Amerline Corp.

1008 DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. If employees have any question conerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room' 2023, Federal Office B Building, 550 Main Street , Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Tele- phone 684-3627. Hartland Plastics, Division of Amerline Corporation and District, No. 48, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-277. June 23, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On April 18, 1966, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had, not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connec- tion with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria]. 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed September 20, 1965,1 by District No. 48, International Asso- ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Union ), a complaint was issued against Hartland Plastics , Division of Amer- line Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Respondent ), on December 2, 1965. The complaint was amended on January 28, 1966, and alleges that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by various acts of interference , restraint, and coercion, and Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by the discriminatory layoff of three employees on September 14. Respondent's answer admits certain allegations of the complaint, but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. This case 1 Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein refer to 1965. 159 NLRB No. 83. HARTLAND PLASTICS 1009 was heard before Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on February 7 and 8, 1966, and briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record, including my evaluation of the witnesses, based on my observation of their demeanor and on the evidence contained in this record, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Respondent, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of molded plastic products with its principal office located in Chicago, Illinois, and a plant located in Hartland, Wisconsin.2 Respondent's plant in Hart- land is the only facility involved in this proceeding. During the past calendar year, a representative period, Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped products from its Hartland plant, valued in excess of $50,000, directly to points located outside the State of Wisconsin. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED District No. 48, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work- ers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The basic issues and background facts The basic issues in this case are relatively simple, and deal primarily with the question of whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) creat- ing an impression of surveillance of its employees' union activities by the conduct of Foreman Nicholas, on September 15; (2) instituting overtime benefits for machine operators on September 20, retroactive to September 13, in an effort to interfere with employees' membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; (3) interrogating an employee on October 5 concerning a union meeting; and (4) issu- ing written warnings through its personnel administrator, Robert McGuire, on November 23, to employees Edith Kloth and Mary Wessel because of their activi- ties on behalf of the Union. In addition, there is the question of whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by the layoff of employees Betty Knipfel, Beverly Hellen, and Donald Mamerow on September 14. The evidence in this case relating to the events is not in great dispute, and, as is often the situa- tion, it is the interpretation to be placed on these events and the reasonable infer- ences to be drawn therefrom which present the issues for resolution. The organizing campaign began sometime in July 1965, when employee Mary Wessel was contacted by the Union's business representative, Allen Johns, and was given authorization cards, membership applications, union buttons, and other items of organizing paraphernalia. Wessel enlisted the aid of other employees, including Edith Kloth, and began soliciting signatures from the employees. On Septem- ber 12, the union representatives held their first meeting with the employees. Approximately 12 employees were present and 41 signed cards were turned in to the Union. The employees were given additional cards and union buttons to dis- tribute, and the following day approximately eight employees reported for work displaying their union buttons. When McGuire came to work that morning, he was advised of the union activity among the employees. McGuire and Edwin Hulbert, Respondent's vice president, immediately placed a conference call to Respondent's president, Charles E. Castecker, in Chicago Castecker instructed them to obtain counsel and to try to keep the plant nonunion. On the same day, Johns sent a letter to the Respondent advising that the Union was organizing the employees, and cautioning the Respondent to refrain from any activity which would interfere with the relationship between the Company and the 2 The testimony in the record reveals that Amerline, in turn, is owned by The Revlon Corporation. However, the extent of Revlon's ownership was never developed at the hearing. 243-084-67-vol. 159-65 1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union in the event the latter was successful in obtaining recognition. After receiv- ing the Union's letter, Hulbert posted a memorandum in the plant, informing the employees that union membership was not a requirement of employment. The memorandum urged the employees to compare their, present benefits with the bene- fits of unionized plants in the industry, and stressed the advantages of their pres- ent close relationship with Respondent.3 Following the initial telephone call to Chicago, Castecker, McGuire, and Hulbert were in almost daily contact concerning Respondent's efforts to prevent the unionization of the employees. The Union filed a petition in Case 30-RC-338 on September 29, and the parties entered into a stipulation for certification upon consent election on October 22. An election was conducted by the Regional Director on November 10,' and the Union failed to receive a majority of the valid votes cast. On November 19, the Regional Director issued a certification of results. It is against this background that the events set forth below are to be considered. B. The interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The conduct of John Nicholas On September 13, the day the employees first began wearing union buttons in the plant, Foreman Nicholas approached employee Florence Cronce, and asked where her union button was. Cronce replied that she did not have any. Nicholas then stated, "Don't kid me . I know who the three girls are who instigated it." He then named Mary Wessel, Edith Kloth, and Cronce. Cronce conceded the accuracy of Nicholas' statement and asked what was wrong with the Union. Nicholas replied nothing, and said that it would "probably save [him] a lot of grief." 4 On October 5, Nicholas approached employee Wessel and informed her that he had heard there was a union meeting that night. Nicholas asked why he was not invited. Wessel replied, "Not to this one, but maybe to the next one." Nicholas then stated that, "It wouldn't do him any good anyway." Foreman Seuthe reported to McGuire that "Nicholas had made some comment to Wessel and that she was somewhat upset about it." McGuire immediately went to the paint department and questioned Nicholas concerning the conversation. Nicholas repeated his comments and stated that it was just a joke. McGuire told him that "there were no jokes in this type of thing," and "that he was not to speak to [the employees] about their union activities in any way at all, and that he was to make no more similar approaches to [Wessel]' or to anyone else even in a joking manner." 5 Nicholas' statements to Cronce were made after Respondent's decision to actively oppose the Union, and the statements to Wessel were made after the employees were fully cognizant of Respondent's opposition to unionization. While this is not to suggest that Respondent's campaign against the Union was unlawful, it, nonetheless, provides the setting and backdrop against which to gauge the impact of such statements, made by a supervisor to employees. It is in this context that I find that Nicholas' identification of the leading union adherents and his remark that he was aware that a union meeting was to take place, created an impression that the Respondent was engaged in surveillance of its employees' union activities. Ely Walker, 151 NLRB 636; Opal Cliffs Food Center, 148 NLRB 301, 303. The fact that McGuire rebuked Nicholas does not, in my judgment, dispel the coercive effects of his statements. McGuire did not communicate his disapproval to Wessel or to the other employees generally. Indeed, had he done so, my conclusions in this regard might have been otherwise.6 I find, therefore, that by the conduct of Fore- man Nicholas, the Respondent created an impression of surveillance of employees' union activities and engaged in unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3 This is the first of a series of memorandums and letters issued by the Respondent in opposition to the Union during the organizing campaign. There is no allegation, not does the General Counsel contend, that the memorandums and letters were violative of the Act. They do, however, indicate that Respondent waged an aggressive campaign in an effort to persuade the employees to reject the Union. * The above facts are taken from the undisputed testimony of Cronce. 5 Taken from the uncontradicted testimony of Wessel and McGuire. 6 In this connection, see the Board's Decision in Cosmodyne Manufacturing Gouipany, 150 NLRB 96; cf. Valley Gold Daises, Inc., 152 NLRB 1470. HARTLAND PLASTICS -T 1'011 2. The change in overtime rates for machine operators The evidence discloses that machine operators 7 worked a 71/2-hour day or a 371/2-hour week. All other employees'were required to put in an 8-hour day or-a 40-hour week. Thus, when employees worked overtime on Saturdays, machine operators had to work 21/2 hours at straight time rates of pay before they received time ,and a half for overtime. Such was not ' the case with the other employees. Needless to say,, this practice caused considerable concern among the machine operators. At the second meeting with the union representatives on September 19, the employees complained vociferously about the method of overtime payment for machine operators. Among the employees present at this meeting were Richard Laabs, a setup man, and his sister Charolette, a production employee. Charolette Laabs was observed taking notes during the course of the meeting. The following Monday, September 20, the Respondent posted a notice changing its overtime prac- tices. The new procedure, made retroactive to include the-prior Saturday, pro- vided that all employees would receive time and a half for all hours worked on Saturday. This applied even though an employee had not worked a full week before working on Saturday. Respondent contends that the change in overtime policy had been under consid- eration for a number of months. In April 1965, shortly after the Revlon Corpora- tion purchased Respondent's parent concern, an official of Revlon conducted a sur- vey of Respondent's wage and benefit structure. The official recommended that certain changes be made to bring the benefits "closer to the Revlon standard." Following these recommendations, Respondent increased the wage rates of the machine operators in July 1965 and agreed to change the overtime policy. How- ever, Respondent did not make the change in overtime policy until September 20, having received a written mquiry, dated September 16, from the general manager in Chicago, asking if the change in policy agreed on in July had been implemented. While it is undoubtedly true that Respondent was considering many changes in its personnel and wage policy as a result of the Revlon survey, I am persuaded that the change in the overtime policy on September 20 was unlawfully motivated. I note that Respondent's letter of September 16 reveals that higher management had decided in July 1965 to alter the overtime policy. However, the implementation of this decision and notification to the employees did not occur until Respondent was was faced with the threat of possible unionization of the employees-some 2 months later. This factor, when considered in the context of Respondent's vigor- ous campaign against the Union, leads me to conclude that one of the underlying motives for changing the overtime policy at this particular time was to further Respondent's objective of impressing on the employees that unionization was not necessary in order to receive benefits or to bring about changes in work conditions.8 Lincoln Bearing Company, 155 NLRB 1141; Seneca Plastics, Incorporated, 149 NLRB 320, 322-323; Sweetwater Rug Company, 148 NLRB 498, 516. I find, therefore, that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The warnings to employees Kloth and Wessel Wessel approached employee Sheryl Staupe on November 17 and asked her to give a statement to a Board agent concerning the charge filed herein. Wessel sug- gested that Staupe come over to her home in order to give the statement. Staupe declined to do so. That evening a Board agent visited Staupe's home and attempted to get a statement in connection with the investigation of the charge. Staupe, who was ill from an abscessed tooth, became very upset by the visit. The following morning her father, Bernard Staupe, came to McGuire's office under the mistaken belief that the Respondent was responsible for sending someone to take a state- ment from his daughter. Bernard Staupe demanded to know the reason for the visit to his daughter the evening before. McGuire denied any involvement by the Respondent and assumed that the individual was a union organizer. He told 4 This term was used interchangeably with the term "press operators" in the record and describes identical job functions. 8In reaching this conclusion, I do not rely on the fact that the two Laabs attended the union meeting on September 19 and that Charolette Laabs apparently took notes dur- ing the meeting. The General Counsel implies that this information was subsequently relayed to management. But there is no evidence in the record to support this view, and such a conclusion would have to be premised on conjecture and speculation. 1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Staupe that employees Kloth and Wessel might have had something to do with the incidents McGuire directed a memorandum to Vice President Hulbert stating that the "in-plant union committee and the local organizer" were coercing and putting pressure on employee Staupe. On November 23, McGuire issued separate written notices to Kloth and Wessel. The notices stated in substance that: (1) it had been brought to Respondent's attention that the recipient had been pressuring a fellow employee to "sign a docu- ment apparently deemed to be of some importance or value to your union"; (2) the Respondent intended to "protect the rights of all employees from pressure, coercion, or intimidation from any group or any individual for any cause regard- less of what it may [sic] be"; and (3) Respondent considered "it grounds for disci- pline and would take immediate and positive action should another incident occur." On receiving the warning notice, Kloth informed McGuire that she had nothing to do with the incident involving Staupe. McGuire told Kloth that he would check into the matter and if what she told him was true, she was "to just [sic] forget the whole thing." McGuire's subsequent investigation indicated that Kloth played no part in the matter.io The Respondent contends that the notices to Kloth and Wessel were merely clear-cut statements that the Company would be vigilant in protecting the rights of all employees (including Wessel and Kloth) guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. However, in my judgment, the Respondent issued the warning notices to the two employees because of an erroneous belief that the employees were still engaged in activities- on behalf of the Union-approximately a month after the Union lost the election. Respondent's antipathy toward the Union is manifestly clear from the aggressive campaign it conducted prior to the election. Armed with a paucity of facts, McGuire unhesitatingly and erroneously concluded that the Union was responsible for the incident and that Kloth and Wessel were involved. It is evi- dent that McGuire selected the two employees because he was aware that they were the chief union adherents during the organizing campaign. Had McGuire conducted even a most cursory investigation, he would have found the true state of events to be otherwise. This he chose not to do. In these circumstances, I find that the warning notices clearly violated the rights of Kloth and Wessel guaran- teed by the Act, and that Respondent's protestation of protecting Section 7 rights of all the employees rings hollow. Thus, I find Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23. C. The layoffs On September 14, Beverly Hellen, Betty Knipfel, and Donald Mamerow were laid off by Respondent. These employees worked on the day shift in the press- room department; Hellen and Knipfel were machine operators and Mamerow was a "stockboy." The employees were called at their homes by McGuire after com- pleting their shift on September 14 and were told of the layoff due to the lack of work in the pressroom." McGuire testified that it was Respondent's policy to make every effort to retain machine operators when production was slack by utilizing them in other depart- ments. In this instance, however, Hulbert had determined from production reports and from estimates of future production needs that the pressroom was overstaffed. Hulbert made this determination when he returned from his vacation on Septem- ber 13. As with prior layoffs, Respondent followed a strict departmental and shift seniority policy in selecting the employees to be laid off. However, this was the first time in recent years that machine operators were involved in layoffs. The General Counsel contends that the layoffs were discriminatory because they occurred the day after Respondent became aware of the organizing campaign 9 McGuire was extremely vague as to how he concluded that Kloth and Wessel were involved. He was uncertain whether the names had been supplied by Bernard Staupe or whether he had received the information from another source. However, Bernard Staupe testified that he did not mention any names , and that "Mr. McGuire filled (him] in on the details from there on in." I find, therefore, that McGuire assumed the involvement of Wessel and Kloth just as he erroneously assumed that the person seeking the statement was a union organizer. 1U The above facts, relating to the Staupe affair and the events that followed there- after, are a composite of the unrefuted testimony of McGuire, Bernard and Sheryl Staupe, Xloth, and Wessel. n In addition to the lack of work, Mamerow was laid off in order to allow Respondent to provide a position for an employee returning from military service. HARTLAND PLASTICS 1013 among the employees. The General Counsel also contends that the employees were selected for layoff because of their union activities and that the layoffs were intended to inhibit and stifle the organizational efforts of the employees. Occurring 1 day after Respondent acquired knowledge of the union activities of its employees, the layoffs gave rise to the suspicion that they were in fact discrimina- torily motivated. However, upon a careful review of the record and bearing in mind Respondent's conduct, which I have found unlawful, I am not persuaded that the layoffs were for reasons which are prohibited by the Act. Hulbert's testimony, based on the pressroom production reports, convincingly demonstrates that many machines were idle and others were not working to full capacity during the months of August, September, and October 1965. This fact was corroborated by the testimony of Wessel, a witness on behalf of the Charging Party. While the pres- ence of a valid economic reason for the layoffs is no defense where unlawful moti- vation is also a contributing cause, the evidence in this record does not preponder- ate in favor of such a finding. Each of the laid-off employees wore a union button on September 13, but on the other hand, so did five or six other employees who were not laid off. On the day of the layoffs union buttons were worn throughout the plant by many employees on the day shift. Other than signing authorization cards and displaying union buttons, there is no indication that the employees laid off were involved in organizational activities on behalf of the Union at the plant. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the Respondent was well aware of the identity of the prime union adherents at the time of the layoffs. Moreover, the General Counsel has not demonstrated that the basis of the selection of the employees laid off was unreasonable or discriminatory. The employees were the least senior in the pressroom on the first shift, and the Respondent had ruled out the feasibility of laying off employees on the second and third shifts because of past difficulty it had experienced in getting personnel to work those hours. Weighing all of the above factors, I find that the General Counsel has not rebutted the economic justification for the layoffs, nor has he demonstrated that the layoffs were inspired by discriminatory motives or that Respondent's selection of the employees to be laid off was unreasonable. In these circumstances, I find that the evidence does not preponderate in favor of a finding that the employees were laid off because of their union activities.12 Guyan Machinery Company, 155 NLRB 591; Bruns Garage, Inc., 148 NLRB 363; Wagner-Wood Company, 148 NLRB 963. Accordingly, I recommend that the allegations contained in the com- plaint concerning the layoffs of September 14 be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and w As I have found that the employees were not laid off because of union activities, I do not reach the question of whether the layoffs violated Section 8 ( a) (1). I am constrained, however, to comment on the General Counsel's proof in this regard. The General Counsel's witnesses (Kloth and Wessel) testified that after the layoffs the remaining employees were reluctant to discuss the Union or to sign union authoriza- tion cards. In this regard Kloth testified that "they [the employees] were worried about being . . . due to the fact that Betty and the other two girls [sic] were laid off, that they might get laid off, too." Wessel testified that "they [the employees] were afraid of their jobs because of the three people that were laid off." However, neither of the witnesses was able to identify any particular employee who expressed such fears . Indeed, Wessel went to the plant, at the request of the Respondent, before the resumption of this hearing on February 8, 1966, and was unable to Identify any employee who was alleged to have manifested such concern. The General Counsel urges, nevertheless, that the testi- mony demonstrates that the layoffs had a discouraging effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights among the remaining employees. (Cf. Textile Workers Union of America v, Darling- ton Manufacturing Co, 380 U.S. 263.) Under the most charitable view, the testimony adduced on this issue is of no probative value and merely consists of unsupported, self-serving statements made in an effort to establish that the layoffs had a deterrent effect upon the organizational activities of the employees. No witnesses were produced who expressed the alleged fears attributed to the employees by Kloth and Wessel . I find that such testimony , is not the kind envisioned by the Supreme Court when it remanded the Darlington case, supra, for the findings, "on the Issue of purpose and effect of the employer 's action " Accordingly, I place no reliance on the testimony of Kloth and Wessel concerning the effects of the layoffs on the remaining employees. 1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. - V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the circumstances of the case, I shall recommend only that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from any like or related conduct. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees and by creating an impression of surveillance of employees' union activities, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees and is interfering with, restraining, and, coercing employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By granting employees additional, overtime benefits at a time when the employees were engaged in union organizational activities, Respondent interfered with rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 5. By issuing written warnings to employees because of their membership in, and their activities on behalf of, the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by laying off three employees on September 14, 1965. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that Hartland Plastics, Division of Amerline Corporation, Hartland, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their statutory rights by coercively interrogating them about union activities and by creating an impression of surveillance of employees' union activities. (b) Granting employees benefits, not previously enjoyed, as a means of inter- fering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (c) Issuing warning notices-to employees because of their membership in, or their activities on behalf of, the Union or any other labor organization. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist District No. 48, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of their own choosing. 2. Take the following affirmative action, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Hartland, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 30, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by 231n the event that this Recommended Order Is 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 is 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." ANIMAL FOODS CO. OF TEXAS, INC. 1015 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 by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14 I recommend dismissal of the allegations of the complaint alleging that Respond- ent discriminatorily laid off three employees on September 14, 1965, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. A In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall he 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their activities on behalf of District No. 48, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, and we will not create an impression of surveillance of our employees' union activities. WE WILL NOT grant benefits to our employees as a means of interfering with, restraining, or coercing them in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT issue warning notices to employees because of their member- ship in, or because of their activities on behalf of, the Union, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or 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. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. HARTLAND PLASTICS, DIVISION OF AMERLINE CORPORATION, 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Suite 230, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 272-3866. Animal Foods Co. of Texas , Inc. and General Drivers, Warehouse- men & Helpers Union Local No. 968, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 03-CA-2114. June 23, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On March 15, 1966, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- 159 NLRB No. 97.