Radiaphone Co., Inc.

854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of union meetings , and in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or re- maining, members of any labor organization of their own choosing. HOLLYWOOD VASSARETTE DIVISION OF MUNSINGWEAR, 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, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No Central 6-9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions Oklahoma Scientific Co., a Division of Radiaphone Company, Inc. and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1960. November 19, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On June 16, 1964, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed cross- exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and an answering brief to the General Counsel's exceptions. Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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, cross-exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom- 149 NLRB No. 87. OKLAHOMA SCIENTIFIC CO., DIV. OF RADIAPHONE CO. 855 mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Okla- homa Scientific Co., a Division of Radiaphone Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge filed on January 21, 1964, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 16, Fort Worth, Texas, issued a complaint on January 29, 1964, against Oklahoma Scientific Co., a Division of Radiaphone Company, Inc, herein called the Respondent or the Com- pany, alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the allegations of unlawful conduct as alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in McAlester, Oklahoma, on February 11 and 12, 1964, before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent and they have been carefully considered Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witness, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the manufacture of elec- tronic equipment, primarily for the Department of Defense. The sole plant involved in this proceeding is located in McAlester, Oklahoma. During the 12 months preceding the hearing herein, Respondent shipped products manufactured by it valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant in McAlester, Okla- homa, to points and places outside of the State of Oklahoma. During the same period, it purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 at its McAlester plant from points and places located outside the State of Oklahoma. The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is and has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The Respondent, a division of Radiaphone Company, originally maintained a plant in Monrovia, California, where it was engaged in the manufacture of various electronic equipment. On about June 1, 1963,1 the entire production facilities of the Monrovia plant were moved to McAlester, Oklahoma, and shortly thereafter opera- tions began in temporary quarters in the ballroom of the McAldridge Hotel in Mc- Alester. The Company moved to permanent quarters during the last week in Sep- tember, this approximately 2 weeks after the events which are material hereto. The Charging Union commenced an organizational campaign among Respondent's employees in July, demanded recognition on August 5, and filed a representation with the Board's Regional Office on August 8, 1963. An election, which the Union lost, was held on September 12. James H. Rice, Respondent's general manager and vice president, testified that he first learned of the organizational activities when he received the Union's request for recognition on August 5. On August 14 Rice addressed all of the employees, of whom approximately 20 were then employed. While the testimony does not disclose the 1 All dates herein refer to the year 1963 856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD details of this talk, it is undisputed that on this occasion Rice referred to the fact that a representation petition had been filed and told the employees that it ,would be a free election, that the decision was up to them. On August 23 the employees were again assembled. On this occasion Rice made a second and this time a lengthy speech, certain aspects of which are alleged to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Although his talk was an extemporaneous one, it was transcribed by a public stenographer and hence there is no question as to what was said. After stating in his opening remarks that the employees should feel free to speak to him at any time they wished, Rice declared that he wished to discuss "the basic policy" of the Company. His first topic encompassed a discussion of the new plant facilities and the anticipation of moving into those facilities during the following month. In this regard he told the employees that the Company eventually. contem- plated having 3 shifts with a total of 80 or 90 employees. Rice then turned to the second topic, this dealing with an explanation of the Respondent's wage policy. Since the matter of Respondent's granting a wage increase is at issue herein, this matter will be discussed separately later in this report. But pertinent to the allegations of the complaint is the third aspect of Rice's speech in which he stated as follows: It has probably become obvious to some of you that the work at the beginning of the line is getting a little bit light. It is no secret and I don't intend to make a secret of the reason for this. I am producing for the government. I am subject to cancellation on any order that I don't ship on time and sometimes, the gov- ernment is capable of doing just this. I am not about to paint myself into a corner or put myself into a situation that I could bankrupt the company. When this situation arose out of a clear blue sky, it took me completely by surprise. It seemed illogical to me. It happened before we had our feet on the ground. Under the circumstances, I didn't know what to expect next and I am not about, as I say, to paint myself into a corner. The work will not be done here. It will be done elsewhere and it must be done elsewhere until I can find where we stand-until I can know that we can produce. The result of this is that it is throwing us back so far-approximately 2 months on my expansion program. We have about 18 girls coming out of the school. Most of these have taken tests. I would have had about 14 of these working this month. I hope to put some of them to work next month. I will have about 28 girls coming out of the school by the end of September. How many of these will go to work, I don't know. They would have all gone to work in these two months but I can't afford to as it stands. I'm not in a position where I can because of some appar- ently illogical action. I am hoping and I believe that we will be able to continue to expand-to pick up our program and to move ahead. I believe that we will be able to offer a good opportunity for anybody who wants to work. I think that we have got just about the most ideal working conditions, good wages. I think we will have better wages and working conditions than anybody else is going to be able to offer, and I say this again because I know what we can do if we have the cooperation of the people working with us. This is our policy; this is our line. This is the way we do business. It is unfortunate that we couldn't have put this across and given you an opportunity to know and to see earlier but there was nothing we could do. It just takes time. As time goes on, I am sure that you will understand and appreciate this, and I fully anticipate that we will be able to pick up our program. I fully anticipate within the next year, there will be over 100 people working for us, and we will move ahead. Again, the extent to which we can succeed, depends on you just as much as it does on me. It is a cooperating job. It has to be worked that way to be suc- cessful. [Emphasis supplied.] There is no question but that the above portion of Rice's speech dealt with the union activity which was then current at the plant, for Rice conceded in his testimony that the italicized sentence above had reference to "the Union organizing drive." In this context, I think it clear that Rice's statement that "the work will not be done here . it will be done elsewhere until I can find where we stand . . . until I can know that we can produce" was calculated to engender fear of economic loss if the Union was selected as the bargaining agent. By thus threatening the employees' economic security because of their union activities, I find that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and that it thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. I think it equally clear, and I find, that Rice's statement with respect to the -employment OKLAHOMA SCIENTIFIC CO., DIV. OF RADIAPHONE CO. 857 status of the trainee-applicants carried with it coercive overtones 2 To reiterate, Rice thus stated "We have about 18 girls coming out of school by the end of Sep- tember. How many of these will go to work, I don't know. They would all have gone to work in these 2 months, but I can't afford to as it stands. I'm not in a posi- tion where I can because of some apparently illogical actions." Prefaced as these remarks were by reference to the current union activity, and coupled with the further reference to the "apparently illogical actions," the conclusion is inescapable that Rice here blamed the organizational activities for having deferred hiring, or not hiring at all, the girls who had graduated from the training class. I find that by these state- ments the Respondent further violated Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act. Shortly after his speech to all of the employees on August 23, Rice held a private conference in his office with the Company's three technicians. Although the tech- nicians had attended the earlier meeting, Rice explained that he wanted to meet with them separately because their wage classification differed from that of the production employees. Rice then went on to explain the Respondent's wage structure as applica- ble to them, the details of which need not be set forth here. He told them that although there was a possibility of layoffs among the assembly personnel, he did not anticipate any layoffs of technicians. Additionally, Rice made reference to the recent loss of a $100,000 contract, stating that it had been necessary to raise the bid on this contract in anticipation of production slippages which might occur as a result of the union activity. While there is no substantial dispute as to the foregoing, employees Mitchel Hammons and William Cameron, electronical technicians, testi- fied that during this conference Rice also told them that because of the union activi- ties at the plant the Respondent was having work performed or would have work performed at the Monrovia plant which otherwise would have been produced at the McAlester plant. Although Rice denied having made any such statement, I credit the testimony of Hammons and Cameron as aforesaid,3 and I find that by such statement, which clearly constituted a threat, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On about September 10, 1963, Michael Parkman, Respondent's production man- ager, gave an address to all of the employees. Parkman testified that he took this occasion to thank the employees for a birthday gift and that he also wanted to discuss their wage rates. While the testimony concerning Parkman's talk is some- what vague, there being no single comprehensive account as to what he said, it is undisputed that at one point Parkman referred to or read from a letter addressed to the U.S. Army Electronics Material Agency from the president of the Radiaphone Company, Inc., the Respondent's parent company. Parkman testified that he read to the employees the following single paragraph of this letter: During the week of 5 August 1963, I received formal notice from the Interna- tional Association of Machinists that they were organizing both our McAlester, Oklahoma plant and in our Monrovia, California plant. The subject contract is intended for manufacture in our Oklahoma plant. It is expected that a National Labor Relations Board election will be held in late September or early October and a possibility exists that the International Association of Machinist may win the election. It is felt that a possibility of work stoppage and work delay can occur in late fall and winter because of the problems associated with establishing or agreeing on initial contract conditions. This, of course, would affect performance on the subject contract. Parkman testified that during the above speech he told the employees to vote as they wished but that he did not want them to be "bamboozled" by him or anyone else. Employee Mitchel Hammons testified that Parkman referred to the letter (he was not certain if Parkman read from it), said that the letter stated the Company might not be able to fulfill the contracts "because of the wage increases here at the plant," and told the employees that "they would definitely have to close the doors." 'As indicated more fully hereinafter , Respondent had an arrangement with a State agency to conduct a 6-week training program for trainees whom it expected to hire upon the program 's completion . In his speech, Rice here had reference to a group of trainees who had just completed, or were about to complete, their training program 11 note that Rice's statement with respect to having work done in Monrovia followed the same tenor as the statement in his earlier speech that "the work will not be done here . . . it will be done elsewhere." However, in finding that Rice made the above statement to the technicians , I do not find or infer that Respondent in fact did perform work at the Monrovia plant which normally would have been performed at the McAlester plant. 858 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employee William Cameron testified that- Parkman had a letter "in front of him" to which he referred and that he told the employees "it [the letter]' said; that, due, to. the-, union activities that we will not be able to pay the wages and will have to close the doors." Parkman denied that during this speech he made any statement to the effect that the Respondent would have to close the doors and 10 employees called by the Respondent testified that they did not hear or recollect Parkman making any such statement. While I have previously credited the testimony of Hammons and Park- man, I am persuaded that in this instance they were mistaken in their testimony? Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint's allegation that "Parkman stated to employees that the plant would close down because of union activity" be dismissed. The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the granting of wage increases to its employees on September 1, 1963. It is undisputed that on this date the Respondent put into effect wage increases for all of the 18 employees then in its employ 5 The increases were as follows: the rates for 10 employees were increased from $1.15 to $1.45; 2 were increased from $1 15 to $1.55; 1 from $1.75 to $1.90; 1 from $1.50 to $1.75: and 1 from'$1.75 to $1.80. Respondent seeks to justify the granting of these increases at this time by pointing to the undisputed fact that effective as of September 1, 1963, the minimum-wage requirement was raised from $1.15 to $1.25 per hour. Testifying further in this regard Parkman said that "this [September 1] would be an ideal anniversary date for the group that we now had" and that "it makes it a great deal more convenient paperworkwise too to have all these people fall in a similar category." While Re- spondent undoubtedly was bound to comply with the new minimum wage require- ment, I am not persuaded that Respondent was thereby justified in granting the much more extensive wage increases which it gave to all of the employees during this critical period just 12 days prior to the election. The evidence establishes that the Respondent initially advised the employees that they would not be eligible for a raise until after 90 days of employment. Under this policy, the 18 employees involved would not have met this requirement until the middle of September, or subsequent to the election. - With a complement of only 18 employees, I fail to see where the "paper- work" was so burdensome as to warrant-a change in this policy during the preelection period. Upon the entire record in this case, and particularly in view of Respondent's other unlawful conduct in opposing the organizational activities of its employees, I find that Respondent's timing and granting of the wage increases (other than those required by law) were at least in substantial part designed to combat the organiza- tional activity of its employees. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Acts B. The alleged discrimination against prospective employees As previously noted, the Re'spbndent had an arrangement with the Oklahoma State Security Commission whereby the latter was to conduct a 6-week training program to qualify prospective employees for entering Respondent's employment While the record is not clear as to the exact dates, it is undisputed that two classes were con- ducted, one of which was completed on about August 17 and the, other on about August 31, 1963. A total of 31 female trainees completed the course and duly filed employment applications with the Respondent. It is undisputed that none of these individuals had engaged in union activity prior to the time of the alleged discrimi- nation against them. The 31 individuals who so completed the training classes were hired by the Re- spondent on various dates between October 31, 1963, and January 2, 1964.7 • How- ever, the General Counsel contends, and the complaint in substance alleges, that Respondent, instead of hiring these individuals upon completion of the training course about the end of August, deliberately deferred their hiring until the dates indi- cated above, this for the purpose of-discouraging union activity at the plant during the organizational period prior to the election. In basic support of this-contention, 'In thus finding that Parkman did not threaten that the doors to the plant would be closed, I have given due consideration to the fact that some of the employees called by the Respondent were hostile to the Union and that others did not pay close attention to what Parkman said Further, I credit Parkman's testimony to the effect that he did not para- phrase the letter referred to above, but that he literally read to the employees the second paragraph thereof. 5 The employees were told of the wage increase during the week prior thereto. 6 N L R B v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U!S 405, 409. 7 No other employees were hired in the interim between the above dates and the conclu- sion of the training classes. OKLAHOMA SCIENTIFIC CO., DIV. OF RADIAPHONE CO. 859 the General Counsel relies upon Rice 's statement concerning the alleged discrimi- natees in his speech to the employees on August 14, 1963. Thus, it will be recalled that in this speech Rice, with reference to these individuals, stated as follows: We have about 18 girls coming out of school. Most of these have taken tests. I would have had about 14 of these working this month I hope to put some of them to work next month. I will have about 28 girls coming out of school by the end of September. How many of these will go to work, I don't know. They would have all gone to work in these two months, but I can't afford to as ,it stands. I'm not in a position where I can because of some apparently illogical, action. In the context of Rice's admitted reference during this speech to union activity at the plant, it cannot be denied that, in the literal sense, Rice's statement as set forth above tends to establish a prima facie case in favor of the General Counsel. How- ever, I am persuaded that the entire record in this case, including Respondent's defense, does not permit a finding that the individuals in question were discriminated against in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The facts in this regard may be set forth as follows: Following the commencement of production at the McAlester plant, Respondent was principally engaged in the filling of a defense contract calling for the production of 2,210 oscillators at the price of $59.60 per unit. In about early August, the Respondent put in a bid for a second contract which called for the pro- duction of more of the same items. Rice testified that because of the Company's experience and tooling facilities for manufacturing these items, he originally planned on placing a bid of •$51-something" per unit for the second contract. However, Rice testified that because of the possibility that production slippages might occur because of the organizational activities, he felt it necessary to raise the bid to $53.19 per unit. This bid was in fact submitted on about August 15 or 16. It is undisputed that the bids were opened on August 17 and that Respondent lost the bid to another company.8 Returning to the matter of the trainees, Respondent asserts, as Rice's testimony reflects, that Respondent's plan for the training of and hiring of these individuals was primarily premised upon its anticipated acquisition of the second contract .9 It was the loss of this contract on August 17, according to the Respondent, that neces- sarily delayed all further hiring until a pickup in its business so warranted. Since the fact of the loss of the contract on August 17 is beyond dispute, I find merit in Respondent's defense as aforesaid. While it appears that Respondent lost this con- tract because it raised its bid in anticipation that it might suffer production slippages due to the union activity, the General Counsel does question the bona fides of Re- spondent's motives in this regard and I likewise conclude that Respondent here was motivated by legitimate business considerations Aside from the foregoing, there is no evidence that Respondent had work available which would have enabled it to employ the trainee applicants until they were in fact hired between October 31, 1963, and January 2, 1964. The General Counsel, in rebuttal testimony, introduced fragmentary evidence to the effect that Respondent received some material at its Monrovia plant between August 2 and September 5, 1962, and that some of it was received at the McAlester plant on September 28, 1963. However, Parkman credibly testified that these parts were ordered by and received by the Company's engineering department which was then still located at the Mon- rovia plant; that the parts arrived in McAlester just ahead of the transfer of the' engineering department from Monrovia to McAlester; that the parts were utilized to build prototype equipment of the type called for under a so-called Sparrow contract; and that these parts were not used for production purposes at any of the times material hereto. Contrary to the assertion of the General Counsel, I find the evidence fails to establish that Respondent had materials diverted to Monrovia for the purpose of forestalling the hiring of the trainees prior to the election.' Further, I find the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent had work available for the alleged-discrimi- natees at any time prior to the dates on which they were actually hired.'° 8 The Dorset Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, which underbid the Respondent by less than 80 cents per unit. 6 With reference to his initial prospect for successfully bidding on this contract; Rice credibly testified, "By dropping my price down to $51-something, I felt absolutely sure I could win the job." 10 In fact, various employees and company officials testified without contradiction that there was a shortage of material during latter August and early September and that at times during this period employees were assigned various odd jobs in order to keep them on the payroll. 860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In sum, and in view of all of the foregoing , I find that the General Counsel has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent discriminated against the individuals who completed the training course in August 1963, by failing to hire them until the period between October 31, 1963 , and January 2, 1964.11 Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.12 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with the operations of Respondent as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By the conduct set forth in section III , above, which has been found to consti- tute unfair labor practices, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The Respondent has not discriminated against prospective employees or em- ployee applicants within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that Respondent Oklahoma Scientific Co., a Division of Radiaphone Company, Inc., its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees that work may be done elsewhere or that new em- ployees will not be hired if they designate or attempted to get a union selected as their collective-bargaining representative. (b) Granting employees economic benefits for the purpose of discouraging their union activities. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 1The facts in this case are clearly distinguishable from Shawnee Industries, Inc., etc., 140 NLRB 1451 , cited by the General Counsel 12 With reference to Rice's statement to the employees on August 14 indicating that the trainees "could have been hired ," I normally would be inclined to construe this as tanta- mount to an admission that these individuals had been discriminatorily denied employ- ment However, as I view the facts in this case, Rice's statement here was made with the purpose of possibly discouraging union activity among the incumbent employees. In other words, although the trainees were not hired at this time due to the fact that Re- spondent was not successful in its bid for the second contract, I can but conclude that Rice, In his speech to the employees, utilized this development for the purpose which I have indicated . Although , as I have found , this was a Niolation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) thereof. OKLAHOMA SCIENTIFIC CO., DIV. OF RADIAPHONE CO. 861 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its place of business in McAlester, Oklahoma, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall, after having been duly signed by Respondent's represen- tative, be posted for 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 such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.14 It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Order, the Respondent notify said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action. It is also recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent engaged in any unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act or in any unfair labor practices which are not herein specifically found. 13 In 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 Decision and Order" 14 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 National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that work will be transferred to another plant, nor will we threaten them with other reprisals if they designate or attempt to get International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , selected as their collective -bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT grant economic benefits to our employees in order to discourage membership in or activities on behalf of the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees of their right 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 collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection ; or to refrain from any and all such activities. All our employees are free to become, to remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization of their choosing. OKLAHOMA SCIENTIFIC Co., A DIVISION OF RADIAPHONE 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 Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No. Edison 5-4211 , Extension 2131, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.