Industrial Steel Products Co., Inc.

336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or any term or condition of employment , except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3 ) of the Act. WE WILL NOT continue to include in our collective-bargaining contract with the above-named labor organization, or with any other labor organization, any provision whicih requres membership or application for membership in such union as a condition of employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in any other man- ner in connection with the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own free choice and to engage in other 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 agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer Milton Frankwick immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his rights and will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimina- tion against him. HRIBAR TRUCKING, INC., Employer. Dated------- ------------ By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify Frankwick , in the event he is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60603 , Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any queston concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Industrial Steel Products Company, Inc. and Shopmen's Local Union 760, of the International Association of Bridge , Struc- tural & Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos- 15-CA-2162 and 15-110-2548. June 28, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On March 28, 1963, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman 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 attached Inter- mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. He further found that the Respondent had interfered with the election of July 17, 1962, and recommended that it be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent 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 these cases to a three- 143 NLRB No. 19. INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 337 member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. i Member Rodgers agrees that the election should be set aside, but he does so solely be- cause the particular 8(a)(1) conduct engaged in here by Respondent interfered with that election , and he would not find that all Section 8(a) (1) conduct a fortiori interferes with elections. Further, Member Rodgers would not find the showing of the movie "And Women Must Weep" a basis for setting aside the election. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER, REPORT ON OBJECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed September 17, 1962, by Shopmen 's Local Union 760 of the International Association of Bridge , Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL- CIO, herein referred to as the Union, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , issued a complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board on October 31, 1962 , against Industrial Serial Products Company, Inc., Respondent herein , alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. ), herein called the Act. In this duly filed answer Respondent, while admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to order of the Regional Director on behalf of the Board, the proceeding referred to above was consolidated with Case No. 15-RC-2548 wherein a representa- tion petition in behalf of Respondent's employees had been filed by the Union on May 21, 1962, and an election held on July 17, 1962; said consolidation being for the purpose of holding a hearing and taking evidence in connection with certain objections filed by the Union in respect to conduct affecting the results of the afore- said election.' Pursuant to notice a hearing of the consolidated cases was held before Trial Examiner Morton D . Friedman at Shreveport, Louisiana, on January 8, 9, and 10, 1962. All parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, 'At the hearing, the Respondent moved to dismiss the representation hearing on the Union's objections on the ground that the Regional Director had not complied with the requirements of Section 102.69 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations in that he failed to make a formal report on objections finding that questions of fact requiring hearing exist While it is true that the Regional Director did order this case to hearing without issuing a report on objections or a formal determination that questions of fact exist , I do not find that he is required to make a formal finding and , in the absence of a showing to the contrary, I presume regularity of this proceeding and that the Regional Director did make a finding that questions of fact existed before ordering bearing and consolidation with the unfair labor practice proceeding. In any event, because I granted Respondent 's motion for a bill of particulars in the objections case, the Respondent was apprised fully of the nature and details of the objections and cannot now claim prejudice especially in view of the fact that the matters were fully litigated and the Respondent had ample opportunity to question witnesses , present evidence, and take other steps to defend itself against the allegations of the objections. 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me.2 Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses,3 I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Louisiana corporation, with its office and principal place of business located in Shreveport, Louisiana, is engaged in the fabrication and sale of structural and reinforcing steel. During the 12 months immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased steel and other materials valued in excess of $100,000, which were shipped to the Respondent in the State of Louisiana directly from points outside the State of Louisiana. During this same period, Re- spondent sold and shipped products of a value in excess of $100,000 from points within the State of Louisiana directly to points outside the State of Louisiana. Upon these conceded facts I find the Respondent to be an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Shopmen's Local Union 760 of the International Association of Bridge , Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, the Union herein, is conceded to be a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and I so find. III. THE ISSUES 1. As to the unfair labor practice proceeding: Whether the Respondent through its officers and supervisors interrogated, threatened, and made promises of benefit to its employees in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in viola- tion of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 2. As to the objections to the election proceeding: In addition to the issues set forth in paragraph 1 above, (a) whether the Employer made an antiunion speech within 24 hours before the election, and (b) whether a motion picture shown the employees who attended a barbecue given by the Respondent within 24 hours before the election was slanderous and created such a hostile atmosphere as to preclude the employees' free choice in the election .4 IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING A. Background-sequence of events In the spring of 1962, the Union began an organizing campaign among the Re- spondent's employees .5 On May 21, 1962, the Union filed a representation petition which the Respondent's president, Jeff M. Stewart, announced to the employees in a speech on June 11.6 The Regional Director, on behalf of the Board, issued his Decision and Direction of Election on June 29, 1962. 2 After the close of the hearing, the Respondent made and filed a motion to correct the transcript. There being no opposition, the motion Is In all respects granted and made part of the formal record In this proceeding. 2 Unless specifically indicated to the contrary, any credibility evaluation I make of the testimony of any witness appearing before me Is based, at least In part, upon his de- meanor as I observed it at the time the testimony was given Cf. Retail Clerks' Inter- national Association, AFL-CIO, Local 219 (National Food Stores, Inc ), 134 NLRB 1680, footnote 3, Bryan. Brothers Packing Company, 129 NLRB 285. To the extent that I indi- cate that I do not rely upon or reject In part or entirely the testimony of any given wit- ness, it is my Intent thereby to indicate that such part or whole of the testimony, as the case may be, is discredited by me. Jackson Maintenance Corporation, 126 NLRB 115, footnote 1, enfd. 283 F. 2d 569 (C.A. 2). * The Issues pertaining to the objections to the election proceeding only and which do not apply to the unfair labor practice proceeding are issues raised by two of the objections to the elections which were not made subjects of the complaint filed by the Regional Director. 6 An earlier attempt to organize the employees was made about a year before this cur- rent campaign and resulted In an election which the Union lost. 6 Unless otherwise specified all dates are in 1962 INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 339 Between the date of the receipt of the notice of the Union's representation petition and the date of the election, the Respondent availed itself on a number of occasions of the opportunity to express its objections and opposition to the Union, which, of course, it had the right to do. Both Stewart and Vice President Gordon Marsalis addressed the employees either in groups or singly. The Respondent, as did the Union, distributed literature informing the employees of its sentiments. The cam- paign ended with the Respondent holding for its employees a barbecue supper on the company premises the evening before the election at which a motion picture, the subject of one of the Union's objections to the election, was shown. The election was held as scheduled on July 17, and the Union lost by a vote of 29 to 26. On July 24, the Union timely filed and served objections to conduct affecting the election claiming that: at the barbecue the Respondent made an anti- union speech at a time which violated Board precedent; the motion picture shown at the barbecue was slanderous and created a hostile atmosphere; the Respondent promised economic benefits if the employees would vote the Union out; the Re- spondent threatened the employees with economic loss and retribution if the Union were to be voted in; and a supervisor interrogated employees as to how they intended to vote. The last three objections named were made the subject of the complaint in this unfair labor practice proceeding. The first two objections were not in- corporated in the complaint and were treated separately at the hearing in the representation case, and are treated separately infra. B. The conduct of Vice President Gordon Marsalis Gordon Marsalis is the vice president of the Respondent. On or about June 25, Marsalis addressed a group of employees in the paint bay of the plant? After the speech, employee Robert Evans asked Marsalis why the Union kept coming back to organize and Marsalis answered either to the effect that the union officials wanted to fatten their pockets to buy their wives Cadillacs or that the Union had an invest- ment from the previous year's attempts at organization and that the only way the Union could get a return on the investment would be from individual employees' dues .8 However, that afternoon at about quitting time at the plant gate Marsalis addressed Evans and told him that perhaps he, Marsalis, did not answer Evans' question properly in the morning and that he knew some reasons why the Union continued to try to organize. He told Evans that he had some literature in his office which he could show Evans concerning the Union that would really surprise Evans. Then he told Evans that if he got the Union out of there he would give Evans a little raise but that "It won't be enough to jump up and clap your heels about." 9 Sometime in June or early July, Marsalis called employee James Cheatham to the coffeeroom at the plant and had a conversation with him in which the Union was discussed. Marsalis told Cheatham that he wanted the latter to understand the talk that Stewart had given to all of the employees with regard to the Union's petition for certification. He told Cheatham that he was telling him this so that there would be no confusion of mind as to Cheatham and as to what Stewart had stated. He further told Cheatham that Stewart and he, Marsalis, had talked this union matter over seriously and at length and that they were going to take a firm stand against the Union; furthermore that they would fight the Union with every legal means possible and that they were not going to let some outsider come in and push them around. He further stated to Cheatham that during the past years he had given the men good steady employment even when the backlog of work did not justify it. He told Cheatham further that if by chance the Union were voted in, the Company did not have to agree to any demands of the Union that were not to the best interest of the Company. He additionally informed Cheatham that if the Company did not agree to such demands the only recourse the Union would have would be to call the men out on strike and that if they did that the Company would still have to operate, as contracts would have to be fulfilled. This would 7 There is no allegation that this speech was objectionable or violative. 8 It is not necessary to resolve which of these versions represents the actual statement since neither is alleged to be violative. B From the credited testimony of Evans. Although Marsalis denied the afternoon con- versation in its totality, and although the Respondent argues that the language ascribed to Marsalis did not sound like that Marsalis would use, and that Marsalis was too astute to suggest a salary raise under such a situation, I nevertheless credit Evans because from my observation of him I find that he was a reliable witness and I cannot conclude that he fabricated this incident out of the whole cloth 717-672-64-vol. 143-23 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD force the Respondent to hire replacements inasmuch as economic strikers could be permanently replaced. He further informed Cheatham that the latter was free to discuss the matter with other men in the shop.io However, he also asked Cheatham if the latter had talked to the "boys" about the Union and Cheatham replied that he had. Marsalis further stated that the Union could get the employees in bad trouble if they went out on strike and asked Cheatham not to vote for it. He told Cheatham that the latter should continue talking to the employees about the Union and get them on his side.il A few days after the interview in the cofteeroom Marsalis handed to Cheatham a list of six names explaining that it set forth the names of the men to whom Cheatham was to talk against the Union.12 Cheatham did speak to the men in accordance with Marsalis' instructions. Two or three times after Cheatham re- ceived the list, Marsalis passed by the paint bay where Cheatham worked and inquired of Cheatham if the latter was still talking to the men.13 As Cheatham left Marsalis' office he was instructed to send in employee 0. B. Jenkins. In accordance with instruction, Jenkins reported to the coffeeroom where Marsalis, after greeting him, inquired if anyone had been talking to him about the Union and, more specifically, it employees Albert Taylor or James Cheatham had spoken to him about the Union. Jenkins answered to the effect that Cheatham had told him that if Jenkins did not vote for the Union he would have a job for a long time, but if he voted for the Union he would not have a job because the Company would close the plant. Then Marsalls asked Jenkins if Albert Taylor had brought Jenkins a card to sign and Jenkins replied in the negative. Then Marsalis asked Jenkins whether the latter had been listening to Cheatham and Jenkins replied, "Yes." Marsalis told Jenkins that if Jenkins listened to Cheatham he would have a job for a long time and that if he did not listen to Cheatham he probably would not have a job. Marsalis also told Jenkins, much as he had told Cheatham, that the Respondent had done everything it could for its employees in years gone by, that it had given them steady employment and numerous other benefits and that he did not think that there was a place in the organization for the Union. Marsalis further stated, as he had to Cheatham, that the Company was going to oppose the Union as strongly as it legally could, and intended, if the Union wanted to fight, to give them a good fight. He also informed Jenkins as he had Cheatham that if the Union came in and made demands that the Company could not meet, the only thing the Union could do was to go on strike and economic strikers could be permanently replaced. He went on to tell Jenkins that the latter was always free and had the right to speak to his fellow employees out in the shop.14 10 From the credited testimony of Marsalls. 11 Although Marsalls denies this part of the conversation and although Cheatham was rather vague on cross-examination with regard to dates and to some of the other details of the conversation, I credit Cheatham's version of this portion of the conversation 12 Cheatham evidently was confused as to the exact time this list was given to him. Actually it was probably given to him a few days after the meeting in Supervisor Reddy's office as fully related infra. 13 From the credited testimony of Cheatham which I credit over Marsalis' denial. The Respondent contends that Cheatham is not a credible witness because his recollection of certain details was vague and also because part of his pretrial affidavit was inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing. I have closely examined the pretrial affidavit and com- pared it to the testimony given at the hearing. I do not find that the inconsistencies are material or such as to render Cheatham's testimony unreliable. 14 From credited portions of the testimony of Jenkins and Marsalis. I do not credit Marsalis' denial that he never asked Jenkins if anyone had been talking to him about the Union, or that Albert Taylor's or James Cheatham' s names were mentioned, or that he asked Jenkins if anyone had brought him a card to sign. While it is true that Jenkins' testimony was vague as to such details as exact dates just as the testimony of many of the General Counsel's witnesses was, I cannot help but note the general characteristics of the General Counsel's witnesses. They were, for the most part, illiterate or almost illiterate individuals, coming from the humbler walks of life and undoubtedly unsure of themselves as witnesses. They were definitely not men who were called on to make public appearances or whose work required continuous mental effort. On the other hand, Marsalis was obviously a well-educated, articulate individual. While Marsalis' versions of the con- versations which occurred were far more detailed and far better expressed, I do not be- cause of that find it necessary to credit Marsalls' versions over the halting, inarticulate versions presented by the General Counsel's witnesses On the contrary, I find that gen- erally, and especially in the case of Jenkins, the General Counsel's witness' testimony was INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 341 Also separately summoned to talk to Marsalis in the plant coffeeroom during the month of June or early July were employees John Datcher, Ashton Mosely, and Albert Taylor, and Taylor's wife, who worked in the Respondent's office as a maid. In each of these conversations Marsalis repeated his theme that: he wanted to make sure each employee understood Stewart's talk; the Company was going to oppose the Union's efforts to organize the shop with every legal means possible; the Company had been good to its employees and kept them working even when there was only sweeping work to do; the Respondent did not have to agree, in case the Union came in, to anything that was not to the best interest of the Company and that all the Union could do in such case was to go on strike; if the Union did go on strike, the employees, being economic strikers, could be replaced perma- nently, and the employees had a right to talk to their fellow employees about the Union. Thus, Marsalis followed a pattern in his talks to these individuals. However, in each case additional statements were made by Marsalis depending upon the employee or employees to whom he was talking. Thus, in the case of Datcher he asked what Datcher had heard about the Union. He also instructed Datcher to get a group of employees together and talk to them and tell them what Datcher thought about the Union. This was after Marsalis had asked Datcher whether the latter was in favor of the Union and Datcher answered to the effect that he was not. Marsalis also told Datcher that if the Union was successful and there were times when the men did not have anything to do but sweep, the men would be sent home.15 In the case of Mosely, Marsalis in addition to the usual speech also asked Mosely if he would talk to other employees concerning the Union and that if he did Marsalis would "make the ball bounce" for him. Marsalis also told Mosely that be was considering a plan whereby each month an employee would be interviewed and rated with a possible wage increase in view and if the man deserved a raise he would get it. In the case of Albert Taylor the conversation again was pretty much the same except for several additions. Thus Marsalis asked Taylor whether the latter knew anything about the Union and "what was going on out there." Taylor replied that he did not know whereupon Marsalis told him that some of the men must know something because they signed cards to support an election. Then Marsalis told Taylor that he did not know whether Taylor had signed. He also told Taylor that he would not put up with a union. Taylor asked Marsalis what the latter wanted him to tell the men when he went back and Marsalis instructed him that he should tell the men that if they should happen to vote the Union in, they would not have a job with the Company any longer. Bertha Taylor, the wife, when questioned about what she knew about the Union, spoke up and said that the first she heard of the union situation was during the afternoon that Stewart talked to all the employees and later that evening when Albert came in and mentioned it to her. She said that she told Albert to keep his mouth shut and stay out of the mess and "let each tub sit on its own bottom." 15 Three days after his coffeeroom interview with Datcher, Marsalis again spoke to Datcher, this time in the cutting shed where this employee worked. Marsalis asked Datcher what the "boys" thought about the Union and Datcher told Marsalis that he did not have anything to worry about. On election day Datcher and Marsalis again engaged in a conversation 17 before the polls opened. Marsalis told Datcher that they had missed him at the barbecue the night before and Datcher explained that he could not get there whereupon Marsalis told Datcher that if the Company won the election it would buy Datcher a barbecue. Then Marsalis faulty, not because of any individual lack of truth or inability to remember the important facts which the witness tried to present, but mainly because of inability to either under- stand questions, or inability to articulate answers. 15 From the credited testimony of Datcher For the reasons set forth in the preceding footnote, I do find that Datcher's lack of recollection as to dates and other details makes him an unreliable witness That he at first denied he made a pretrial statement was due to lack of understanding the question put to him 16 From portions of the credited testimony of both Albert Taylor and Gordon Marsalis. I find that Marsalis' version of the story of the meeting was accurate so far as it went but that he omitted those elements which reflected the threats to the employees that they would not have a job with the Company if the Union was voted in and wherein Marsalis asked about the union activity in the plant " I do not find it material whether the statements made to Datcher by Marsalls were made in one or in two conversations on election morning, nor do I find that even if Datcher's reco]lection may be faulty as to the fact that there were two Conversations, his testimony is nevertheless credible. 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told Datcher that things looked bad for the Union as the Union could not get any- one to represent it. He then asked Datcher if the latter were still with him to which Datcher answered in the affirmative. Marsalis then asked about the other men and Datcher answered that the last thing that they had told him they were (pre- sumably meaning that they were with Marsalis).18 Twice during the week before the election, Marsalis came to the stockyard where employee Leroy Edwards worked and engaged the latter in conversations. On the first occasion, Marsalis told Edwards that the best thing for Edwards to do was to talk to the men to try to vote the Union out and that if the Union did succeed the employees were liable to find a "for sale" sign on the Respondent's premises In the second conversation Marsalis told Edwards that he wanted the men to try to get together to vote the Union out.i9 On the day before the election, Marsalis had a conversation with employee Burnice Davis, who testified that Marsalis reminded him of the list of six employees which Marsalis had given Davis sometime earlier. He asked Davis if he had spoken to the employees and Davis said he had "got everybody lined up." Marsalis testified that he recalled the conversation with Davis when he told Davis that every- thing pointed to the company victory with the Respondent getting 95 percent of the vote to which Davis answered "fine." In the light of the fact that I found Davis' testimony incoherent in this respect and found his memory so vague in many other matters, I credit Marsalis' version of this conversation. About 1 week before the election Marsalis spoke to employee James Taylor, a crane operator, while the latter was at work. Marsalis told Taylor that he had heard that the "boys" were going to get together and vote the Union out. Taylor affirmed that this was so. Then Marsalis reminded Taylor of the long time that Taylor had operated the crane and said, ". . . if you vote for the Union you won't be operating the crane." Taylor rejoined with the statement that he was for the Company and not the Union.20 Marsalis also spoke to employee Henry L. Mayes, a welder, on the morning of the election. After asking Mayes why the latter had not come to the barbecue the evening before, Marsalis asked what Mayes was "going to do about this mess out here." Mayes refused to tell Marsalis, whereupon Marsalis stated, "Well, I have never been a man to be bullheaded and stubborn, but if the Union comes in I believe I could be as stubborn as anybody." 21 On a date about the middle of June, a meeting was held between Marsalis and a number of the employees in the office of a Mr. Reddy, a plant supervisor. This meeting was called not by Marsalis but by employees Bill Gray and Hugh Tucker. Besides Marsalis, present were employees Hugh Tucker, Albert Taylor, Jack Culver, an employee named Morris, James Cheatham, John Datcher, A. R. Scott, Burnice Davis, Bill Gray, and Supervisor Reddy. Gray told Marsalis that the employees assembled wanted to talk to him and Marsalis asked the nature of the talk. Either Gray or Tucker then spoke up and said that he had been in favor of the Union, 19 From the credited testimony of Datcher. The Respondent contends that in each of the conversations other than the one which took place in the coffeeroom, Datcher testified that another employee, Drayton, was present and yet the General Counsel did not call Drayton to testify in confirmation of Datcher's testimony. I do not infer from this that if Drayton had testified he would not have supported Datcher. Drayton could have been called by the Respondent. 10 From the credited testimony of Edwards The Respondent contends Edwards was not a credible witness because he admitted on cross-examination that the substance of what Marsalis said to Edwards was that Marsalis hoped everyone voted against the Union and because Rigby, the union agent, was present at the union hall when Edwards gave his pre- trial statement to the Board representative. While it is true that the import of Marsalls' statements to Edwards was that he (Marsahs) wanted the Union to be defeated, this does not render the witness' testimony untrue or even contradictory Moreover, the presence of the union agent at the giving of the pretrial statement does not render the testimony in- credible in the absence of evidence that Edwards was told by the agent what to say or that coercion was exercised Edwards impressed me as a forthright witness and he was most firm an cross-examination in his repetition of the statement by Marsahs that the Company might be "for sale" if the Union won the election. 20 From the credited testimony of James Taylor I do not credit MarSalis' statement that all he said to Taylor was that he would like Taylor's support in the coming elec- tion Taylor impressed me as a truthful witness and the remark attributed to Marsalis was not dissimilar from those he made to other employees, supra. 21 From the credited testimony of Mayes as corroborated in part by the testimony of Marsalis who denied that he said anything about being bullheaded and stubborn. INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 343 even went so far as to sign a card, but after talking it over with his wife he decided it was the wrong thing to do. J. P. Morris then said that he was against the Union also and did not think the Union had any place in a company like Respondent's. Taylor said that the Respondent should have a meeting of all the colored employees and that Marsalis should get together and talk with them.22 Culver said some- thing should be done to get the Union settled and suggested each man present take the names of a few men in the shop and see if they could not by this means vote the union issue down. Marsalis expressed his approval and told the men assem- bled that he would be happy if they would do it. Culver asked Marsalis if the latter would have the list of names, to be given him by Culver, typed and passed out Marsalis consented and this was done. During the meeting also, Culver said that there had been a rumor going around the shop that if the men voted the Union in they were all going to lose their jobs. Marsalis stated that he also had heard that rumor and that he wanted to stop the rumor immediately because there had been an election the year before and if the men would recall not a single man had been fired after the election; that he wanted all of them to get that straight and put a stop to the rumor.23 Subsequent to the meeting Marsalis did give a list of names to Cheatham, Davis, and Datcher. Later these lists were picked up by Marsalis and Stewart. Marsalis, as heretofore set forth, from time to time inquired how the campaign was progress- ing and instructed the men to advise the employees on their lists to vote against the Union C. Conduct of President Jeff Stewart About 3 days before the election, at about noon, President Stewart engaged em- ployee Robert Evans in a conversation in the stockyard. Stewart asked Evans what the latter thought about the Union and Evans answered that he had not thought about it very much. Stewart then asked Evans if he thought that the Union would win, and Evans answered that he did not know, that he could not say. Finally Stewart asked him if he was still with the Company and Evans answered "yes sir" and went back to work 24 Sometime around the middle of June, Stewart called employee Willie Robinson into the plant coffeeroom to have a talk with him. Stewart asked Robinson if the latter knew anything about the Union and Robinson answered that he did not know anything until Stewart had read the letter from the Labor Board telling of the representation petition. During the conversation Robinson asked Stewart to loan him $60 and Stewart said that when he, Stewart, got over his own troubles he would talk about the witness' troubles 25 22 This meeting with the colored employees in the paint bay is •related supra "From the testimony of Marsalis as confirmed in part by the testimony of Burnice Davis and Albert Taylor Because of discrepancies in the versions of this meeting between the testimonies of Davis and Taylor, the only employees who testified as to this meeting, I accept, for the most part, Marsalis' version of what occurred at the meeting. Moreover, neither Datcher nor Cheatham, who were also present at the meeting, said anything on their examination by the General 'Counsel with regard to this meeting. While I have in other places in this report discredited Marsalis, I have likewise found Davis to be an un- reliable witness. Though I have previously credited Albert Taylor, I do not believe that in this particular instance his testimony was as reliable as that of Mlarsalis Accord- ingly, I do not accept Taylor's statement to the effect that when the purpose of the meet- ing was announced Marsalis stated that anybody who was "for the Union" should get out of the room, or Davis' testimony that Marsalis stated that if the men voted for the Union the gate would be locked and somebody else would be hired 24 From the credited testimony of Evans. I have heretofore credited Evans and find no reason to discredit him in this instance Although I was impressed with Stewart, I am convinced that Evans' version of the conversation is the more reliable This is not to say that I do not credit Stewart's version to the extent that Evans told Stewart that he was his brother's keeper,or that Evan,, did expi ess appi eciation that Stewart had contacted the police department for him about a year before and that this had materially assisted in the recovery of Evans' car which had been stolen. However, I believe that Stewart also en- gaged in the conversation as set forth above 21 From the credible testimony of Willie Robinson. Although I believe that the con- versation also covered the matters set forth in Stewart's version thereof, I credit Robin- son's testimony also I do not credit Stewart's denial of the matters covered in Robinson's testimony. Here again the Respondent would have the witness discredited because his pretrial affidavit was prepared at the union hall in the presence of the union agent For 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D. The conduct of Supervisor Lawrence Bass Sometime before the election , Lawrence Bass, the shop foreman , spoke to em- ployee James Cheatham. Bass said to Cheatham that he had heard that Cheatham "got the Union going." Cheatham answered Bass that he had not. Then Bass said that it would be better for Cheatham to leave the Union alone because it would cost Cheatham his job. Bass also told Cheatham that if Cheatham could get the men to vote the Union out, Bass would see to it that Cheatham would get a raise.26 About 3 weeks before the election Bass had a conversation with Leroy Edwards, a laborer. Bass asked Edwards "who started the Union and the union mess." Edwards answered that he did not know, upon which answer Bass said it would be best for the men to get together and "get the union out." Bass also warned that the men had better stop "the union mess" because if they "fooled around none of them might have jobs." Edwards assured Bass that he would do his best to try to talk to the other men and keep the union out. Two weeks after this original conversation, Bass again engaged Edwards in conversation and jokingly asked the latter if he had paid his union dues. This question evidently was made in passing while Edwards was working in the stock- yard. Nothing else was said in this conversation, except that Edwards said that there were not any union dues to pay because "no union was getting in." 27 Bass had two conversations with employee Burnice Davis. The first conversa- tion took place about 3 days before Stewart announced that he had received a letter from the Labor Board concerning the Union's petition for representation. At the time, Davis was working in the paint bay and Bass said to him, "Burnice, when did you all get the Union started around here." Davis answered that he did not know anything about the Union and Bass said to him, "You know damn well you do." Davis then answered that Bass had better see somebody else.28 About 2 weeks before the election Bass had a conversation with James Taylor. Bass told Taylor that he had heard that Taylor was going to vote for the Union and told Taylor that Taylor had been with the Company for quite a while but that "if you vote for the Union you won't have no job." 29 the reasons heretofore set forth I do not find Robinson to be an unreliable witness on that score Burnice Davis also testified as to certain matter in a conversation allegedly with Stewart on the day before the election Accoi ding to Davis, Stewart asked him, "Burnice, how you got those boys going"" To which Davis allegedly replied, "I think we going to win it" And Stewart said , "We don't need a union " Inasmuch as I have discredited Burnice Davis heretofore, I do not find him to be a reliable witness in this instance I credit Stewart's denial that this conversation ever occurred. 11 From the credited testimony of James Cheatham. As I heretofore stated I was very impressed with Cheatham as a witness. 1 do not, as urged by the Respondent, believe that Cheatham was not credible in this respect because he insisted that the conversation occurred 3 days before the election Respondent contends that inasmuch as the election was held on July 17, and that 3 days before that was a Sunday, Cheatham 's testimony is pure fabrication. I do not believe that the inability to exactly recall a date renders the witness incredible under the circumstances of this case , =i From the credited testimony of Leroy Edwards . As I have heretofore stated I was impressed with Edwards' testimony with respect to his conversation with Marsalis I also credit him with respect to this conversation with Bass and do not credit Bass ' denials 21 From the credited testimony of Burnice Davis Although I have discredited Davis elsewhere in this report and have considered him an unreliable witness , his testimony here to the effect that Bass wanted to know when he "got the Union started" is very similar to the testimony of other employees, supra, with regard to what Bass asked them. Because this testimony is substantiated by other employees in that there is established a pattern of a type of question that was asked by Bass, I credit Davis despite his otherwise unreliable memory. On the other hand I do not credit Bass ' denial . However, I do credit Bass to the extent that I believe that he had no further conversation with Davis concerning the Union on the day before the election as testified to by Davis. ^ From the credited testimony of James Taylor. I do not credit Bass' denials of this conversation or Bass' version of this conversation The Respondent contends that Taylor's testimony was merely Taylor's impression of what had occurred and that it apparently derived from the fact that Bass did mention to Taylor that Taylor had been fired by the Company some years back and that Bass had reminded Taylor that he, Bass, had helped Taylor get Taylor's job back for film. Aly observation of Taylor was such that I do not believe that he was so confused or otherwise unreliable as to convert what Bass claims were innocent remai Ics to remarks of coercive import. INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 345 On the morning of the election, in the paint bay, Bass had a conversation with employee Henry L. Mayes. The conversation was concerned in part with the coming election and Bass asked Mayes what the latter was going to do about it. Mayes replied that he was not going to tell Bass one way or the other to which Bass replied that it did not make any difference to him as he would think just as much of Mayes if he voted for the Union as he would if he voted against it. However, he told Mayes that if the latter voted for the Union "they can make it hard on you " Then the discussion turned to speculation as to how many votes each thought the Union would get. Mayes stated that he thought that the Union would get about what it did in the election that was conducted the year before-around eight votes. Bass said that he believed the Union would only get six votes but that he would make Mayes a 25-cent bet on it and if Mayes guessed closer to the number of votes than Bass, Bass would give Mayes a quarter but if Bass guessed closer to the actual number of votes, Mayes would have to give him a quarter 30 About a week and a half before the election Bass had a conversation with em- ployee Harold G. Haynes at the burning table where Haynes was working. He was at Haynes' place of work because Haynes had burnt some steel plates 1 inch short of specification. Bass told Haynes that the mistakes that Haynes had made were very costly and the Company could ill afford them-any more than the Com- pany could afford to have a union . Haynes stated that he realized that the Company could not afford to have a union; he did not think they would have one and he was not having anything to do with it himself.31 Approximately a week and a half before the election, Albert Taylor was asked by Bass whether Taylor had gotten Bass' message (no explanation of this message) and when Taylor answered "Yes," Bass said, "Albert you have a lot to lose. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Jeff informed me that you were head of the Union and I told them I would come talk with you." Then Bass made some reference to employee Bill Gray. He told Taylor that if Mr Marsalis or Mr Stewart asked Taylor if Bass had talked with him, Taylor should answer "Yes" because Bass was going back to the office to tell them, Marsalis and Stewart, that Taylor was "okay." 32 Bass also had a conversation with Don Hattaway, an employee, and asked Hatta- way if the latter had made up his mind about the Union. Bass did not ask Hattaway which way the latter was going to vote. E. The conduct of Russell H. Ausmus Ausmus is the chief draftsman for the Respondent Evidently Ausmus was un- easy about his future in the event the Union came into the plant. Accordingly, one day about a week before the election Ausmus approached employee Albert Taylor and told Taylor that he had heard that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Marsalis had heard that Taylor was the union leader in the shop. Taylor denied this; then Ausmus told Taylor that he, Taylor, had a lot to lose because Taylor's wife worked in the office and that while Ausmus could not predict what would happen to Taylor's wife if the Union should come in, he could not say whether or not the Company would let Taylor's wife work under those circumstances. Ausmus ex- plained that this was because there were papers on the desk in the office and Mrs Taylor could possibly read them and give the information to the union people. Ausmus went on to say that he was concerned that if the Union came in and if there was a strike it would probably last 30 days and that Ausmus could not stand a 30-day layoff. Ausmus explained that he was concerned about his job and that Taylor should be concerned about his job, too. He begged Taylor to think it over 33 "From the credited testimony of Mayes . There is no contention that the making of the bet or the conversation concerning the betting was in and of itself a violation of the Act "'From the credited testimony of Bass . Although I have not credited Bass in other instances, I do so here because I have found that Haynes was an unreliable witness. My observation of Haynes on the stand and his inability to fix the date of the conversation in his pretrial affidavit but his sudden ability at the hearing to fix with certainty the date of the conversation makes me suspicious of Haynes' veracity. Accordingly, I credit Bass and accept his version of the conversation Nor do I credit Haynes' testimony that there was a second conversation . Rather, I credit Bass' denial of a second conversation with Haynes 33 From the credited testimony of Albert Taylor For the reasons stated before, I credit Taylor and do not accept Bass' version of this conversation 33 From the credited testimony of Albert Taylor as corroborated in part by the testimony of Ausmus The Respondent contends that Taylor is not a credible witness and that most of his testimony was derived from the actual conversation , then taken out of context and 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD F. Conclusionary findings with respect to the complaint case Upon the facts as set forth above, I conclude and find as follows: 1. By telling employee Robert Evans that if the Union were defeated he would give Evans a raise, Marsalis made an unlawful promise of benefit. 2. By inquiring of employee James Cheatham, on two separate occasions, whether Cheatham had solicited fellow employees, as instructed, to vote against the Union, Marsalis interrogated and coerced Cheatham and interfered with his Section 7 rights 34 3. By asking employee 0. B. Jenkins whether fellow employees Albert Taylor or James Cheatham had spoken to Jenkins about the Union; by asking Jenkins if Taylor had given him a card to sign; by telling Jenkins that if he (Jenkins) listened to Cheatham he would have a job for a long time and if he did not listen he would probably not have a job, Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Jenkins and threatened him with discharge. 4. By instructing employee Datcher to talk against the Union to fellow employees; by telling Datcher that if the Union came in the men would be laid off when work became slow, Marsalis unlawfully coerced Datcher and threatened him with reduc- tion in working hours. 5. By asking employee Mosely to talk to other employees against the Union and promising to "make the ball bounce for him ," Marsalis made an unlawful promise of benefit and unlawfully solicited Mosely to use his influence to induce other em- ployees to reject the Union.35 6. By asking employee Albert Taylor whether Taylor knew anything about the Union and "what was going on out there" and by instructing Taylor to tell the men that if the Union was voted in the men would not have a job with the Company any longer, Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Taylor about the union activity of Taylor and other employees and threatened Taylor with loss of employment. 7. By asking Datcher what the "boys" thought about the Union and by promis- ing Datcher a barbecue if the Union was defeated and then by asking Datcher if the latter was still with him, Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Datcher as to his union activity and desires and those of other employees and unlawfully made a promise of benefit. 8. By asking employee Edwards to talk to his fellow employees to try to vote the Union out and telling Edwards that if the Union won the election the employees were liable to find a "for sale" sign on the premises, Marsalis unlawfully solicited Edwards to induce other employees to reject the Union and unlawfully threatened Edwards with possible dischrge. 9. By telling employee James Taylor that if Taylor voted for the Union, he would no longer be operating the crane, Marsalis unlawfully threatened Taylor with discharge.36 10 By asking employee Henry L. Mayes what the latter intended to do "about this mess out here" Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Mayes 37 11. By inquiring from time to time of Datcher, Cheatham, and Taylor as to how they were coming with the names on the lists given them, Marsalis unlawfully solicited them to use their influence to induce other employees to reject the Union. 12. By asking employee Robert Evans what the latter thought about the Union and if he was still with the Company, President Stewart unlawfully interrogated Evans about his union activities and desires. 13. By asking employee Willie Robinson what the latter thought about the Union, Stewart unlawfully interrogated Robinson. misconstrued, misunderstood, or misrepresented I do not agree While it is true that Taylor, like most of the General Counsel's witnesses, was rather vague as to dates and other events upon cross-examination, taking into consideration the background and educa- tion of Taylor and the other General Counsel witnesses, I believe that they remembered those matters directed toward their welfare although commonplace matters such as dates, places, and other items did not make sufficient impression on them to be remembered at the late date at which the hearing was held Accordingly, I credit Taylor's testimony as set forth above. 34 Alamo Express, Inc., 119 NLRB 6. ffi See Alamo Express, Inc, supra se This is the only incident which could be interpreted as threat of transfer However, I do not read that into the threat and therefore will recommend dismissal of the allega- tion of the complaint alleging unlawful threat of transfer s" I do not find any violation in Marsalis ' statement about being "bullheaded." INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 347 14. By telling employee James Cheatham that he had heard that Cheatham had "`got the Union going"; by telling Cheatham that if the latter did not leave the Union alone it would cost Cheatham his job; and by telling Cheatham that if Cheatham could get the men to vote the Union out, he would get Cheatham a raise, Supervisor Lawrence Bass unlawfully interrogated Cheatham, threatened him with discharge, and made an unlawful promise of benefit. 15. By asking employee Leroy Edwards who started the Union and the union mess; by telling Edwards it would be best for the men to get together to vote the Union out; and by warning Edwards that the men had better stop the "union mess" because "if they fooled around none of them might have jobs," Bass unlawfully interrogated Edwards and threatened him with discharge. 16. By asking employee Burnice Davis "when did you all get the Union started around here," Bass unlawfully interrogated Davis. 17. By telling employee James Taylor that "if you vote for the Union you won't have no job," Bass unlawfully threatened Taylor with discharge. 18. By asking former employee Henry L. Mayes what the latter was going to do about the coming election, and by telling Mayes that if he voted for the Union "they can make it hard on you," Bass unlawfully interrogated Mayes and threatened him with discharge. 19. By telling Albert Taylor that he (Bass) was informed by Stewart and Marsalis that Taylor was head of the Union, and by telling Taylor that he had a lot to lose, Bass unlawfully interrogated and threatened Taylor. 20. By telling employee Albert Taylor that he did not know what would happen to Taylor or Taylor's wife's job if the Union came in and there was a strike, Su- pervisor Russell H Ausmus threatened Taylor with the loss of employment and with loss of Taylor's wife's employment. By the acts of its officers and supervisors summarized above, the Respondent engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, I do not find violative any of the other conversations or parts of con- versations as set forth in section IV A through E, above, which have not been enumerated in these conclusions and findings 38 V. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION As heretofore related, the Union's last three objections to the election were made the subjects of the charges and complaint heretofore filed herein and are discussed in the preceding portion of this report. The Board has recently held that similar unfair labor practices which were violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act were, a fortiori, conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in an election.39 Accordingly, upon these findings alone I would recommend that the election be set aside However, because these findings are subject to review by higher authority I will also discuss the Union's first and second objections. The Union's first objection alleges that the Respondent made an antiunion speech at the barbecue party given by the Respondent on the evening before the election which time was violative of Board precedent. However, there is no evidence in the record of such alleged speech and I therefore find that the Union's first objection is without foundation. The Union's second objection alleges that the motion picture shown at the barbecue was slanderous and created a hostile atmosphere and that the Respondent distributed similar literature. The motion picture shown was entitled "And Women Must Weep" It was stipulated at the hearing that this was a print of the same film that was the subject of a recent Board case, Plochman and Harrison-Cherry Lane Foods, Inc., 140 NLRB 130, in which case the Board held that the film ex- ceeded the bounds of permissible campaign propaganda and an interference with the Board-conducted election held the following day. The election was set aside and a new election ordered. The Respondent contends, however, that the film in the instant case was not shown under circumstances similar to that of the film shown in the Plochman case in that in the Plochman case the employees were shown the film on company time and were compelled to attend, whereas in the instant case the film was shown at a barbecue to which the employees were invited after working hours and there was Thus I find that the meeting In Reddy's office in which the men decided to talk to other employees against the Union was entirely voluntary on the part of the employees and that Marsalis' participation therein did not constitute restraint or coercion. His hearty ac- ceptance of the employee plan was a protected expression of his desires. 31 Playskool Manufacturing Company, 140 NLRB 1417. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD no compulsion to attend. Respondent argues that the impact, therefore, is not the same as in the instance of a "captive audience" as in the Plochman case. I do not find merit in the Respondent's contention. The circumstances surrounding the showing of the film materially differs from the circumstances in the Plochman case only in one respect. Here the attendance at the barbecue was voluntary. However, here, as in the Plochman case, the film was shown on election eve with no opportunity to the Union to answer. No effort was made by the Respondent to explain to the audience that the film was enacted by professional actors or that it was staged and not an actual representation of what occurred at the plant. Nor did the Respondent explain that the union in- volved in the film was not the same one that was seeking to represent the Respond- ent's employees. Under these circumstances, the fact that attendance was volun- tary and that less than all of the employees viewed it can make no difference. The Board has already held that under similar circumstance the film was intimidatory and palpably misleading I have no choice but to follow Board precedent and find that the showing of the film under the circumstances here presented exceeded the bounds of permissible campaign propaganda 40 With regard to the campaign literature, I will not burden this report to set it out in full. Suffice it to say, that the letters mailed to the employees merely state the Respondent's views that it did not want the Union in the plant and that it did not have to agree to all of the Union's terms They also informed the employees that in the event of a strike the Respondent could replace economic strikers. Moreover, the Respondent correctly paraphrased Section 8(d) of the Act. I find nothing in the literature which exceeded permissible campaign propaganda 41 Moreover, the Union had ample opportunity to and did circulate its own literature which met and answered the Respondent's propaganda. VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's activities found to be unfair labor practices in section IV, above, oc- curring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, 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. VII. THE REMEDY Having found, as set forth above, that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. One of the more basic rights conferred upon employees by Section 7 of the Act is the right to freely, and without coercion or restraint from his em- ployer, express his choice in a Board-conducted election designed to determine the wishes of the employees with respect to a collective-bargaining representative. Since it has been found that Respondent interfered with this right, an order commensurate with the violations found, and designed to assure to Respondent's employees the opportunity to fully and freely exercise the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, is appropriate. 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. Industrial Steel Products Company, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2( 6) and (7) of the Act. 40 The Respondent also argues that to impose the restraint of the Plochman case on the present Respondent would be equivalent to the retroactive application of law because the film In the instant case was exhibited to the employees 5 months before the Board issued the Plochman case and other, earlier Board precedent sustained the right of em- ployees to view this film I find no merit In this contention The Board has in the past held violative acts which Board precedent had established as lawful. Both administrative agencies and courts are free to overturn previous rulings even though the new decision works a hardship on the parties involved, See S E C. v. Chenery Corp , 332 U.S 194 ; Great Northern Ry. v Sunburst Co., 287 U.S 358, 364; Davis, "Administrative Law," West Pub Co., 1951, pp 558-559 41 See Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 106 NLRB 1210, 1211; Seven-Up Bottling Com- pany, Inc, 140 NLRB 611. INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 349' 2. Shopmen's Local Union 760, of the International Association of Bridge, Struc- tural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) 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 unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Industrial Steel Products Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, desires, and activities and the union membership, desires, and activities of other employees; threatening employees with discharge or reduction of hours of employment if the Union should win the election; promising employees economic benefits if the Union should lose the election; threatening the employees with plant closure should the Union win the election, and soliciting employees to use their influence to induce other employees to reject the Union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to engage in other concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, at its place of business in Shreveport, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 42 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for at least 60 con- secutive days thereafter in such conspicuous places. 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 in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.43 It is further recommended that except as hereinabove found, the complaint should be dismissed, and that, insofar as the matter is before me for recommendation, the election of July 17, 1962, should be set aside. ^' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "As Ordered by " shall be substituted for the words "As Recommended by a Trial Examiner of" 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 "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order of" shall be inserted immediately following the words "As Ordered by " 93 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 interrogate our employees with respect to their membership in, views concerning, or sympathies for Shopmen's Local Union 760, of the Inter- national Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT by threat of reprisal or promise of benefit induce or encourage our employees to vote for or against , or by such means solicit our employees to induce other of our employees to vote for or against , the above-named Union or any other labor organization in any election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization ; to form, join, or assist any labor organization ; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; 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 right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the right of our employees to make a free and untrammeled choice in any election ordered by the National Labor Relations Board. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization , except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement conforming to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, 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, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70113, Telephone No. 529-2411 , if they have any question concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions. Radiator Specialty Company and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic `Yorkers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 11-CA- 1891, 11-CA-1950, and 11-CA-2086. June 28, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On April 29, 1963, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer 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 attached Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. 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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].' The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- 1 Respondent' s request for oral argument before the Board is hereby denied, as the record and the exceptions adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 143 NLRB No. 42.