with defective work affecting the safety of the automobile. Even more compelling in persuading me of Respondent's nondiscriminatory motivation is the fact that Joyner, after advising Sitzes of his suspension for defective work on part No. 197 assigned Sitzes to a job which Sitzes himself requested. If Respondent had been seeking a pretext to discharge Sitzes, surely this would not have happened. In addition, the documentary evidence concerning Sitzes' low performance over a substantial period of time on the operation he requested is conclusive in establishing Sitzes was the lowest producer on that job.is True enough, as General Counsel asserts, other employees failed to make production standards. But no other employee in the plant so far as the evidence shows had the poor work record of Sitzes. As Joyner credibly testified normally an employee is discharged after three written warnings; Sitzes' personnel file reflects 14 or 15 such warnings. Moreover, no union campaign was in progress at the time of Sitzes' discharge of September 5. General Counsel and the Charging Party assert, however, that Respondent did not discharge Sitzes until September 5 because it was waiting for the right opportunity to arise and that this was a continuing situation. This argument does not persuade because the evidence shows Respondent had many opportunities to discharge Sitzes before it finally did so. I am convinced that Respondent, as Joyner told Sitzes in the discharge interview, exhausted every effort to make Sitzes a competent employee. I therefore conclude and find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence on the record as a whole that either Sitzes' suspen- sion or discharge was discriminatorily motivated. I shall therefore recommend dismissal of these allegations. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's activities found to be unfair labor practices in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of 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 In view of my finding that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and post an appropriate notice. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning 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, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not violated the Act by offering, promising and granting a wage increase to its employees on August 31. 5. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that Respondent Douglas and Lomason Company, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 18 Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 DOUGLAS AND LOMASON COMPANY 327 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Offering, promising, or granting wage increases to its employees in order to discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) In any like or related manner , interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its Marianna, Arkansas, plant, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent 's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.20 19 If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, the words "as Ordered by" shall be substituted for "as Recommended by a Trial Examiner of" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of a United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for "as Ordered by " :9 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 Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT offer, promise, or grant wage increases to our employees in order to discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. 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 , or to join or assist the above-named union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become, or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization. DOUGLAS AND LOMASON COMPANY, 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, Seventh Floor, Falls Building, 22 North Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee, 38103, Telephone No. Jackson 7-5451, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.