Artco-Bell Corp.

ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 41. including`altplaces where notices to employees are custbrnarily posted. 'Reasonable.. steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,` defaced, or-covered by any other material. (d)• Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region; in writing,.within 20, days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.ra I It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed insofar as -it alleges that the Respondent discriminatorily-terminated Robert K. Poage. . 22 In the event that this. Recommended Order Is 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 National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify ouremployees that: S WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Papermakers and Paper- workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condi- tion of employment of any of our employees. WE WILL offer to Harry R. Wolfe immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position; without prejudice to any seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against, him. We WILL NOT ask any employee to'report about the- union organizational ac- tivities of his coworkers or coercively, or otherwise unlawfully, interrogate our employees concerning their union activities or sympathies. WE WILL NOT in any other manner. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- . tions, to join or. assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively 'through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. COVINGTON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NoTE.-We will notify the above- named employee if 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 and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, 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, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland,. Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Artco-Bell Corporation and ' Millmens Local Union - No. 1751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners ' of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1902. February 18, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On November 18,1963; Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his. Decision in the' above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- NLRB No.3:' 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondeiit had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take. certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner' s Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions' and briefs in support thereof to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and rec- ommendations of the Trial Examiner. 'ORDER The Board adopts as itt Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. 1 We .find , in agreement with the General Counsel , that the Respondent's Plant Super intendent H. J. Morris' interrogation of employee James Klemann violated Section, 8(a) (1) of the Act. Although not adverted to by the Trial Examiner in discussing the incident, there is evidence in the record that Superintendent Morris asked Klemann "who, was pushing the Union, and said he thought David Ryden might have something to do. with It." We also find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that President Hardegree's speech to the employees on March 27, 1963, threatened employees with discharge for en gaging in union or concerted activities and was violative of Section 8(a) (1). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 18, 1963, a charge was filed by the above-named labor organization. On September 6, 1963 , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued his complaint and notice of hearing . The above-named Respondent's answer was duly filed. On October 4, General Counsel issued an amendment to the complaint and a new notice of hearing . The complaint, as amended , alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Temple, Texas, on October 14, 1963, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore. At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent. Disposition of the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint , upon which, ruling was reserved at the close of the hearing , is made by the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial. Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Artco-Bell Corporation is a Texas corporation, with principal office and place of business in Temple, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of office and school furniture. ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 43 During the year preceding issuance of the complaint it shipped products valued at more than $50,000 from its plant directly to States of the United States other than Texas. During the same period it received goods valued at. more than $50,000 directly from States other than Texas. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is here found that the Respond- ent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE CHARGING UNION Millmens Local Union No. 1751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR • LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and chief issues The main issues raised by the complaint stem from the summary discharge of two employees: Thomas A. Kirkham on May 31, and James Klemann on June 26, 1963. Both dismissals occurred during a self-organizational campaign among the Re- spondent's employees in which both Kirkham and Klemann assumed leading roles. During the same period, the complaint also claims, two company officials en- deavored to defeat the organizing efforts by unlawful interrogations and threats of reprisals. The two management representatives concerned are R. V. Hardegree, head of the company, and H. J. Morris, the plant superintendent. There is no dispute that Hardegree vigorously opposed his employees' exercising their lawful rights to be represented by the "Charging Union. There is ,dispute as to whether, as a fact, management violated the Act in attaining its end. B. The discharge of Kirkham Kirkham, employed in March 1963, led the organizing movement among his fellow employees in this small plant. (At peak season only about 50 employees were on the payroll.) In April he discussed with other workers the possibilities of organizing and later obtained authorization cards from the Charging Union. Employee Klemann assisted him in getting signatures upon the cards. On May 27, management assembled all employees. Both Hardegree and Morris addressed them. According to the president's own testimony, "I did caution them ... of outsiders trying to interfere with the company's procedure of doing busi- ness." According to the credible testimony of Klemann, Hardegree also declared that there were "agitators who were trying to cause dissent in the Company" and that the "Company knew who these agitators were and it would be best if they just picked up their check that afternoon because . . . it might be embarrassing if they came to work the next day." 1 Kirkham neither asked for his check nor quit. On Friday of that week, May 31, he was summarily discharged by Morris, being told by the superintendent that it was because he had griped about his wages, had "punched in" early, and had smoked in a no-smoking area. As a witness, Kirkham readily admitted having complained about his wages- he had been employed at the bare minimum of $1.15 per hour required by law. That his complaints carried merit, however, is indicated by the fact that he was given two raises of 5 cents each during the 21 months of employment. That the raises were deserved appears implicit in Hardegree's testimony to the effect that he told the assembled employees on or about May 27, just before Kirkham's dis- missal, that "no one had received raises other•than around in our routine procedure of raising people as they progressed in their work." As a witness the superintendent made no contention that the' complaint about wages was a.cause of Kirkham's discharge. He contended that the employee was fired because he did not comply with company rules. The two rules involved were "no smoking" and. punchin?' in early. He testified that he "imagined" Kirk- ham had violated the "no smoking" rule three or four times. Not until pressed and led by his own counsel did the superintendent finally say, "Three that I know ,of definitely." The Trial Examiner' can place no reliance * upon Morris' "imagina- tion" on this point, nor can he believe testimony elicited under the circumstance ,existing here. I Hardegree admitted that at this meeting he said that "if any employee is unhappy with his job or working conditions it would be best if he asked for his check and went to :find other employment where he would be better satisfied." 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kirkham admitted-that after the--assembly of May 27, he. was - informed , of a rule that smoking was to be limited to the rear of the building, but. stated credibly 'that he never; thereafter violated that rule. There is no evidence from any manage- ment representative (his own foreman, Pechal, was not called as a witness) that he -did violate the rule after May 27. As to "punching in" early in the morning, Kirkham admitted that early in April the superintendent had told him that he should not do so until after 7:45 in the morning, but he denied credibly that he had ever been warned of discharge if he did. As a witness Morris claimed that the employee had violated the rule about punching the clock "about 40 times after he was told." Since Kirkham had been working there only about 60 days, at the time of his discharge, it would appear that management had effectively condoned his punching in early, if Morris' un- supported testimony as to the number of-times is to be credited. In short, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that these minor derelictions, if any, were seized upon. by management as pretexts for the dismissal of this em- ployee, while the real reason was to discourage union membership and activity. No reasonable employer would give an employee two raises in as many months if he were seriously violating plant rules., It is concluded and found that this 'un- lawful discharge, and Hardegree's warning, above-described, that it would be better for "agitators" to quit, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act a C. The discharge of Klemann At the time of the hearing James H. Klemann was serving in the United States Air Force. He was hired by the Respondent in the spring of 1962 to finish the Company's wood products at a pay rate of $1.25 per hour. There is no dispute as to the fact that on June 26, 1963, 2 days, before a Board-conducted election at the plant, he was summarily and constructively discharged by Hardegree because he declined to attach his signature to a document addressed "To Our Employees" and which reads as follows: We hope you plan to vote in the election Friday. We hope you plan to vote "No." Every man will be free to vote the way he chooses. Threats or in- timidation of any kind will not be tolerated. Your Company hopes that it has given you the true facts and that you will do your own thinking and make your own choice. "No man can serve two Masters"-Matthew 6:24. LOYALTY "If you work for a.man in heavens name work for him. Speak well of him; stand by him and stand by the institution he represents. An ounce of loyalty is worth more than -a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn and eternally disparage-hand him back his. keys and when you are on the, outside damn him as you please." Our greatest hope is that we have lived together and worked together in such a way as to earn your confidence and respect. Your continued loyalty to your Company is deeply appreciated. According to Klemann's' credible testimony, which is corroborated by Hardegree himself, when he saw the "Vote no" in the letter addressed to his fellow employees he declined to sign the document. The president thereupon told him he had two choices, he could quit or be fired. "He said if I was fired that it would be a black mark on my record," Klemann-testified, "and I would probably. have trouble getting another job. He said if I quit there would be no hard feelings." Hardegree added that "as a supervisor I was not covered by the National Labor Relations Act." Upon this Klemann told him that "they didn't leave me any choice but to quit." He was given his final check and since then has not been offered reinstatement. y'The Trial Examiner admitted in evidence four documents entitled "Notice of Disci- plinary Action" relating to. this employee. The Trial Examiner has grave doubt that any of them , were prepared until after the discharge. Each bears Morris' signature. He ad- mitted as a witness that be "wrote" them up "because the foreman come to him," and that none of them were ever shown to Kirkham . As noted, the foreman himself was not .called, as a witness.. . ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 45 Nor is there any marked dispute that management was well aware of the fact that Klemann for several weeks before his discharge had assisted in organizing among his fellow employees. Shortly after management's assembly of the employees on May 27, Superintendent Morris asked Klemann if he had heard about this "union mess." Klemann admitted to him that he was in favor of a union. Morris declared that he was disappointed in him, and that a union was the next thing to "Commu- nism." The superintendent further lectured him by stating that "he thought my parents had raised me to do what was right." Later the same day Morris called him into the office, told Klemann for the first time -that he was a supervisor, and was subject to immediate discharge because of his union activities. Still later the same day Morris summoned him to a supervisor' s meeting. Counsel for the Respondent in this case and management representatives were present. The attorney told them of a certification petition filed by the Union and then proceeded to vilify the organization by referring to "a crooked land deal," to a "scandal involv- ing it," and to "criminal charges against the president of the Union." The attorney further told the foremen present that they were "important in this upcoming elec- tion" because they worked closely with the employees, and advised them to repeat to employees what he had said about the Union. When one foreman raised a ques- tion about making unlawful remarks to employees, the lawyer replied that it would "just be the foreman's word against the employee's," and that he would rather the foreman said "something out of line" than say nothing at all. The lawyer then asked if there was anyone present who was not sure of his su- pervisory status. Klemann replied that he was not sure, since that day was the first he had been told that he was a supervisor. The attorney asked' him if he had the right to hire or fire or effectively recommend hiring or firing. He said he had no such authority. The superintendent then interrupted to say that when -he had hired Klemann it was with the understanding that he "was to run the finishing room or supervise it." 3 A week or so later Morris again called Klemann into his office and demanded to know if he was transmitting to employees what the attorney had suggested. Klemann agreed that he was. Morris then said that he knew he was "talking for the Union," and instructed him not to do so on "company time," which he said included both morning and afternoon break periods. It is the Respondent's contention that Klemann was a supervisor within the mean- ing of the Act and that it had a right to discharge him for engaging in "activities in behalf of a union"-according to its brief.- No management representative claimed at-the hearing that Klemann was discharged, or forced to quit, for engaging in ac- tivities on behalf of the Union. It is clear, from Hardegree's own admissions, that the sole issue was Klemann's disinclination to engage in antiunion activities, by attach- ing his name to the above-quoted letter for distribution to his fellow employees. The Trial Examiner believes that it is unnecessary here to pass upon the question as to whether' or not the Act protects a sunervisor within the meaning of the Act when he declines to assist in conduct herein described. Credible evidence establishes firmly, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, that Klemann was not in fact a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. He neither possessed , nor at any time during his employment exercised, the authority defined by the Act as necessary to qualify him as a management representative 'oragent. It is true that Morris hired him as an experienced hand in wood finishing, having worked with him 'at another plant. And it is equally true that he did show em- ployees, assigned to this department by Morris. how to perform certain tasks if they were unfamiliar with the work. But it is equally clear that the only actual authority he possessed or exercised stemmed' from his experience, not from management prerogative. He frequently worked alone, and (throughout his employment) had no emnlovee regularly assigned to him or to his department.. Often, when work in the finishing room was slack, Klemann was sent into other departments to perform whatever tasks were available. He had no control over either the nature or amrnmt of work to be done in the department or the number or identity of employees that might be sent in to help out during the busy season-which occupied only about 3 months of the year. And whatever instructions he may have given were of a routine nature. not the result of his independent judgment. In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, Klemann's work, duties,, and supervisory authority were no more than those customarily, in plants where such classifications are O The quotations are from Klemann 's credible testimony. The attorney did. not testify. -46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD maintained, ascribed to "leadmen." And in its most recent decision relating to such leadmen ,4 the Board has determined that individuals employed in a capacity very similar to that of Klemann are not supervisors as defined by the Act. In short, Klemann was an employee within the meaning of the Act and possessed all rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act. It is concluded and found that Klemann was constructively discharged on June 26, 1963 , to discourage union membership and activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3), .and because he refused to subscribe to the Respondent 's antiunion message to his fellow employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. D. Other interference, restraint, and coercion Also on May 27, the day Hardegree and Morris assembled the . employees as -described above, Morris called employee Arnold into his office,- told him that he had heard rumors to the effect that he was "pushing" the Union, and wanted to know where he "stood." He further told the employee that he was "next" under the foreman and had a good chance for advancement.5 Such interrogation , in the light of the unlawful discharges found herein, and the .thinly veiled promise of benefit both constituted, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of .rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the" operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have .a.close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the -several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative :action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of a nature which violates the policies of the Act , it will be recommended that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. It will be recommended that the Respondent offer Thomas A. Kirkham and James Klemann immediate and full reinstatement of their former or substantially equiv- alent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a ' sum of money equal to that he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the dis- crimination to the date of offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings during said "period . The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with Board formula set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest thereon as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Millmens Local Union No. 1751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and .Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating against employees , as found herein, to discourage member- ship 'in the activity on behalf of the above-named labor organization, the Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair , labor practices within the meaning Of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining,- and coercing employees in the exercise, of Tights 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)• 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. 4 Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268. 5 The quotations are from Arnold's credible testimony. ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 47 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Artco-Bell Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 6 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Millmens Local Union No. 1751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, . or in any other labor organization of its employees , by discharging, refusing to reinstate, laying off, or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to, hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Promising benefits to employees to discourage union membership and activity. (c) Interrogating employees concerning union membership and activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) ( I ) of the Act. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Thomas a Kirkham and James Klemann immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and make them whole or any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Temple, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.8 a In the event thnt this 'Recommended Order be adopted by the board , the following paragraph-shall be substituted for the above: Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as emended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Artco-Bell Corporation , Its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 51n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words."A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States . Court of Appeals , the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted 'for the words "A Deci- sion and Order." s In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the 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 conduct our labor relations in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, we notify you that: WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage you from being members . of Millmens' Local Union No. 1751 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, or any other union. 744-070-05-vol. 146-5 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT promise you benefits to stay out of any union. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor Relations Act, to join a union of your own choice, or not to engage in any union activities. WE WILL offer reinstatement to Thomas A. Kirkham and James Klemann, and will give them backpay from the time of their discharge. ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, 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, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No. Edison 5-4211 , Extension 2131, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. The Celotex Corporation and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Work- ers International Union , Local 4-179, AFL-CIO . Case No. 15-CA-f2065. February 00, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On June 13, 1963, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent 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 Intermedi- ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications. 1. The Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a) (5) and (1) was based in part on its cancellation of the em- ployees' existing Metropolitan health insurance. The Respondent at- tributed the cancellation to the fact that the same coverage would be provided under the new, all-inclusive insurance package program ar- 146 NLRB No. 8.