Hammond & Irving, Inc.

HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1071 tracts, we conclude that the issues raised here are not properly to be resolved at this time in this type of proceeding. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition .5 [The Board denied the petition to clarify the unit.] 5 At the hearing, the Union made a motion requesting the Board not to exercise jurisdic- tion in this case because of the pendency of a proceeding in the U.S. Federal District Court for Maine to determine the contractual rights of the parties. In view of our dis- position of this case , we deem it unnecessary to rule on this motion. Hammond & Irving, Incorporated and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CA-2321. September 9, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On January 21, 1965, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief and an addendum thereto, and the Respondent filed cross-excep- tions with a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations 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 entire rec- ord in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep- tions and cross-exceptions, and the briefs and the addendum, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith. As more fully set forth by the Trial Examiner, on December 10, 1963, the Union, which had secured signed authorization cards from a majority of the 110 employees then in the appropriate unit, asked the Respondent for recognition as exclusive bargaining representative. 1 The Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied be- cause the record , exceptions and cross -exceptions , and briefs and the addendum, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 154 NLRB No. 84. 1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On December 11, having failed to receive an affirmative response to its request, the Union filed a petition for an election. On January 9, 1964,2 the Regional Director issued a Decision directing an election, which was thereafter scheduled for January 22. During the period from January 13 until shortly before the election, Edward Gallagher, the Respondent's executive vice president, or his son, Robert, its vice president, spoke to six employees about a union meeting and the forth- coming election. Thus, on January 13, three employees were ques- tioned with regard to their attendance and that of four other employ- ees at the Union meeting which had been held the preceding evening. One of these employees was also questioned concerning his union sen- timents and was asked to vote against the Union. Between January 17 and shortly before the election of January 22, three other employees were questioned about how they or the other employees in the unit were going to vote and were asked to vote against the Union. The Trial Examiner found that these conversations created impres- sions of surveillance and constituted unlawful interrogation of employ- ees which violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. We agree. The Trial Examiner further concluded that such conduct indicated that the Respondent was not acting in good faith when it insisted upon an elec- tion and refused to bargain with the Union, and that if the Union had possessed a valid majority of cards, a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act would have been established. However, he held that all the cards were invalid to prove majority status. The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's findings con- cerning the validity of the cards; and the Respondent excepts, inter alia, to the conclusion that the conduct herein would have been grounds for finding an unlawful refusal to bargain. The Respondent contends that, even assuming, arguendo, that its conversations with the employ- ees were unlawful, the evidence does not sustain the conclusion that the Respondent was engaging in a course of conduct calculated to under- mine the Union's majority; that the effect of the Trial Examiner's rationale is to establish a per se rule that the presence of any unfair labor practices requires a finding of bad faith; that a finding concern- ing motive should be based on an examination of all the facts ; and that the 8(a) (5) allegation of the complaint should have been dismissed for these reasons. We agree with the Respondent's position. There- fore, we have not considered the General Counsel's exceptions with regard to the cards and do not adopt or pass upon the Trial Examiner's findings that the cards were invalid. For, we are persuaded that, even assuming that the Union was in possession of valid cards signed by a majority of the employees, no unlawful refusal to bargain has been established in the circumstances here. Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent dates refer to 1964. HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1073 The Board has long held that an employer may insist upon a Board election as proof of a union's majority if it has a reasonable basis for a bona fide doubt as to the union's representative status in an appropri- ate unit. If, however, the employer has no such good-faith doubt, but refuses to bargain with the majority representative of its employees because it rejects the collective-bargaining principle or desires to gain time within which to undermine the union and dissipate its majority, such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.3 In determining whether the employer's action was taken to achieve either of the said invalid purposes, the Board considers all the sur- rounding circumstances as well as direct evidence of motivation. Absent such direct evidence, where extensive violations of the Act accompany the refusal to grant recognition, they evidence the employ- er's unlawful motive and an inference of bad faith is justified. Here, however, the Respondent engaged in conversations with 6 employees out of a unit of 110 or 111. This interrogation, while unlawful, was not so flagrant that it must necessarily have had the object of destroy- ing the Union's majority status. While unfair labor practices com- mitted at or about the time of an employer's refusal to bargain often demonstrates the bad faith of the respondent's position,4 not every act of misconduct necessarily vitiates the respondent's good faith.5 For, there are some situations in which the violations of the Act are not truly inconsistent with a good-faith doubt that the union represents a majority of the employees. Whether the conduct involved reflects on the good faith of the employer, requires an evaluation of the facts of each case. In the instant case, we agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of establishing that the Respondent's refusal to bargain was violative of Section 8 (a) (5). Accordingly, that allegation of the complaint is hereby dismissed. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, Auburn, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. $ Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd. as modified on other grounds 185 F. 2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914. 4 Joy Silk Mi118, Inc., supra. c See, e.g.,Cosmodyne Manufacturing Company, 150 NLRB 96, at footnote 29 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision therein (adopted by the Board without comment). 206-446-----c6---vol. 151-69 1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was held before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie in Auburn, New York, on July 27, 28, and 29, 1964, on the complaint of the General Counsel and the answer of Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, herein called the Respondent.) The issue litigated was whether the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs after the hearing. The parties also filed with the Trial Examiner a stipulation to the effect that General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7 was mistakenly marked and referred to in the record as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7a through 7cccc, and that said exhibit should have been marked and referred to as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7a through 7rrrr. The parties jointly moved that the record be corrected accordingly. The motion is hereby granted and the stipulation and motion is received into evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business in Auburn, New York. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of flat die steel forgings and related products. During the year preceding the date of the complaint herein, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Auburn plant products valued in excess of $100,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant directly to States of the United States other than the State of New York. The complaint alleges, the Respondent's amended answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background, sequence of events On or about November 27, 1963, Richard Baldwin, a staff representative of the Union, received a telephone call from Charles Walker, an employee of the Respond- ent. Walker told him that he had been delegated by other employees to obtain information about the Union. As a result of this conversation, Baldwin visited at his home on December 3, and gave him some union cards. On December 9, Walker and some other employees met with Baldwin at the home of Francis McCandrew. At this meeting 70 union cards which had been signed by employees were turned over to Baldwin. On December 10, Baldwin called Edward Gallager, the Respondent's executive vice-president. The conversation was as follows: Baldwin: Mr. Gallager, I am Mr. Baldwin from the Steelworkers' Union, one of the Staff Representatives. Gallager: Where are you located? Baldwin: I am calling from Syracuse, New York. I don't know whether you are aware of it but we have an organizing campaign going on at your plant and now have a substantial number of your employees signed. We would like to make a request that you recognize our Union and see if we can arrange a meeting. Gallager: I do not know much about those proceedings. I am not too familiar with it. I would have to be guided by what you say. Baldwin: Would you like to have us come over and talk with you? Gallager: Is that the procedure and when you say "us", who do you mean? Baldwin: I mean myself with another representative. We would be prepared to demonstrate that we are not kidding you. We are prepared to give you proof of what we say. 'The charge was filed and served on the Respondent on April 7, 1964. The complaint Issued on May 27, 1964. HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1075 Gallager: Of course, but I am not the only one that has anything to say. I would like to get in touch with many of my cohorts here and see what we want to do. Baldwin: That's okay. Why don't you do that and call us back. You can get us at GR 5-3158, United Steelworkers in Syracuse. Ask for Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Litz. Gallager: Where are you located? Baldwin: 104 Magnolia Street. Gallager: O.K. Gallager called Baldwin that same day. The following conversation took place: 2 Gallager: This is Ed Gallager. Baldwin: How are you? Gallager: Not too bad. I cannot meet with you until the early part of next week. I will be away this week. It will be the 16th or 17th, I do not know which date at the moment. Baldwin: Look, Mr. Gallager, I will be real honest with you. There are several ways this could be accomplished. We are prepared to give you proof that we do represent a substantial majority and there are several ways we could do it, by checking cards, the applications, or we could do it by an election through the National Labor Relations Board. Gallager: I will want to talk about all this with you. Baldwin: You will perhaps want to get some advice on this. You will prob- ably wind up and tell us we will have to have an election through the National Labor Relations Board. Gallager: We are going to file a petition today with the Board and they will investigate but we don't mean that we would necessarily have to go through with an election. We can work out some arrangement. However, we think it would be better that we file the petition. • s s s * • s Gallager: Just as you say. Baldwin: Don't let that bother you. After we hear from the Board, we will sit down and meet with you and work things out. It would be much better if we could meet with you some time next week and we could talk with you. Gallager: Yes, I; will be back on Sunday. I will give you a call on next Monday. Baldwin: Do that. We will file a petition and if it is found necessary, we will withdraw it. Gallager: O.K. On December 10, Baldwin sent the following letter to Gallager: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of Tuesd-y, December 10, 1963, during which a request for recognition was made by .,ar Union. Failing to obtain an affirmative answer, we are this day filing a Petition with the National Labor Relations Board to proceed under its proper authority. On December 11, the Union filed with the Board a petition for certification for a unit including "all maintenance and production workers" and excluding "office and clerical workers, supervisors as defined under the Act." a On or before December 13, nine more employees signed union cards. Walker forwarded these to Baldwin through the mail. A hearing was held by the Board in the representation matter on December 30, 1963. At that hearing the Respondent raised no issues and stipulated to the following: It is stipulated that on December 10, 1963, the Petitioner wrote the Employer requesting bargaining.... And that the Employer will not recognize the Union until matters are resolved by the National Labor Relations Board.... On January 9, 1964, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election. The Board conducted an election among the Respondent's employees on January 22, 1964. Of approximately 111 eligible voters, 44 cast votes for and 65 cast votes against the Union. On January 29, the Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On March 18, 1964, the Regional Director issued a "Supplemental Decision and Direction of. Second Election," in which he sustained one of the Union's objections, set the election aside and directed a new election. g The conversations as found herein are in accordance with a transcription made at the time by Baldwin's secretary. Baldwin testified substantially to the same effect. 8 Case No. 3-RC-3298. 1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union sent a letter dated April 1, 1964, to the Respondent which reads in part as follows: We hereby renew our request, which was first made on December 10, 1963, that your Corporation, through its properly designated representatives, recognize our Union. for the purpose of collective bargaining, on behalf of the Corpora- tion's employees at its plant in Auburn, New York. Failing to obtain an affirmative answer on or before April 6, 1964, we will, on that date, file charges with the National Labor Relations Board (8(a)(5)- Refusal to Bargain). On May 20 the Union requested permission to withdraw its petition. By order dated May 27, 1964, the Regional Director approved the withdrawal. As stated above, the Union filed the charge in the instant proceeding on April 7, 1964. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion On January 12, 1964, the Union held a meeting for the Respondent's employees at the "Russian Club" in Auburn. Employees Ralph Sherman, Edward Sherman, son of Ralph Sherman, and Alex Fletcher attended the meeting together. As they entered the Club, they were immediately followed by employees Charles Walker and Sid Wilkerson. At or about 9 a.m. on January 13, Robert Gallager, a son of Edward Gallager and vice president of the Respondent, spoke to Ralph Sherman. He asked Sherman, "you went to the union meeting yesterday?" When Sherman admitted that he had attended the meeting, Gallager said, "you went with Sid and Charlie Walker and Alex Fletcher and your son." Sherman replied, "No. Charlie Walker and Sid didn't go with us." On the same day about 10 a.m. Edward Gallager spoke to employee Joseph Mendzef, who also had attended the union meeting. Gallager said, "did you go to the meeting yesterday?" Mendzef replied, "No, my wife wouldn't let me go." Gallager then asked him how he "stood with the Union." When Mendzef did not answer. Gallager said, "Well, how about throwing a favor for me, which is a no vote. Do me a favor." Mendzef replied, "Sure." Edward Gallager also spoke to Fletcher on January 13. He told Fletcher that he had heard that he had attended the union meeting. When Fletcher admitted that he was present, Gallager asked him if he had drunk "any beer down there." Fletcher replied, "No." It is found that the above interrogation by Edward and Robert Gallager was violative of the Act. It is also found that the remarks of Robert and Edward Gallager to Sherman and Fletcher created the impression of surveillance and that such conduct was violative of the Act. David Jones was employed by the Respondent from about September 1963 until about April 27, 1964. Shortly before the election he took a physical examination for the military service. The day after the examination he had a conversation with Robert Gallager. Gallager asked him how he had "made out" on the examination. Jones replied, "pretty good, as far as I know." Gallager then asked him if he knew how long he would continue to work for the Respondent. When Jones answered that he did not know "exactly," Gallager said, "Well, how about a no vote, Dave?" Jones replied, "I don't know." Gallager then asked his opinion on "how the men in the shop were going to vote." Jones said that he did not "know anything about that either." It is found that Gallager's interrogation concerning the vote of Jones and of other employees constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. On or about January 17, Edward Gallager had a conversation with employee Frederick Panes. Gallager said, "I don't know you very well.. . What do you think about the election?" Panes replied, "I haven't gave [sic] it much thought." Gallager then said, "I would appreciate it if you would vote no." Panes did not answer. It is found that Gallager's interrogation of Panes was violative of the Act. On January 20 Robert Gallager asked employee Boyce Dudley "which way" he was going to vote. When Dudley replied that he did not know, Gallager said, "that sounded like a yes vote." 4 It is found that Gallager's interrogation of Dudley was violative of the Act. On March 12, 1964, the Respondent sent a letter to each employee. In the letter the Respondent stated in part: There is no secret about the fact that we were pleased with the results of the election. We were pleased for you primarily because it meant that we could, * Dudley testified credibly to the above. Gallager denied that he asked Dudley how he was going to vote. His denial is not credited. HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1077 in the future, adjust whatever may be our problems by sitting down on a face- to-face basis without an outside agent between us. We have always said very frankly that in any plant there are beefs and gripes, and Hammond & Irving is no exception. We have been considering adjustments in our fringe benefits and our wages. We have been studying area practices and our rate structure. All this has been done to make Hammond & Irving a better place to work. Wage increases and increases in fringe benefits will be made. We would have resolved all of these matters before this but so long as the Steelworkers continue to harass us and you, the claim is made that our employees were brainwashed, our hands are tied. If the certification comes down we can be more specific; if the Union's objections are sustained, we must have further delay until the results of a second election; and at that time we can determine the method by which adjustments in the wages and fringe benefits can be made. I find that by making promises of benefit to employees during the pendency of a representation proceeding the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. The alleged refusal to bargain The Respondent admits the appropriateness of the unit alleged in the complaint. This is the same unit set forth in the Union's petition and found appropriate by the Regional Director in his Decision and Direction of Election. The evidence shows that there were 110 employees in this unit; and that as of December 9, 1963, 70 employees had signed authorization cards. The evidence further reveals that on December 10, 1963, the Union, both during telephonic conversations with Edward Gallager and by its letter to him, notified the Respondent that it represented "a substantial majority" of the employees and was prepared to prove its claimed majority "by checking cards," and requested recog- nition as the bargaining agent of the employees. In his talks with Gallager, Baldwin made it clear that the Union was going to file a petition with the Board only as a last resort, and that the petition would be withdrawn if the Respondent would accord recognition and meet with the Union. Gallager at the time did not question the Union's claimed majority. Although he indicated that he would be willing to meet with the Union at a later date, it does not appear that he thereafter contacted the Union. That the Respondent's silence was tantamount to a refusal of the Union's request for recognition is shown by the stipulation entered into by the Respondent at the hearing in the representation matter. It stipulated that it would not recognize the Union until the question (of majority) was resolved by the Board. The record indicates that the Respondent was not acting in good faith in insisting upon an election, and that it engaged in a course of conduct calculated to undermine the Union's majority. As found above, it interrogated employees and created the impression of surveillance. This, in brief, constitutes the General Counsel's prima facie case. Standing alone, it would appear that the Respondent had engaged in an illegal refusal to bargain.5 In its brief the Respondent contends that the union cards were "tainted" and invalid for the purposes of determining a union majority. In support of this con- tention, the Respondent produced seven witnesses who testified to the effect that when solicited to sign cards they were told that the purpose was to get a "majority" so that an election could be held, one witness who testified that he was told that it would cost him $100 to join the union after it got in the plant and that the Respond- ent would have to discharge him if he did not join because there was going to be a "closed shop," and another witness who testified that he was told that he would lose his job if he did not join the Union after it got in the plant.6 5lrving Air Chute Company, Inc., Marathon Division, 149 NLRB 527. 6 One of the above witnesses testified that he read the card before signing it, and four testified that they did not sign cards. The testimony of Walker, a leader in soliciting, indicates that he told employees that the purpose of the cards was for an election. Concerning his conversation with employees when soliciting them to sign cards, Walker was questioned and testified as follows: Q. (By Mr. Paicr). It was to enable you to get an election to see if it wants the Union ? A. Yes. Q. That was your understanding, isn't that right? A. Well, that isn't all the card says. Q. No, I appreciate that. A. Yes, Yes. It was more or less of an election ; that is what it was about. 1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Counsel had the burden of proving the majority. In view of the above evidence, I find that the union authorization cards, urged by the General Counsel as establishing such majority status, were unreliable for this purpose? Since it even appears from the testimony of the General Counsel's chief witness on this question that employees were told that the purpose of the cards was for an election, I do not believe it can reasonably be said that the employees, by their act of signing authorizations, thereby clearly manifested an intention to designate the Union as their bargaining representative. Accordingly, since the General Counsel has failed to prove the majority status of the Union, I do not find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) 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 described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. 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. 3. 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. The Respondent's refusal to bargain was not violative of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent, Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, Auburn, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall be ordered to: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union sympathies and activities or concerning their vote in an election conducted by the Board. (b) Engaging in or creating the impression of surveillance of meetings held by the Union, or by any other labor organization. (c) Offering, promising, or granting to its employees economic and other benefits or improvements in their terms and conditions of employment if they refrain from supporting the Union, or any other labor organization, or during the pendency of a representation matter before the Board. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights 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 Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: 7 Englewood Lumber Company, 130 NLRB 394; I. Posner, Inc., et at., 133 NLRB 1573. HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1079 (a) Post at its plant in Auburn, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 3, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized repre- sentatives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained 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. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.9 8In 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". '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 interrogate our employees concerning their union sympathies and activities or concerning their vote in an election conducted by the Board. WE WILL NOT engage in or create the impression of surveillance of meetings held by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or by any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT offer, promise , or grant to our employees economic and other benefits or improvements in their terms and conditions of employment if they refrain from supporting the above union , or any other labor organization, or during the pendency of a representation matter before the Board. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining or mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such rights 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 Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent that this 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 Act. HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED, 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, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo , New York, Telephone No. 472-2215, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.