Jones Packing Co.

988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jones Packing Company and Local Union No. 236, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America Jones Packing Company and Local Union No. 236, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Cases 9-CA-3545 and 9-RC-6204- June 23,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On March-10, 1966, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices 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. The Trial Examiner also found merit in certain objections, filed by the Union, to the election conducted on February 10, 1965, and recommended that the election be set aside, that the petition in Case 9-RC-6204 be dismissed, and all proceed- ings in connection therewith be vacated. Thereafter, the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a support- ing brief. The General Counsel did not, file exceptions or a 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's-Recommended Order.] ' In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, we do not find it necessary to, and we do not pass upon , the Trial Examiner's finding of a violation based on the Respondent 's concealment of the super- visory status of the six leadmen and having them vote in the election. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter is before Trial Examiner James F. Foley on a complaint in the unfair labor practice Case 9-CA-3545, issued on June 11, 1965, against Respondent Jones Packing Company, herein called Respondent , and the latter's answer filed June 21, 1965, and on an order issued June 11, 1965, setting down for hearing before a Trial 159 NLRB ' No. 90. JONES PACKING COMPANY 989 Examiner a timely challenge to ballots and objections in connection with an election held on February 10, 1965, in representation Case 9-RC-6204, and consolidating this hearing with the hearing on the complaint-and answer in the unfair labor prac- tice case. I am directed to incorporate in a Decision resolutions of issues of credi- bility, findings of fact and recommendations as to the disposition of issues raised by the challenges to the ballots and the objections, and to refer the case back to the Regional Director for appropriate disposition. The complaint in the unfair labor practice proceeding is premised on a charge filed on April 14, 1965, by Local No. 236, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called the Union. The 'complaint alleges that (1) Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by creating the impression of engag- ing in surveillance of employees' union activity on January 13 and 14, 1965, inter- rogating employees in regard to their union activity on January 13 and 14, 1965; threatening employees with reprisals on January 15, 1965,• for engaging in union activity, and in a speech on February 9, 1965; threatening employees with closing the plant because of violence it would provoke the Union to commit; and (2) Respondent has refused to bargain in violation of Section: 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act since January 14, 1965, by refusing to recognize the Union as the bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of its employees, refusing to meet with the Union to discuss wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for such employees, and by engaging in the alleged 8(a)(1) illegal conduct during the Union's organizational activity. Respondent denied in its answer that is has engaged in this alleged illegal conduct. In the representation case, the Union, which is the petitioner in the representation case as well as the Charging Party in the unfair labor practice case, among other things challenged the ballots cast in the Board-conducted election in the representa- tion case of employees Dwain Lee Bell, James L. Champy, Edward Driskill, Charles Guill, Odie L. Guill, Claude J. Hutchinson, and Elton Ray. The Union and the General Counsel contend they were made foreman in late December 1964 or early January 1965 with the prerogatives of a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and, therefore, should not have voted in the election. Petitioner Union also objected to alleged conduct by these employees and top level officials of Respondent consisting of inducing rank-and-file employees to write letters with- drawing their authorization cards, giving them time off to mail the letters, and reimbursing them for postage, and to parts of a speech by Paul Jones, president of Respondent, to assembled employees on February 9, 1965, in which he is alleged to have threatened to close the plant, and to refuse to bargain and reach agreement with the Union, with the consequence of a strike with violence, if the Union won the election to be conducted by the Board the following day, February 10, 1965. These matters-in the representation case which General Counsel and Petitioner claim dissipated the Union's majority, are before me by reason of the Regional Director's order of June 11, 1965. As stated supra, I was directed by the order to resolve issues of credibility, make findings of fact, and recommend an appropriate remedy to cure the effects of conduct I would find to have occurred that interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the February 10, 1965, election.' The consolidated hearing was heard before me on August 25, 26, and 27, 1965, at Paducah, Kentucky. All parties were afforded an opportunity to offer evidence, make oral argument, and file briefs. Neither counsel for General Counsel nor Charging Party filed a brief. Counsel for Respondent filed a brief after the close of the hearing. 1. THE BUSINESS , OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Kentucky corporation with a principal office and place of business in Paducah, Kentucky, is engaged in the business of butchering hogs and cattle, and the processing-and sale of fresh and cured meats. During the calendar year 1964, Respondent purchased goods and materials with a value in excess of $50,000 from sources outside the State of Kentucky which were shipped to it in Paducah, Ken- tucky, in interstate commerce directly from points outside the State of Kentucky. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce, and in operations affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act. i This objectionable conduct Is the conduct alleged in.the unfair labor'practice complaint to violate Section 8(a) (1). 990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Organizational activity and alleged refusal to bargain On January 13, 1965, after working hours, 22 employees of Respondent assem- bled in the meeting hall of the Union in Paducah, Kentucky. Jesse DuPree, presi- dent and business manager of the Union, talked to them about the Union,. and then distributed to each of them a union card which was a combination of an application for admission to membership in the Union, and a designation of the Union as collective-bargaining representative. Twenty-one of the employees signed cards, and gave them to DuPree. The one employee present who did not sign a card was Don Franklin. Later that evening two other employees, who worked on the night shift at Respondent's plant, signed cards and gave them to DuPree. Another employee by the name of Franklin Croft signed a card either at the begin- ning of the work shift on the evening of January 13 or at the end of the shift on the morning of January 14, and gave the card to employee Bobby E. Lanier. Lanier gave the signed card to DuPree. On the afternoon of January 14, 1965, about 2 p.m., Union President DuPree had a conversation with Alfred Paul Jones, president of Respondent, and William Thomas Saxon, general manager of Respondent in the office which these two officials of Respondent shared- jointly on the second floor of Respondent's plant. DuPree handed Jones a letter signed by him, as president of the Union, and addressed to Jones as "Mr. Paul A. Jones [of] Jones Packing Company." In the letter it was stated that the Union had been designated as collective-bargaining representative by a majority of Respondent's employees in a unit including all "Truck Drivers and those employees engaged in the readying, processing, and distribution of meats and meat products, excluding guards, salesmen, Supervisors, Office and Clerical Employees." Following the statement of majority designation, the letter contained a demand for recognition of the Union as bargaining representa- tive, and a request for a meeting between Union and Respondent's representatives at Respondent's office for the purpose of negotiating a collective- bargaining con- tract. It stated 1:30 p.m. of January 14, 1965, as the time for the meeting, but provided that if this time was inconvenient, Respondent should notify the Union so that a convenient date could be agreed upon. The Union also stated that it was willing to permit a neutral person to check the authorization cards for the purpose of verifying its majority status. Jones read the letter and passed it to Saxon who also read it. DuPree suggested R. G. Mathison as a neutral party to check the authorization cards. Jones then said that he did not think the Union represented a majority of the employees, and wished to talk to his attorney who was out of town. He asked DuPree to tele- phone him that afternoon or the following day. DuPree telephoned Jones the next morning, at which time Jones said to him that his attorney was still out of town, that he needed more time, and that he thought his attorney would be back by that- afternoon . DuPree again suggested Mathison as a neutral party to check the authorization cards. Jones said he would get in touch with him that afternoon. Jones and DuPree had a conversation in the afternoon of January 15. Jones informed DuPree he would not recognize the Union, that he doubted DuPree had his employees signed up, and that he would send him a letter. Jones sent a letter to the Union dated January 15, 1965. In the letter Jones wrote that Respondent had a good-faith doubt of the majority status of the Union, and a good-faith doubt of the appropriateness of the unit which the Union claimed it represented, and for these reasons, Respondent could not recognize the claim of the Union that it was the bargaining agent of Respondent' s employees. Jones also wrote that it had come to Respondent's attention that a number of its employees had been threatened with bodily harm by the representatives of the Union, and that this situation raised the question whether the Union could have an uncoerced majority. Jones wrote further that should the Union file a petition for certification with the Board, ask that it determine what the appropriate unit was, and whether the Union represented an uncoerced majority, Respondent would be glad to cooperate with the Board in every way. On January 14, 1965, Respondent had 41 employees. General, Counsel, as does the Petitioner in the representation proceeding, contends that seven -of these JONES PACKING COMPANY 991 employees were supervisory employees within the meaning of Section (11) of the Act. As stated supra, the seven employees are Dwain Lee Bell, James L. Champy, Edward Driskill, Charles Guill, Odie L. Guill, Claude L. Hutchison, and Elton Ryan. Respondent claims these employees were not supervisors but leadmen, and were, therefore, rank-and-file employees. If the position of General Counsel and Petitioner has merit, there were 34 employees in the unit for which the Union demanded recognition on January 14, 1965. Twenty-three employees in this unit signed authorization cards on January 13, 1965, and another employee signed an authorization card either on January 13, or the early morning of January 14, 1965. Six employees who signed cards on January 13, 1965, informed the Union by letters sent on January 15, 16, 18, and 21, 1965, that they wished to cancel or revoke the cards they signed and gave to President DuPree of the Union. These employees were Kenneth Wayne Randle, James D. Harnice, Daniel P. Jackson, Donald Lee Edminson, Jerry Wayne Cunningham, and Glen E. Fortson. Randle signed another card on January 18, 1865, and then informed the Union in a letter dated January 22, 1965, that he wished to cancel or revoke this card. General Counsel contends that the cancellations or revocations of the cards were the direct result of conduct by officials and other supervisory personnel of Respondent that violated Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. This contention of General Counsel and the evidence of the events or conduct that allegedly lead to the cancellations or revoca- tions are discussed infra. _ On January 22, 1965, the Union filed a petition for certification as collective- bargaining representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers. On February 3, 1965, the Union and Respondent entered into a consent agreement for a Board-conducted election on February 10, 1965, in the employees dressing room of Respondent's plant, in a unit of Respondent's employees of "All production and maintenance employees including all truckdrivers employed at Paducah, Kentucky; Excluding office clerical employees, guards, profes- sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended." The consent- election agreement was approved by the Regional Director on February 5, 1965. The election was held on February 10, 1965. Thirty-nine employees voted. The Union challenged the votes of seven employees on the ground they were super- visors (as stated supra). Of the remaining 32, 16 were for the Union and 16 were against the Union. As previously stated, supra, the issue whether the seven employees whose votes were challenged by the Union are supervisors is before me for resolution. On February 15, 1965, the Union timely filed four objections to conduct of Respondent prior to the election which it claimed deprived the employ- ees of a free and untrammeled choice in the election. The Regional Director found part of the first objection, and all of objections two and three to be lacking in merit, and the remaining part of objection one, and objection four to raise sub- stantial and material issues of fact which could best be resolved in a hearing before a Trial Examiner. The subject matter of the part of objection one and of objec- tion four which are before me are stated supra .2 2 The part of objection one which the Regional Director found to be lacking in merit related to President Jones showing to employees when assembled on February 9, news- paper clippings containing pictures purporting to show a strike and violence at a picket line in Evansville, Indiana, of another local affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters . The Regional Director found this conduct of Respondent to be conduct the Board declines to police or censor but leaves to the good judgment of the voters to evaluate. In objection two, the Union claimed that Respondent promised the employees the same wages for a 45-hour week which they were receiving for a 50-hour week. The Regional Director found that there was no evidence to support this claim. In objection three, the Union claimed as objectionable conduct, Respondent's sending, on or about February 5, 1965 , to the employees, at their homes, a three-page document dealing with bargaining, initiation fees, monthly dues, fines, assessments , strike benefits, and economic strikes. The Union replied to this document in two notices which Re- spondent, at the Union's request, posted shortly after February 5, 1965, on the bulletin board in its plant where notices to employees were posted . The Regional Director found that Respondent's document, like the newspaper clippings, contained the type of election campaign propaganda which the Board declines to police ' or censor, but leaves to the good judgment of.the voters to evaluate , and noted that the Union had equal' opportunity to reply to the document, and did so in the two notices which Respondent posted at the Union's request. 992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The alleged supervisors As previously stated, employees Dwain Lee Bell, James L. Champy, Edward 'Driskill, Charles Guilt, Odie L. Guilt, Claude L. Hutchison, and Elton Ryan voted in the February 10, 1964, election, and the Union challenged the votes. On the list of employees as of January 14, 1964, which was stipulated in evidence by all parties Champy, Driskill, Charles Guilt, Claude Hutchison, and Elton Ryan are identified as leadmen, Bell is identified as an employee in the package room, and Odie L Guilt is identified as an employee in the order assembly room. The com- plete description of the identified leadmen are Champy, "Leadman Pork Trimmer"; Driskill, "Leadman Smoke Meats"; Charles Guilt, "Leadman Kill Floor"; Hutchi- son, "Leadman Order Assembly"; and Ryan, "Leadman Sausage Room " The identified leadmen, with the assistance of two to five employees, perform the 'work of butchering cattle and hogs, and processing the meat for distribution to retail outlets either by pickup or delivery. The leadmen work with their hands along with the employees they direct. They instruct new employees in the work being handled by their respective groups The butchering and the processing are routine operations. The employees clock in and out each day. So did the lead- men until the latter part of December 1964 or the first part of January 1965, when they were notified they were foremen They resumed clocking in and out after the union organizational activity began. The leadmen, like the other employees whom they direct, are paid on an hourly basis. Alfred Paul tones, president of Respondent, heads the overall operations, and makes the major policy decisions. William T. Saxon, plant manager, supervises the whole plant operation, and the kill room in the back of the plant. Until February 20, 1965, when he left Respondent's employ, Gene I Barlow, sales manager, was in charge of sales. Raymond Jones, a cousin of President Jones, with the title of "Beef Superintendent," also handles sales. Jones handled city sales, and Barlow, county or rural sales. Linford M. Rudd, with the title of "Office Man- ager," is in charge of the office work. Personnel problems related to plant per- sonnel are handled by Saxon, and on occasion by President Jones. Saxon visits the first floor of the plant, where the butchering, processing, packaging, and the preparation of orders take place, in the early morning, shortly before the noon break for lunch or dinner, and again in the afternoon. President Jones also visits the first floor of the plant. However, there may be 1 or 2 days in the week when he will not appear. From January 1963 to May 1964, Jones took a course in business administration at Peabody College in Nashville. Tennessee He attended classes 3 days a week. During this period he was frequently absent. When a particular assignment, whether beef boning, pork trimming, preparing sausage, hams, etc., is finished, the routine policy is for the employees to assist in other assignments where work remains to be done Saxon is informed by the leadmen who need additional help. He will instruct the other leadmen to furnish one or two of the employees in their respective groups to the leadmen needing the assistance, after their work is finished. There are times when a leadman, in accordance with established policy, will arrange with a leadman needing assistance to have some of his men help him and the employees in his group Often the lead- man himself will go along with another he selects. Each group normally does not finish its own work until sometime after the noon break, so employees are not available for assignment elsewhere until that time. Absences from work are reported directly to the offices on the second floor.3 Requests for leave are made to the second floor offices, and granted or denied by Saxon or President Jones. President Jones and Saxon do the hiring and firing. There is little need for the exercise of independent judgment below the level of Saxon and President Jones as the work is of a routine nature. It appears from the evidence that the truck- drivers make up orders and deliver on the basis of the time the orders reach the order room, and any decisions requiring substantial independent judgment are made by Barlow or Jones, or if absent, the leadman in charge at the particular time. He was Claude Hutchison on January 14, 1964. If a large order has to be made up, the leadman may call out the items to be prepared , and assign them to 8 On the second floor there is an office shared by Rudd, the office manager, and a secre- tary by the name of Dorothy Ham. There is another office on the second floor which is shared by President Jones and Plant Manager Saxon There is an office on the first floor. This was used by Barlow and Raymond Jones in connection with the selling phase of the business. JONES PACKING,•COMPANY 993 'particular, employees; to'avoid duplication.' The';rank-and-file employees - recognize the leadmen as their bosses, -and the persons= from whom they should -receive instructions. - In the latter part of December -1964,, or about January 1, .1965, Saxon' called Champy,, Driskill, Charles Guill, Hutchison, Ryan, and Bell to a meeting, and informed them that they were : to be, foremen, and have the. authority to recom- mend hiring and firing,, and that they would receive a raise in pay. They received an increase from $6'5 'to $1.82 on the next paycheck .4 A' notice to all employees was placed on, the bulletin board at this time, either by Saxon 'or at his direction, in which the employees, were informed' that Champy, 'Driskill, Charles Guill, Hutchison, Ryan, and Bell were promoted' to foremen, and had the authority to recommend hiring and firing. The employee's were instructed in the notice to take 'their problems to these identified foremen-5. On January 14, 1965, or about that tithe,' the notice was removed from- the bulletin, board: As described infra, Barlow, Saxon, and President Jones, and other supervisory'personnel, initiated a campaign immediately 'foll'owing the union meet- ing in the evening of 'January 13, 1965, to coerce' employees who signed- authoriza- tion cards to withdraw, cancel, or to revoke them. Saxon testified that the notice of, the new foremen was ,posted on, the `bulletin board- alongside a notice of a no- solicitation rule, and that, the foremen notice and' other material, 'with the exception of the notice of the, no-solicitation rule, were removed in accordance with Presi- dent Jones' instructions, so that the no-solicitation rule would stand out clearly on the bulletin board, and could be plainly seen by everyone. No one in management ,had a copy of the foremen notice, and both Jones and Saxon had difficulty in recalling what the notice said. Saxon had drafted ' it. President Jones' testified, that at the time of the promotions, management was making an effort to get closer to the employees. Saxon testified that he told the .leadmen at the meeting in which he informed them he was-making them foremen, that he needed their 'assistance in the work -assignments that he would hand down, and to help him watch for people goofing-off on the job. He denied that he told them -they had the authority- to hire and fire or to make recommendations with respects to hiring and firing. As, stated 'above, I credit the testimony that he informed the new foremen they had the authority to-recommend hiring and firing. It is undisputed that between the time of the announcement to the leadmen that they were foremen, in the first part of January 1965, to the time when the notice of the promotion was iemoved from the 'bulletin board after the union meeting on January 13, 1965, and when the Union demanded recognition on January 14, 71965, the six new foremen ceased using the timecards on' which their arrivals and departures from the plant were clocked, and that following, the removal of the notice from the bulletin board they resumed use of the timecards, and the clock- ing of their arrivals and departures on these cards, as they had done prior to the announcement they were foremen. There is nothing in the record to show that the status given to Champy, Driskill, Charles Guill, Hutchison, Ryan, and Bell has been withdrawn. President Jones, who was not in Paducah, Kentucky, at the time Saxon promoted the six leadmen to, foremen, and who never saw the notice, testi- fied they were not able to handle the foremen jobs. As an illustration, President Jones referred to the transfer of Bell from order assembly to the packaging room around February 1, 1965, allegedly, because of inability to do the order assembly work. However, he admitted that Bell was a 10 to 12 year employee, and that he personally bad-seen Bell working in other areas of the plant doing "beef fabrication, .cutting pork chops, slicing hog liver, slicing beef liver." In contrast to President -Jones, who was away from the plant for a good part of the time from September, a Odie L. Guill and Earl Otha `Nihon were raised to $1.75 about the same time The hourly ,rate' of the other employees ragged from $1.25 to $1.60 , with the majority in the area of $1:30 to $1.45. , 6It is undisputed that Saxon informed the ,six employees previously considered' to be leadmen on or about January 1, 1965 , that they were promoted to foremen , and would receive a raise in pay , and that the rank-and-file employees were notified at the same time by a notice on the bulletin board that these leadmen were, to be foremen . I credit the testimony of Champy and Charles - Guill that the six leadmen were informed that they had the authority to recommend hiring and firing ,, and that the 'notice so stated and that the: rank-and-file employees were instructed in, the notice to take their problems to their -new foremen - - „ 243-084-67=vol. 159-64 . „ -994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1963 to the latter part of May 1964, Saxon, who made the promotions, and who had personal knowledge of the caliber of Bell's work and the work of the other five he appointed as foremen, gave no testimony that would indicate the promotions were withdrawn, or that the six he promoted lacked ability to act as foreman.6 . C. Withdrawal, cancellation, or revocation of authorization cards On January 15, 1965, employees Harnice and Randle; on January 16, 1965, employees Jackson and Edminson; on January 18, 1965, employee Cunningham; and on January 21, 1965, employee Fortson, wrote, signed, and sent by registered mail to President DuPree of the Union, letters in which they withdrew, canceled, or revoked the authorization cards they signed and handed to DuPree on Jan- uary 13, 1965 (supra). On January 22, 1965, employee Randle wrote, addressed, and mailed by registered mail a second letter canceling, withdrawing, or revoking the authorization card which he signed and gave to DuPree on January 18, 1965. The withdrawal letters follow the same pattern. As disclosed below, the format was suggested by President Jones, Plant Manager Saxon, and Sales Manager Barlow.? In the evening of January 13, 1965, following the meeting of the Union, Sales Manager Barlow called on employee Harnice at his home. Barlow said he heard Harnice was at the union meeting, and asked him if he signed a card. Harnice answered that he had not signed a card, and Barlow replied he hoped he would stay with the Company. On the morning of January 14, 1965, Barlow talked to employee Mc Elrath as well as a number of other employees in the first floor office. The employees went in separately. Barlow said to Mc Elrath there was no use in asking if he signed a card as he knew who signed them.8 Barlow asked Mc Elrath if he knew what he was doing, and if he wanted a union in the plant. He gave his opinion of the reputation of the "Teamsters," and then said he did not want to tell him what to do, but wanted him to realize what was involved in getting a union in the plant. Employee Stevens also had a conversation with Barlow on the morning of January 14 in the downstairs office. After referring to the meeting of the Union the previous evening, Barlow asked him if he attended it. Stevens said he had heard about the meeting, but did not disclose whether he attended. Later the same morning, Barlow called him and employee Billy Jarrell to the office upstairs. He asked them if they went to the union meeting, and if they signed the union cards. They admitted doing both. He said he hoped they knew whether they were doing the right thing. Sometime before 3:30 p.m. on January 15, 1965, employee Harnice visited Bar- low in the office on the first floor of the plant, and said to him that he had changed his mind, and would like to have his card back. Barlow said he was glad he felt that way, and asked him to go upstairs and tell President Jones. Harnice and Bar- low went to Jones' office on the second floor. Jones and Saxon were already there. Harnice asked Jones for the way to go about withdrawing his card. Jones told him to go to the office of the Union. He did go to that office, but decided not to go in, and to write a letter instead. He returned to the plant, and to Jones' office. Jones, Saxon, and Barlow gave him suggestions as to how to write the withdrawal letter to the Union. He incorporated the suggestions in a letter. Barlow, Saxon, or Jones told him to take the money for the postage from the cash register, which he did. Barlow, in his automobile, drove him to the post office where he registered and mailed the letter.9 On January 15, 1965, employee Randle wrote a withdrawal letter to the Union withdrawing, canceling, or revoking the card he signed on January 13, 1965. Employee Odie Guill, and Don Franklin, the truckdriver who attended the Janu- ary 13 union meeting but did not sign a card, talked to Randle in the downstairs 8 President Jones was obviously improvising when testifying for Respondent. His con- cltrsionary statements are not supported by the evidence. He attempted to disavow re- sponsibility for Bell's illegal conduct (supro), by claiming he did not have supervisory status when he committed it. 4 The testimony of General Counsel's witnesses of Respondent 's interference with the signing of cards is unrebutted. 8 President Jones testified that Respondent's officials knew on the afternoon of Jan- uary 13, that a meeting would be held that evening. u Harnice operated the cash register in the first floor office . By instruction from representatives of Respondent, he reimbursed from the cash register three or four other employees for the cost of registering and mailing the withdrawal letters. JONES PACKING COMPANY 995 office prior to his decision to write the letter. Guill accompanied Randle to Jones' ,office on the second floor where he helped him prepare the letter . Guill drove Ran- dle to the post office in Barlow's automobile , where Randle registered and mailed the letter. Franklin re1nbursed Randle for the cost of the postage . As stated (supra), Randle signed another union card on January 18, but decided on Janu- ary 21 to withdraw it. He wrote the withdrawal letter at his home during the noon recess. He went to the post office "on his own," and paid the postage from his personal funds. He was not reimbursed. On ,January 16, 1965, between 9 and 10 a.m., Sales Manager Barlow asked employee Edminson if he wished to withdraw the, card he signed on January 13, 1965 . Edminson said he did. Barlow then brought Edminson to Jones' office on -the second floor, where he helped him prepare ,a withdrawal letter. Barlow asked him if he had made up his mind, saying that he did not wish him to do anything he did not want to do. He took about 15 to 30 minutes to write the letter. His prior conversation with Barlow lasted about 15 minutes . Don Franklin, in his own car, drove him to the post office where he registered and mailed the letter. He paid for the postage from his own personal funds, and was not reimbursed. On the evening of January 14 or 15, 1965, Edminson talked to Dwain Bell, a friend, about the Union. Bell said to him that it would sit better with the Company if he withdrew the card. He also talked to employee Dickerson on January 15 about representation by the Union . Dickerson said that anyone who voted against the Union would be lucky to get to a hospital , and that the Union would know how the employees voted at the time of the election. On January 16, 1965, employee Jackson, with the assistance of employee Har- nice, wrote a withdrawal letter to the Union . Harnice took money from the cash register which he gave to Jackson for postage, and then drove Jackson to the post office, where Jackson registered and mailed the letter . The preparation of the let- ter followed a conversation Jackson had with Dwain Bell, employee Odie Guill, and -employees Otha Wilson, Harnice, and Franklin. They told him that the older employees would not be able to find jobs if the plant closed down , and that if he withdrew or canceled the authorization card , unlike those who did not, he would probably have a part-time job until the plant opened up , and he could draw unem- ployment compensation during the time of the plant closing . The whole transac- tion took 45 minutes to an hour of company time. On January 18, 1965, about 9 a.m., employee Cunningham wrote a withdrawal letter to the Union in President Jones ' office. President Jones and Plant Manager Saxon were present, and helped him write the letter . Franklin drove him to the post office where he registered and mailed the letter . Before leaving, Franklin told him the employees were being paid out of the cash register for the cost of register- ing and mailing the withdrawal letters . When Cunningham returned from the post office, he was reimbursed by Franklin for the cost of the ,postage. This was all done during working time. On January 14 or 15 , 1965, Cunningham had a con- versation with employee Vance about representation by the Union . Vance said to him that something would happen to anybody who tried to back out of his authori- zation to have the Union represent him. That same day Cunningham went to the office on the second floor ,shared by Saxon and President Jones, and asked Saxon what. could be done about withdrawing the authorization card . Saxon told him he ithought a letter could be written , and that he would see about it. On January 21 , 1965, between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon, employee Fort- son wrote a withdrawal letter with Sales Manager Barlow 's assistance. He first .talked to Barlow from 20 to 30 minutes. He spent about 10 to 15 minutes writing the letter. In the conversation prior to the signing, Barlow said to Fortson that the main thing was for the employees to write the letters , and get their cards back, and that he would appreciate Fortson signing such a letter. On January 20, 1965, Dwain Bell had a conversation with employee Mc Elrath on the loading platform about the union activity. He said to the latter that it would be better if he wrote a letter to get his card back , as the Company would win in the long run, and when the final result was in , it would be better to be known as one who had been on the Company side. As Bell and Mc Elrath were talking, Sales Manager Barlow approached , and said that "they had the thing licked as employees were coming back to the Company ." He asked Mc Elrath if he knew how to write a letter, and if he could help. He said that Mc Elrath should think about his family, and save himself. Mc Elrath said he would think about the mat- ter, and let him know. He decided not to withdraw his authorization card. As stated supra, employee Cunningham asked Saxon on January 15 how to go about getting his authorization card back following his conversation with employee 996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Vance. Vance had. said to him that something would happen to anyone who backed out of. his authorization to the Union. Employee Edminson testified (supra) that on January 15, 1965, employee Dickerson said to him that anyone who voted against the Union would be lucky to get ,to a hospital,,afd that the Union would know at the time of the election how the employees voted. Cunningham testified that his communication with the official of Respondent after he talked with Vance was to ask Saxon how he could get his card back.. , Edminson testified that he reported his conversation with Dickerson to Bell or Saxon. Presi- dent Jones testified that in his presence and in the presence of Saxon, Bell, and Bar- low, at 9 a.m. on January 15, 1965, Cunningham and Edminson related what Vance had said to him, but did not disclose that Vance and Dickersone made the statements. According to Jones, he told Cunningham and Edminson' that he was of the opinion that the employees who made the statements were bluffing, but that he would convey,this information to his attorney, and that he did not discuss the statements with his attorney. D., President Jones' February 9, 1965 speech President, Jones gave a speech at.2 p.m. on February 9, 1965, in the employees' ,dressing room of the plant to 30 to 35 employees who had assembled at his, request. The election was-held on February 10, 1965, starting at 3 p.m. Every- one in the plant was present at the speech except Dwain Bell and some of the truckdrivers. Bell was assigned to the front of the plant to which the public had_ access.ia 1. Background evidence General Counsel elicited testimony from 6 witnesses of the 25 witnesses he- called. A seventh witness, employee Stevens, was asked if he was present at- the- speech, and he answered, "Yes." He was not asked to testify regarding the subject matter of the speech. The six employees who gave the testimony regarding the subject matter of the speech were employees Marshall, Lanier, Fortson, Randle, Edminson, and Dickerson. At the time of the hearing, August 25 to 27, 1965, only Stevens and Randle were employed by Respondent. Marshall, Lanier, Fortson, and Dickerson were laid off on February 17, 1965, as part of a reduction-in-force. Edminson left Respondent's employ voluntarily in March 1965. Edminson 'had informed Respondent's officials on January 14 or 15, 1965, that Dickerson had said to him that anyone who voted against the Union would be lucky to get to a hospi- tal and that the Union would know at the time of the election how the employees voted. The record does not show where the employees no longer working for Respondent were employed at the time of the hearing, or whether they were mem- bers of or represented by' the Union or any- other labor organization. President Jones was Respondent's only witness in regard to the subject matter of his speech. His only corroborating evidence is documentary evidence consisting of the two bul- letins prepared by President DuPree of the Union which he, at DuPree's request, posted on Respondent's bulletin board sometime between February 6 or 7 and Feb- ruary 9, 1965 (supra), and a letter dated February 8, 1965, which he sent to all, employees and posted on Respondent's bulletin board on February 8, 1965. ii As stated, the Union objected to the speech as conduct preventing a free choice by the employees in the election . It was also a basis for the Union ' s charge of violations of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act . The Union 's objection in the representation case is: On February 9, 1965 at 2: 00 p.m Paul Jones, President of the Company called and held a meeting of the employees of the plant and told the employees, there assembled, that if the Union won the election he would have to close the plants door, and they could take this statement as a threat, or a statement' or anything they chose. During said meeting Mr. Jones exhibited pictures to the employees , there assembled, showing fights , supposedly men on picket lines, and of men beat up. He stated that this was Teamster violence on picket lines , and, that if the Union won the election, he would not agree to anything ; and, therefore , a strike would be called and that- things like shown in the pictures would happen if the Union won the election. The Union's unfair labor practice charge of April 14, 1965, charges Respondent with in- terfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act by threats of reprisal, promises of benefits , and interrogations- as to the employees ' -union activities , membership, or voting intentions. JONES PACKING COMPANY 997 In the February 8- letter, 'Jones stated that from the many expressions of loyalty and friendship he received from, the employees during the organizational campaign, he knew, contrary to his prior fears, that the Union had fooled very few of them into" voting for it:-, He asked each employee"to„vote as the results were determined by a majority of those voting, and that "Many outsiders" were looking at the employees and Respondent in connection with the election. He asked for a vote against the Union by "a real wide margin" so that they could get back to work, and keep Respondent competing with its hungry' competition. . Jones then, stated that there would be no discrimination against employees after the election, and that everyone was' free to vote as he wished. Respondent contends that the two' bulletins prepared by President DuPree and posted by Jones on Respondent's bulletin board contained statements which Jones endeavored to answer in his February 9 speech. As previously stated (supra), the two bulletins- were DuPree's response to a letter which Jones distributed to the employees on February 5, 1965, (supra). , Since Jones''letter of February 5, 1965, was received by the employees on February 6, or at the earliest date on the day of February 5, if it was,delivered by hand, at- the plant, the two bulletins were not posted at the plant until February, 7, 1965, at the earliest, and very likely not until Jones had'distributed his February 8 letter. , The contents of this letter indicates that Jones was unaware of the contents of the bulletins when he prepared it. DuPree, in the first bulletin, responded to what he referred to as the most often stated myths concerning the "Teamsters Union." , There were two myths, namely, "Exorbitant demands will put the company out of business"; and "We will call you out on strike:" DuPree stated that the employees of a company tell the union what to ask for when it negotiates with a company, and that "the offer which the com- pany makes is brought back to the employees who vote to accept or reject it. He then stated that none of the officers of the Union could call the employees out on strike, that before a strike is called at a place of business the majority of its employ- ees must vote by secret ballot to strike, ,and unless the employees tell the officials of the Union to strike, they could not, and would not calla strike. DuPree concluded with the statements that the employees would be the boss, that he would` act on their instructions; when they voted they would not be voting for or against him, but for or against themselves; and'to vote yes in the election if they would rather have a written guarantee than an oral promise, or the collective strength of the Union rather than be by themselves. In the second bulletin, DuPree listed questions he stated were in Jones' letter of February 5, and gave answers to these questions . In answer to a stated question whether a company has to agree to the demands of a union, DuPree stated "No," but added that a law forces the Respondent to negotiate in good faith, which meant that many of their demands "will be agreed to" by Respondent. The next stated question was whether a strike resulted when a company did not agree to the demands of a union. His answer was that the decision to strike or not to strike was, left to the employees to decide, that they "must" vote to strike before a strike could be called. He"added that 99 percent of Teamsters Union contracts were "set- tled without a, strike." In answer to a stated question whether the Union cost money, DuPree,stated that the initiation fee was $5, and the monthly dues were $6, and that for the dues, the employees received the collective strength of the Union, plus a $500 death benefit, and that while he could not guarantee it, "a raise in pay, more than enough to offset these dues ." He denied there were any assessments. In this second bulletin, DuPree next replied to a stated question as to whether employees were paid when the Union called them out on strike. He stated that if the employees voted to strike, and went out on strike, each employee would receive $25 per week. DuPree's next statement was that he would not insult the intelli- gence of the employees by answering other charges of Respondent such as the one that the Union could cause an employee to lose his job if he voted against it. He added that the Union could not and would not do so, and by the same token the Respondent could not fire an employee for' voting for the Union. DuPree con- -eluded with the statements that the employees knew the facts, that they should talk to members of a union, and ask themselves the questions, "Why Union plants have more job security and make more money with better working conditions than those non-union plants?" and "If the Company was not afraid they would have to give you more money and better working conditions, why would they be fighting the Union so hard, with an imported lawyer and a mailing campaign?" These statements were followed by the words in capital letters, "VOTE TO BETTER YOURSELF," "VOTE YES." 998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Testimony of General Counsel's witnesses Employee Marshall testified Jones said that if the Union won the election he would have to close the plant's door, and that the employees could take his state- ment anyway they chose . After showing the employees photographs in newspaper clippings of a strike with violence in Evansville , Indiana, by members of a sister local of Teamsters, Jones said it looked to him like peace or violence. After a col- loquy between counsel and me, cotinsel 'for.General Counsel asked Marshall what Jones said in connection with the,`newspaper clippings , and he replied that Jones said that if the Union won the election he would not agree to anything, and there- fore a strike might be called, and violence like in the photographs in the news- paper clipping might result, and he didn't want that kind of violence in the plant. There was no cross-examination. On direct examination, employee Lanier testified that Jones said they were going to have an election the next day, and if they were all out to break him to vote for the Union .and he would have to close the doors. Jones made reference to a rumor that he had imported a lawyer, then he showed the newspaper clippings (described above), and said that the reason he was importing a lawyer was he was afraid that if the Union went in, violence like. in the newspaper photographs would happen, and he would not agree to anything, and there would be a strike . Jones also said the employees could vote anyway they wanted to. On cross-examination, Lanier testified that Jones discussed assessments by the Union, and said that assessment were keeping Hoffa out of jail. He then testified that Jones discussed the statements DuPree had made about the' way ' eniployees were called out on strike, that Jones claimed that it was not the majority of the employees who made the decision , since it would be the majority of those voting, and he did not know the number that made up a quorum . Lanier also admitted that Jones may have said the Union might make a great demand he could not meet. He testified Jones said he imported a lawyer because he was afraid of a strike, and repeated his testimony on direct that Jones said if the Union won the election there would be ' a strike because he would not agree to anything the Union demanded. Lanier sought to explain this statement by saying that Jones said if the Union won the election he would not agree to anything, and more than likely there would be a strike which there generally is "when you can't meet their demands and come to an agreement." ' ' Employee Fortson testified Jones said that if the employees were out to break him to vote for the Union, that if the Union won he would not agree to anything, there would be a strike , and violence like in the newspaper clippings would result, which he did not want to happen . On cross-examination, he admitted that Jones said something about James Hoffa, the president of,the Teamsters, and also said that some -of the things DuPree stated in his bulletins were lies. ' Employee Randle testified that Jones said Respondent was in bad financial shape and could not stand a union, and that if the Union came in he would not agree to a contract, and there would be a strike with violence like the- violence shown in the newspaper photographs , which he did not want to happen. On cross- examination, Randle adhered to his testimony on direct examination. Employee- Edminson,- who •was,-not present for all of the speech, ,testified that Jones showed the newspaper clippings with the pictures of a strike accompanied with violence, and said that what was in the photographs could happen; that if the Union came in, he could not see his way clear to agree to ' any sort of contract. He asked the employees why they did not come to him instead of going to an out- sider, and said he knew they had differences, and that the Respondent and the employees were not in close contact. He explained that this latter situation existed because Respondent was in bad financial shape, and the officials were spending their time trying to bring it up to par. There was no cross-examination. Employee Dickerson testified Jones said it was the day before the election, they could vote anyway they pleased, that if the Union won they would close the doors because he was not financially able to accept the Union, and that a strike with violence like in the newspaper clippings would result. He also said he was afraid of, the Union. There-was no'cross-examination. 3. President Jones' testimony Jones testified that he began his speech by trying "to clear up" what Union President DuPree stated in the bulletins that were posted between February 7 and 9, 1965. He referred to DuPree's statement that the majority of the employees, TONES PACKING COMPANY 999' and not DuPree, would decide when there should be a strike. Jones' reply was that DuPree would decide when there would be a strike, and not the employees, and that a majority of the employees may not be present when the strike vote is taken. Jones next referred to DuPree's statement of what the employee members would receive when they went out on strike. He said that only the strikers who did picket duty would receive strike benefits, and that union dues would be deducted from the amount of the benefits. Jones testified that he•discussed, the reputation of the.tTeamsters Union., He said that Hoffa was head of the` 't'eamsters Union,' and that he broke the law. In his opinion, such a situation did not speak well for the Teamsters. He then remarked that Hoffa was being kept out of jail because of voluntary assessments on the mem- bers. Jones referred to DuPree's question in the second bulletin that if Respondent was not afraid to give the employees more money and better working conditions, why should it be fighting a union so hard with an important lawyer and a mailing campaign? Jones answer to this position of DuPree was that he was not afraid for those reasons, but because, in his opinion, the Teamsters had a reputation for violence, that he did not want violence, and was afraid for the employees, and did not want happening the violence shown in photographs of a strike with violence in newspaper clippings which he showed to the employees." Jones also testified that he sent the letter of February 8, 1965, to each of the employees, and said in his speech that the employees had a right to vote as they wished. Jones denied he said anything about closing the plant. He testified that it was his livelihood, that, he had-been-in its all his life. He, denied that he, said that if the employees wanted to break him they should vote for the Union. He testified that he said that the financial condition of the Respondent was bad, and in reference to DuPree's statement in the second bulletin that he would get them a raise to offset the union dues of $6 per month and the $5 initiation fee, and said that DuPree indi- cated he would ask for more money, but Respondent could not afford more than it was paying. According to Jones, he said this could be easily proven, that they lost money and their overdraft was substantial. Jones also denied that he said if the Union won the election, and demanded that Respondent sign a contract, that he would not sign a contract, and there would be a strike and violence would occur in the course of the strike. Conclusions of Fact From evaluation of the substantive and demeanor testimony of General Coun- sel's witnesses and that of President Jones, and the documentary evidence of Jones' February 8 letter and DuPree's two bulletins that Jones posted on the employees' bul- letin board at DuPree's request, viewed against the background of Respondent's con- duct prior to the Union's filing of the petition of certification, and other background evidence, I make the conclusions of fact stated in the following paragraph President Jones opened his speech to the assembled employees by observing that the election was the following day, and stating that they could vote anyway they pleased, but if they wanted to break him they ought to vote for the Union. He then said that he wanted to clear up some statements made by DuPree in the bulletins. Jones referred. to DuPree'.s..statement in-the first bulletin that, the .majority of, the employees, and not he, would decide when there should be a strike, and in response said that DuPree would make the decision, and that when a strike vote was taken a majority of the employees may not be present. In reference to DuPree's statement in the second bulletin about strike benefits, Jones said that only strikers who did picket duty would receive benefits, and that union dues would be deducted from the amount of the benefits. Jones next referred to DuPree's statement in the second bulletin that while he could not guarantee it, the Union would get the employees a raise at least in the amount of the monthly dues. Jones said in response that it was evident that the Union would demand increases if it won the election, but that Respondent could not pay any more than it was paying, and this could be easily proven as it had lost money and had a substantial overdraft. Jones then referred to DuPree's statement in the second bulletin, expressed in a rhetorical question, thatr-Respondent' was fighting the Union hard with an- imported lawyer because it was afraid to give the employees more money. He answered it by saying that he was not afraid for this reason, but was afraid of strikes and what might happen to the employees. He said that the Teamsters had a Teputation for violence, and at this point showed the employees the newspaper clippings' containing "The photographs were of a strike by a' local of the Teamsters in Evansillle ' Indiana. 1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD photographs of a strike and attendant violence of -a Teamsters' local in Evansville, Indiana. Jones continued with the statement that Respondent could not sign a•con- tract, with the result that there would be a strike with the violence shown in the. newspaper clippings, and he did not want this violence in the plant. Jones also said that Hoffa was head of the Teamsters' Union, and he had broken the law, and, in his-opinion, this did not speak well for the Union. He said further that Hoffa was being kept out of jail by assessments on the Teamsters' members. Analysis and Concluding Findings Supervisors I conclude and find that since the latter part of December 1964 or the first few days of January 1965, employees Dwain Lee Bell, James L. , Champy, Edward Driskill, Charles Guill, Claude Hutchinson, and Elton Ryan have been supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Section 2(11) is: The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward,- or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances of effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. The Board and the courts have held that in Section 2(11) each of the duties of a supervisor- is stated in the disjunctive, and standing alone identifies a supervisor.12 Moreover, leadmen as well as foremen may be supervisors if they exercise any one of the authorities stated in Section 2(11).13 Plant Manager Saxon told the six employees named above that they were being made foremen, and would receive a raise in pay, and had the authority to recommend the hiring or firing of employees, and in a notice posted on the bulletin board for employees shortly thereafter, Saxon listed the names of the six employees, and stated that they were being made fore- men, and had the authority to recommend hiring and firing, and for rank-and-file employees to take their problems to them. The six employees received a raise from $1 65 per hour to $1.82 per hour in the next paycheck. Saxon testified that the purpose in making the six employees foremen was to obtain greater assistance from them in the carrying out of the work assignments he would 'hand down, and to have greater control and check of the employees to enable them to spot employees who were "goofing off." The statements Saxon made to the six employees, and those he made in the notice posted on the bulletin board, and his explanation at the hearing for his action of promoting them to the status of foremen, the substantial increase in wages they received when promoted, and their discontinuance, at Saxon's direction, of the use of timecards to record their arrivals and departures from the plant when promoted, constitute convincing evidence that Saxon vested these six employees with the authority both to responsibly direct the rank-and-file employees, and to effec- tively recommend the hiring and firing of employees. I am also persuaded by the evidence that Respondent by the promotions was making an effort to get closer to the employees. If the six were not made supervisors, Saxon would have had to continue to exercise detailed supervision over some 41 employees in a number of departments involved in a variety of tasks.14 I find that Saxon's action, at Jones' direction, in removing the notice from the bulletin board of the promotion of the six employees shortly after the union meet- ing of January 13, and the demand for recognition on January 14, and Respond- ent's instruction shortly afterward to the six employees that they resume reporting their arrivals and departures by the use of timecards, disclose that Saxon believed that these six-employees were supervisors, and that the evidence of this status had to be removed if Respondent was to disclaim responsibility for the efforts of the six to dissipate the Union's majority, and if the six were to have the color of right 12 James H. Matthews & Co. v. N.L.R .B., 342 F.2d 129 (C.A. 8), enfg. 149 NLRB 161, 171. 19 Id at 2072; N.L.R.B. v. Hamilton Plastic Molding Co., 312 F.2d 723 ( C.A. 6), enfg. as mod. 135 NLRB 371; N.L.R.B: v. Inland Motor Corp. of Vsrgin3a, 322 F.2d 457 (C.A. 4), enfg. 138 NLRB 516; Croum•,Aluminum Industries Corp. V. N.L.R .B., 352 F.2d 84 (C.A. 3), enfg. 150 NLRB 58. 14 Jas-H. Matthews & Co., V. N.L.R.B., supra; N.L.R.B. v.. Inland Motor„Corp. of, Vir- ginia, supra; N.L.R.B. v. Hamilton Plastic Molding Co ., supra. JONES -PACKING COMPANY 1001 to vote as rank-and-file employees in a Board-conducted election. This finding is a reasonable inference from the evidence of the timing of the removal of the notice and the resumption of use of the timecards, in relation to the union meet- ing on January 13, the demand on January 14, the filing of the petition for certifi- cation on January 22, and to Respondent's campaign to coerce the employees to withdraw, cancel, or revoke- their authorization cards which started on the evening of January 13 immediately after the union meeting. - Interference With, Coercion, and Restraint Respondent attempted to dissipate the majority, representation of the Union, start- ing with Sales Manager Saxon's visit to, employee Harnice's home on January 13, 1965, to interrogate him about the union meeting, and including his-boast to Fore- man Bell on January 20 in the presence of employee Mc Elrath that Respondent had the Union's. organizational campaign licked, and the employees were coming back to the Company, and his interrogation of Mc Elrath as to whether he could write a letter to the Union withdrawing his authorization to it to act as bargaining representative. In between these dates Supervisors Barlow, Saxon, Jones, Bell, and Agent Don Franklin (supra) threatened, coerced, and- restrained employees to induce them to withdraw the authorizations they gave to the Union to act as their bargaining representative, by interrogation, threats, and promises of benefit, and giving the appearance of engaging in surveillance,, and controlled the preparation and mailing of the letters of withdrawal. During work hours, and in the offices of Respondent, they told the employees what to include in the letters, and had the letters written. Also during working hours, they transported employees by auto- mobile to the post office to register and mail the letters. And they reimbursed them for the cost of the postage. This conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.15 I also find violative, of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, Respondent's concealment of the supervisory status of the six supervisors, and having them vote in the Febru- ary 10 election. The notice of their appointment, as supervisors was removed from the bulletin board, at-or about the time of the demand for recognition, but no notice was given to the employees that the appointment was withdrawn or revoked. Nor is there any evidence that the six.ceased acting in accordance with their appointment. When the other` employees saw the six voting, they saw that Respondent was attempting to "rig" the election against the Union.' This conduct clearly conveyed a threat to employees who ,intended to vote for the Union, and constitutes interference with, coercion, and restraint of employees with respect to, the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.16 The February 9, 1965, Speech I have found that President Jones in a speech on February, 9, 1965, stated among other things, that if, the -Union won, the election Respondent could not enter into ,a contract with it, and the refusal would cause a strike" with, violence, and he did not want this happening in the plant. For reasons stated below I find this state- ment to constitute a threat, and a violation of,Section" 8(a) (1) of the Act. Jones showed to the employees newspaper clippings containing photographs, of violence during a strike in Evansville, Indiana, by another local of the Teamsters, as part of this statement. The Regional Director found, in disposing of an objection in the representation proceeding (supra), that the showing of the newspaper clippings was permissible campaign activity. The showing of newspaper clippings, and Jones' comment on prior coercive conduct of the Teamsters Union as well as the other statements made by Jones in the speech are within the bounds of fair com- ment in an organizational campaign preceding an election, and do not constitute a. threat or promise of benefit.' , Irving Air Chute Company, Inc., 627, enfd 350 F.2d 176 (C.A. 2) ; Cum- berland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268, erifd . 351 F 2d 917 (C A 6) ; Jas H. Matthews & Co., 149 NLRB 161, enfd. 354 F.2d 432 (C.A. 8) ; H. W. Elson Bottling Company, 155 NLRB 714; Dixie Color Printing Corp, 156 NLRB 1431 ; Benson Veneer Company, Inc, 156 NLRB 782; Mock Road Super Duper Inc, 156 NLRB 9k; Dubois Fence d Garden Co., Inc., 156 NLRB 1003. la See Clausen Baking Company, 134 NLRB 111; Performance Meassrements Co., Inc, 149 NLRB 1451. 11 General Industrials Electronics Company, -1'521 NLRB 1029; Central Freight Lines, 133 NLRB 393, 402, 407. 1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I have evaluated Jones' statement I have found violative of the Act in the con- text of the speech in which it was made against-the background of his conduct and that of other officials of Respondent during the period from January 13 to 21, 1965, when they attempted to dissipate the majority of the Union, and to conceal the supervisory status of six employees so they could vote in the election, and "rig it" against the Union. This coercive conduct includes statements referring to preferences for part time employment employees who withdrew their authorizations would have during a shutdown if the Union won the election, and obtaining unem- ployment compensation. Upon such an evaluation, I interpret and find that Jones' statement conveyed to the employees the meaning that if the Union won the election, it would demand a contract with a wage increase, and would not recede from this demand, that he could not enter into such a contract with, the Union, and the Union would, thereupon strike"with''violence,-and-,he-would- not,. let-such a situation happen. By his reasoning, the only' way he' could prevent' the'violence would be to shut down the plant. Jones was saying in effect that the plant would be shut down if the Union won the election. It was a gratuitous assumption by Jones to state as a foregone conclusion that there would have to be a wage increase before 'agreement could be reached on a contract. There certainly was a possibility that the Union 'would withdraw a demand for a wage increase on a showing by Respondent in negotiations of a bad financial condition., It was also a gratuitous assumption that an economic strike by the Union to support wage increase demands would be accompanied by violence. The threats to Edminson and Cunningham by Vance and Dickerson were isolated, and provoked by Respondent's coercion, and were not condoned or ratified by the Union or DuPree. DuPree's temperate statements in his bulletins, and his demeanor on the witness stand, indicate- that violence- would be absent-,,rather, than present if a strike was called. Jones' readiness to attribute the worst to the Union and its president, although lacking evidence to support this position, while he and Respond- ent's other officials engaged in illegal conduct, support the finding I have made that Jones statement was a threat, and understood by the employees as a threat, by reason of their awareness of the illegal conduct.18 The Refusal to Bargain As previously found, supra, section III, A, Union President DuPree, on Janu- ary 14, 1965, demanded of Respondent's President Jones that Respondent recognize the Union as collective-bargaining representative of a unit of employees of all pro- duction and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, and excluding guards, salesmen, supervisors and office and clerical employees. The Union also offered to permit a neutral person to check its authorization cards to verify its majority status. I have also found (supra) that President Jones on January 14 said to DuPree that he did not think the Union represented a majority, but that he wished to talk to his attorney, who was out of town. When DuPree telephoned Jones on the morning.^of January 15, Jones- said he, needed more time,,and,thought•his-,,attorney would be back that afternoon. On that afternoon, however, in another telephone conversation, Jones informed DuPree the Respondent would not recognize the Union as he doubted DuPree "had his employees signed up," and that he would send him a letter. Jones sent a letter to DuPree on January 15, in which he stated that Respondent had a good-faith doubt that the Respondent represented a majority, and a good-faith doubt of the appropriateness of the unit. Jones also stated that he had a question whether there was an uncoerced majority in view of evidence coming to his attention that a number of Respondent's employees had been threatened with bodily injury, and concluded with the statement that if the Union filed a petition for certification with the Board, and requested the Board for a determination of the appropriate unit and the presence of an uncoerced majority, "it would be glad to cooperate with the Board in every way." Absent any additional evidence, President Jones' letter of January 15, and his other conduct on January, 14 and 15, could well be indicative of a good-faith doubt.19 But other' evidence clearly discloses that President'16nes had' no ' good- 18 N.L R B v. D'Armigene, Inc., and cases cited therein, 353,F 2d 406, 407-408, (C.A. 2) enfg. 148 NLRB 2; and Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1783-87. 10 Strydel Incorporated, 156,NLRB 1185; John P. Serpa, 155 NLRB 99. JONES PACKING COMPANY 1003 faith doubt either as to the majority representation of the Union or the appropriate- ness of the unit for which the Union demanded recognition. Moreover, Jones knew that the threats of bodily injury were made by two employees, and not by any agents of the Union, and were provoked by coercive conduct of Respondent's officials intended to dissipate the uncoerced majority representation of the Union. In regard to the 'appropriateness of the unit, Respondent and the Union in a consent-election agreement of February 3, 1965, agreed that an appropriate unit was a plantwide unit of all production and maintenance employees, including truck- drivers, with the usual exclusions of clerical employees, guards, professional employees and supervisors, as defined in the Act. This unit is substantially the same, as the unit for which DuPree demanded recognition on January 14. The consent-election agreement followed the Union's petition for certification which was filed 'on January 22, 1965. No evidence of any kind was presented by Respondent to the Union between January 15, 1965, and the consent-election agreement.on February 3, 1965, to, support Respondent's alleged good-faith doubt that the unit for which recognition had been requested was inappropriate. The absence of this evidence coupled with Respondent's agreement on February 3, 1965, that it was appropriate, are conclusive evidence, and I so find, that Respondent had no good-faith doubt in this respect on, January 15 or thereafter.20 As previously found, Respondent's officials knew on the afternoon of January 13, 1965, that there was to be a union meeting on that evening. Don Franklin, a truckdriver, and obviously an agent of Respondent as I so find,21 was the only employee of the 22 present at the meeting who did not sign a card. Later that very evening, employee Harnice was visited at his home by Sales Manager Barlow, and interrogated about the meeting. The, next morning Barlow boasted to employee Mc'Elrath that he knew who,were at the' union meeting the prior evening, and who signed combination applications for membership and authorization cards. On January 14, Respondent had 41 employees including the 6 to whom Saxon had given supervisory status in the latter part of December 1964, or the first part of January 1965. There were 35 employees in the appropriate unit, and 21 of them signed cards at the January 13 meeting. In the plant's parking lot, two other employees signed cards later that evening, as did one other after the shift ended early the following morning. There is no evidence that Barlow or other officials of Respondent knew that the three latter employees had signed the cards. As the evidence (supra) shows, Barlow, Saxon, and Jones began exerting coer- cive pressure on employees on the morning of January 14 to withdraw the author- izations to represent them as bargaining representative they gave to the Union the prior evening, and concealed the supervisory-status of the six employees whom I found were promoted to supervisors 22 By the afternoon of January 15, two employees had mailed withdrawal letters to the Union, and obviously Jones, Saxon, and Barlow had expectations. that there would be others who would do so as a result of the coercive campaigmthey had been engaged in since the evening of Janu- ary 13. As I have found, another employee mailed a withdrawal letter on January 16, as did two others on January 18 and one on January 21. So when Jones wrote onJanuary 15 to DuPree that,he had a.-good-faith doubt that,the Union, represented-, a majority he did not have a "good faith doubt," but may well have had a bad-faith doubt premised on the false security he felt Respondent had from concealment of the supervisory status of Bell, Champy, Driskill, Charles Guill, Hutchinson, and Ryan, and their holding themselves out as rank-and-file employees who did not favor the Union,. and the repudiation of the_ Union by two employees, under coer- cive pressure of Respondent, with expectations that more repudiations would follow as a result of the illegal pressure. 40 See Dixie Color Printing Corp., 156 NLRB 1431. 2L With Respondent's officials, Franklin talked to employees to persuade them to repudiate the Union, drove -employees to'the post office to mail withdrawal letters, and reimbursed them for the postage from Respondent's funds. I also find Harnice to be an agent of Respondent for purposes of reimbursing employees for'the cost of mailing and registering withdrawal letters. ' =Saxon testified that the notice of the promotion of the six to • foremen was removed from the bulletin board to leave in bold relief for ready observation by the employees the notice of the-no-solicitation rule that had been posted alongside of it. Apparently, Jones and Respondent's other officials flaunted their illegal pressure on employees in the face of the responsibility they had to refrain from. coercing employees, which was increased by presence of the rule. 1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jones, Saxon, Barlow, and Bell knew on January 15 that employees Vance and Dickerson had threatened employees Cunningham and Edminson with bodily harm if they withdrew their authorizations to the Union as bargaining representatives. They had no evidence, and there is none in the record, that Vance and Dickerson were acting as union agents or that President DuPree, or anyone else acting for the Union, either had knowledge of the threats, or condoned them in any manner or respect. On the other hand, the threats were made during Respondent's cam- paign to :undermine and dissipate' the Union's -strength, and were obviously pro- voked by the illegal- conduct of Respondent rather than caused by the Union or any of its agents. Vance and Dickerson as well as the other employees who had chosen the Union to represent them, saw, or heard of, the employees being sepa- rately'interviewed by Barlow in the office on the first floor, and the letter writing with the assistance of Jones, Saxon, and Barlow, on the second floor. When Jones made the reference in his letter of January 15 to a coerced union majority by reason of union threats of bodily harm, he knew such a statement was distortion of the truth, and that an uncoerced legal majority of the Union was being dissipated by the illegal coercive tactics he and the other officials of Respondent were perpetrating. For these reasons, I make the following findings and conclusions. There was a casual connection between Respondent's illegal coercive pressure to undermine the Union starting on January 13, 1965, and the withdrawals by six employees between January 15 and 21, 1965, of their authorizations to the Union to represent them as collective-bargaining representative, and, therefore, the withdrawals are not to be considered in determining the number of employees who have designated the Union to represent them.23 Since January 14, 1965, the Union has represented 24 employees of Respondent in a appropriate unit of 35 production and maintenance employees including truckdrivers, but excluding office clerical 'employees, guards, and other, professional employees, as defined in the Act. On January 15, 1964, and thereafter, Respondent in bad faith has refused to bargain with the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees in this appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, by refusing to meet and negotiate a contract when the Union represented a majority, and by attempting to dissipate the majority, and make a fair election impossible.24 The Challenges and Objections to Conduct Affecting the Outcome of the Election I have found that Bell, Champy, Driskill, Charles Guill, Hutchinson, and Ryan have been supervisors within the meaning of the Act, since the latter part of Decem- ber 1964 or early January 1965. Therefore, the challenges to their votes in the February 10, 1965, Board conducted election have merit, and should be sustained. Respondent's conduct from January 13 to 21, 1965, objected to by the Union, which I have found violates Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the-election held on February 10, 1965. Leas & McVitty, Incorporated, 155 NLRB 389; Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782,- 1786; Playskool Manufacturing Company, 140 NLRB 1417, 1419. But, all of this conduct occurred prior to the filing of the petition for certification on January 22, 1965, and may not be considered as conduct interfering with the conduct of the election.25 However, the threat in the speech of February 9, 1965, with or without the .additional impact-it carried because of the Section 8(a)(1) violations perpetrated from January 13 to 21, 1965, and the threat conveyed by the supervisors voting in the election , interfered with the employees' right to a free and untrammeled choice in the election 26 23 Sullivan Surplus Sales, Inc., 152 NLRB 132 ; Winter Garden Citrus Products Coopera- tive, 114 NLRB 1048, enfd . as mod 238 F.2d 128 ( C.A' 5).1 , , , , "Joy Silk Mills, 85 NLRB 1263, enfd . as' mod. 185 F.2d 732 , 741 (C.A.D C. ); cert. denied 341 U .S. 914 ; Irving Air Chute Co, Inc., 149 NLRB 627, enfd . ,350•F;2d 176, 182 (C.A. 2) ; Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268, enfd. 351 F.2d' 917 (C.A.:6) ; Jas H. -Matthews d Co., 149 NLRB 161, enfd. 854 F.2d 432 ( C.A. 8) ; Dixie Color Print- ing Corp., supra ; Benson Veneer Co., Inc, supra; Mock Road Super Duper, Inc; supra; Dubois Pence & Garden Co., Inc, supra. a The Ideal 'Electric and Manufacturing Company, .134 NLRB 1275, 1278. 2O Dal-Tea' Optical Company, Inc., supra; Soniamo Ine.•,-133 NLRB 1310 ; Stork-line Corporation, 142 NLRB 875; Utica-Herbrand Tool Division, of Kelsery-Hayes Company, 145 NLRB :1717 ; Claussen Baking Company,- supra ; and' Performance Measurements Co., Inc., supra. ' JONES PACKING COMPANY IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 1005 The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative action .designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Since Respondent engaged in con- siderable acts of interference , coercion, and rstraint to thwart the organizational activity of Union and employees , a broad cease and desist order is warranted, and will be recommended N L R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F 2d 532 (C.A. 4). To remedy Respondent 's refusal to bargain, rejection of the collective-bargaining principle, attempt to dissipate the majority representation of the Union , and its making a fair election impossible , I shall recommend that Respondent be required, upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union as the collective -bargaining representative of a unit of Respondent's production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers , but excluding office clerical employees , guards, professional employees and supervisors , as defined in the Act, regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment , and if an agreement is reached, to embody it in a signed contract. I have found that the Union 's objection to the February 9 speech, and its challenges of the votes of the six employees have merit, and that the speech and the votes interfered with the employees' right to a free and untram- meled choice in the February 10 election. Because of this interference , I shall recommend to the Regional Director that the February 10 election be set aside, and in view of the finding of a Section 8 (a)(5) violation, and the recommended order to bargain, that he dismiss the, petition. in. Case 9-RC-6204, and vacate . all proceed- ings in connection therewitli 27 ' 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. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2 The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. Employees Bell, Champy,, Driskill, Charles Guill, Hutchinson , and Ryan are .supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. 4. Respondent interfered' with, coerced , and restrained-employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by interrogation , threats, promises of benefits , giving the appearance of surveillance , solicitation of withdrawal of authorization cards, and preparation of withdrawal letters, transporting employees to the post office to mail, them, and, defraying the cost of postage, to prevent employees from enjoying rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, including the right to self- organization, to form, join or assist the Union , to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 5 An appropriate unit of Respondent 's employees for purposes of collective bargaining is a ,unit of its production -and maintenance employees , including truck- drivers, but excluding office clerical employees , guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. 6. On January 13 and 14, 1965, a majority of the employees in the above- described unit designated the Union as bargaining representative to represent them in collective bargaining with Respondent regarding wages, hours, and' other terms and conditions of employment, and on January 14 , 1965, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain with it on behalf of these employees. 7. On January 15, 1965, and thereafter , Respondent in bad faith has refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 2'Bernel Foam Products Co. Inc., 146 NLRB 1277; International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (S.N.C. Manufacturing Co ) v N.L R' B , 352 F.2d 361 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 382 U.S. 902; N.L.R B. v. Colson Corporation, 347 F.2d 128 (C.A. 8), cert. denied 382 U.S. 904; Irving Air Chute Co, Inc., 149 NLRB 627, enfd 350 F.2d 176 (C.A. 2) ; Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268, enfd. 351 F.2d 917.(C.A 6) ; Benson Veneer Co., Inc., supra ; Dubois Fence & Garden Co., Inc., supra. 1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 9. Respondent interfered with a free and untrammeled choice the employees had as a matter of right in the Board conducted election held on February 10, 1965. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent Jones Packing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees with- respect to their rights to engage in union activity, to assist Local Union No. 236, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or to authorize it to act as their collective-bargaining representative. (b) Giving the appearance of engaging in surveillance, and threatening employ- ees directly, or indirectly by subtle means, by acts, in separate conversations or in speeches, with the closing of the plant, depriving them of their jobs, or other reprisals, in order to thwart their union organizing activity, assistance to the Union, or authorization to it to act as their collective-bargaining representative. (c) Promising employees preference in obtaining part time employment and unemployment compensation and other benefits, to thwart their union organizing activity, their assisting the Union, and their authorizing it to act as their collective- bargaining representative. (d) Conducting individual conversations with employees to solicit them to with- draw their authorizations to the Union to act as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative, preparing letters of withdrawal of authorizations, and providing trans- portation to post office or elsewhere for the mailing of such letters, as well as'the cost of postage and registration of such letters. (e) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondents' employees in an appropriate unit regarding wages, hours and other terms and condition of employment. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the,Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I will find will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local No. 236, Affiliated With Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer- ica, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit found herein of production and maintenance employees including truckdrivers,'but exclud- ing office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, ,and supervisors, as defined in the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an agreement is reached, embody such agreement in a written contract. (b) Post at its plant in Paducah, Kentucky, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 28 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Board's Region 9 (Cincinnati, Ohio), shall, after being signed by the Respond- ent's representatives, be posted by Respondent and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive 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. 28 In 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 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." JONES PACKING COMPANY 1007 (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.29 IT Is ALSO RECOMMENDED that the Regional Director for Region 9 set aside the election held on February 10, 1965, in Case 9-RC-6204, dismiss the petition, and vacate all proceedings in connection therewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner-'s •Decision Respondent notifies the Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. 21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, ,and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate employees with respect to their rights to engage in union activity, to assist Local Union No. 236, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or to' ,authorize it to act, as th'eir' collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT give the appearance of engaging in surveillance, or threaten employees either directly or indirectly by subtle means, by acts, in separate conversations, or in speeches, to close the plant, deprive them of their jobs, or with other reprisals, to thwart their union organizing activity, assistance to the Union, or ,authorization to it to act as their collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT promise employees preferences in obtaining part-time employ- ment and unemployment compensation and other benefits, to thwart their union organizing activity, their assisting the Union, and their authorizing it to act as their collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT hold individual conversations with employees to solicit them to withdraw , their authorizations to the Union to act as their collective- bargaining representative, prepare letters of withdrawal of authorizations, or provide transportation to post office or elsewhere for mailing such letters, or defray the cost of postage and registration of such letters. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit regarding wages, hours and other terms and condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union No. 236, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit of production and maintenance employees including truck- drivers, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, and professional employees, regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an agreement is reached, embody it in a written contract. All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of Local Union No. 236, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. JONES PACKING COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) 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 93, 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 i Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein refer to 1965. 159 NLRB No. 83.