Johnson Metal Products Co.

844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Robert W. Johnson and Clifford W. Johnson, co-partners d/b/a Johnson Metal Products Co. and United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-5351. November 9, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On July 19, 1966, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision. 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 [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 Exam- iner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein? [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the modifications : [1. Delete the words "and completely disestablish," in paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and change the period at the end of paragraphs 1(b) and 2(b) to a comma and add the following: ", unless and until the Board shall certify said labor organization as collective-bargaining representative." [2. Delete the third paragraph of the Appendix and substitute the following : [WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Shop Committee, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any i The Trial Examiner's Decision , in the section entitled "Concluding Findings," in- advertently concludes that Respondents had violated " Section 8 ( a)(1), (3), and (5) of of the Act." The quoted phrase should read "Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5 ) of the Act." The Decision is corrected accordingly. 2 Although we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondents violated Sec- tion 8 (a) (2) of the Act, we rest this finding on the unlawful assistance rendered the Shop Committee. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondents "clearly dominated" the committee. The evidence is insufficient to support such a finding. Higgins Industries, Inc., 150 NLRB 106, 119-120; cf. Han-Dee Spring Manufacturing Co., Inc, 132 NLRB 1542. 161 NLRB No. 76. JOHNSON METAL PRODUCTS CO. 845 our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, or other conditions of employ- ment, unless and until the Board shall certify said labor organiza- tion as collective-bargaining representative.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a proceeding under Section 16(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as :amended, 29 U.S.C., Section 151, et seq., herein called the Act. After the filing of a charge by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called the Union, on February 23, 1966, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region, issued a complaint and notice of hear- ing on April 8, 1966, against Robert W. Johnson and Clifford W. Johnson, co-partners doing business under the trade name of Johnson Metal Products Co., hereinafter called the Company or the Respondent,' alleging that the Company did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Act.2 The Respondent filed timely answer to the complaint, effec- tively denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, this case came on to be heard before me at Springfield, Mas- sachusetts, on June 6, 1966, and was closed on the following day. At the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union, the Charging Party, was represented by an International representative. Each party was afforded opportunity to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence relevant to the issues herein, to engage in oral argument, and to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions, or both, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respondent, and have been carefully considered. Upon the whole record herein, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY Robert W. Johnson and Clifford W. Johnson are and have been at all times material herein co-partners doing business under the trade name of Johnson Metal Products "The caption in the original complaint has been amended here to conform to an Amendment to the Complaint. 2 The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows : RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES See. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of 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 em- ployment as authorized in section 8(a) (3). UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Sec. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 ; (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation of any labor organization or con- tribute financial or other support to it : . . (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9 (a). REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS Sec. 9. (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,'wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment : . . . 846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Co. At all such times, the Company has maintained its principal office and place of business on Pleasant Street in the city of Southampton, county of Hampshire, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is now and continuously has been engaged at its plant there located in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of fireproof doors and related products. During such times, the Company in the course and conduct of its business causes, and continuously has caused, large quantities of materials and raw products used by it in the manufacture of fireproof doors and related products to be purchased and transported in interstate commerce from and through various States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and causes, and continuously has caused at all times herein mentioned, substantial quan- tities of fireproof doois and related products to be sold and transported from its plant in interstate,, commerce to States of the United States, other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Respondent annually receives directly from points located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts metals and other raw materials having a value in excess of $50,000, and annually ships directly to points located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts products having a value in excess of $50,000. The Respondent Company is and at all times mentioned herein has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Union organization 1. The union majority About January 19, 1966 3 William Tunis, business agent for Local 1372 of the Union, began the organization of the maintenance and production employees of the Respondent's plant and from that date until about February 7, obtained valid union authorization cards from 16 of the production and maintenance employees of the Company. Thereafter, on Thursday, February 12, the Union requested recognition as the collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees in an agreed- upon bargaining unit. Tunis personally obtained signatures to authorization cards from 16 employees, each one testifying that he signed the card upon the solicitation of and in the presence of Tunis. The 16th employee was the only one who did not testify at the hearing. He, Edward Kuta, was absent because of illness at the time of the hearing, and Tunis testified in regard to his having obtained Kuta's signature. The names of the em- ployees who signed authorization cards and returned them to Tunis, who subsequently transmitted them to the Union's office, are as follows: Fournier, R. Messier, Perrea, R. Jacque, Kaletta, Lewandowski, R. Laurin, Bischoff, H. Jacque, Fondakowski, Benoit, Dale, A. Laurin, Gosselin, G. Messier, and Kuta. 2. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's plant in South- ampton, Massachusetts, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, profes- sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. It was agreed between counsel at the hearing to enter into a stipulation as to 20, employees who were part of this unit employed by the Employer from January 20 through February 20. The Respondent Company would not agree that Bruce John- son, Clifford Johnson, Jr., and Robert Johnson, Jr., were not employees and should not be included within the agreed-upon bargaining unit. The Respondent did not disagree as to the other 16 employees. Bruce Johnson and Robert Johnson, Jr. are sons of Robert Johnson and Clifford Johnson, Jr. is a son of Clifford Johnson, the brothers, as hereinabove noted, who are the sole owners and co-partners in the- business. 3 Unless hereinafter specifically noted, all dates are for the year 1966. JOHNSON METAL PRODUCTS CO. 847 The question of whether or not sons of owners of the business may be included within a collective-bargaining unit is answered in the negative by Board rule in City Tine Company, 117 NLRB 753, wherein the Board wrote (p. 754) : The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's finding and recommendation as to the ballot of Gold [a son of a partner], and contends, in principal part, that (1) that Gold is not excluded from the definition of "employee" under Section 2(3) of the Act; and (2) the Regional Director is foreclosed from basing his recommendations on an issue not specifically raised by the Petitioner's challenge. We find no merit in these contentions. As to (1), the Board rule is that the son of a partner is not an employee within the meaning of the Act. [Citing International Metal Products Company, 107 NLRB 65]. See also Mead's Market, 148 NLRB 383.4 A fourth employee, Walter Mercer, called working foreman, employed by the Company for some 6 or 7 years, is the fourth person which, the Company con- tends, should be included within the bargaining unit. Mercer is an hourly rated employee receiving a higher rate of pay than the other employees stipulated to be within the bargaining unit, receives overtime pay when worked, and is responsible as a working foreman to see that work scheduled to be done is distributed properly. He receives general instructions in this respect from one of the two partners, or both of them. Robert Johnson testified that: . . . he supervises production; sees that the work gets out, moves the men around from job to job. He has no authority to hire, fire, or recommend hiring or firing. It is all taken care of by ourselves [the co-owners]. Mercer was not called as a witness. Despite the fact that Robert Johnson asserted the claim that Mercer was not a supervisor, I find on the whole record that the duties of Mercer are not of a ,merely routine or clerical nature, but require the use of in- dependent judgment. I find him to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. He therefore should be excluded from the bargaining unit The 16 card signers named above, I find, were employees constituting the appro- priate bargaining unit on February 12, the day the Union requested recognition. B. The shop committee 1. Formation and dissolution The request made by the Union to the Company was by letter dated February 12, 1966, addressed to Mr. Robert Johnson, signed by Richard P. Griffin, International representative, and read as follows: This is to advise you that a majority of the employees of your company located at Southampton, Mass., have authorized United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, to act as their exclusive bargaining agent in the matter of wages, hours of work, and all other conditions of employment An early reply will be appreciated so that a meeting can be arranged between the parties for the purpose of entering negotiations with regard to wages, hours of employment, and all other conditions of employment By letter under date of March 7, 1966, Clifford W. Johnson, on behalf of the Company, addressed a letter to the Union for the attention of Griffin, as, follows: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 12, 1966 which was received on February 16, 1966, in which you claimed that a majority of the employees of our Company have authorized United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, to act as their exclusive bargain- ing agent in the matter of wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment. Based upon our own information, we have a good faith doubt that the majority of our employees wish to be represented by your union as their exclusive bar- gaining agent. We therefore must decline your request for a meeting for the purpose of negotiations regarding wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment for our employees. 4 The pertinent provisions of Section 2(3) are as follows : The term "employee" . . . shall not include . . . any individual employed by his parent or spouse . . . 848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Since your letter of February 12, we have received a copy of a Petition dated February 21, 1966 which your Union has filed with the National Labor Rela- tions Board for certification for all production and maintenance employees of our company. Since we feel that an election conducted by the NLRB is the most satisfactory and democratic method to ascertain the true wishes of our employ- ees regarding a bargaining representative , you are hereby advised that if and when an election is conducted by the NLRB that this Company will accept and be bound by the result of such an election. Following receipt of the Union's demand letter, Robert Johnson, during the next two days, asked a number of employees whether they had been approached by the Union, if they had signed authorization cards and whether they believed the Union repre- sented the majority of the employees . Robert Johnson testified that he had talked about the Union and asked them about it with employees Faivre, A. Laurin, and Dale. Employee R. Messier, testified that he was asked by Clifford Johnson in the presence of Dale whether they had signed authorization cards and if they believed the Union represented a majority of the employees. The testimony of Robert Johnson and Clifford W. Johnson , the owners , and the testimony of all of the employees who testified on behalf of the General Counsel, are in substantial agreement as to what happened on or about Saturday , February 19. The essential facts are these: At that time, the plant customarily was working from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m . on Satur- day mornings . On Saturday, February 19, about 9:45 o'clock upon direction of the partners, the sons of the employees were instructed to shut down the machines in the plant and to instruct the employees to meet in the shop for a meeting with Robert and Clifford Johnson . So far as the record shows, all employees were present at this meeting. The meeting was opened by the reading by Robert Johnson of the February 16 letter of the Union to the employees , who indicated that it was his belief that the organizational methods used by the Union were sneaky and that the Union was "filled with communists." Several employees were asked whether they had been approached by the Union, Robert Johnson then stating that he doubted whether the Union represented a majority of the employees . At this meeting, both Robert and Clifford Johnson indicated that the partners would close the plant before they would recognize the Union . It was suggested by Robert Johnson that the employees form a "shop union" which he would go along with and here, upon his suggestion or upon the motion of Robert Johnson, Jr., it was decided that the employees vote at that time whether they wanted a shop union or shop committee or desired to be represented by the Union . The motion having been approved , Robert Johnson furnished a pre- pared ballot box and blank slips of paper for use as ballots . The employees then voted by marking their preference on the slips furnished to them and deposited by them in the ballot box. When the balloting was concluded , Robert Johnson opened the box and counted the ballots, which showed 19 were in favor of the shop com- mittee and three in favor of the Union. Immediately after the result of the balloting was announced , Robert Johnson suggested to the employees that they appoint a "shop committee " to represent them, and that he and his partner would meet with the committee at some later date. Robert and Clifford Johnson then left the meeting (at approximately 11 a.m.). The employees remained in the shop and in the presence of the sons of the Johnson brothers, they selected Roy Lewandowski, Edward Kuta, and Richard Jacque to serve on the shop committee. On Monday, February 21 , employee Perrea obtained permission from Robert Johnson for the employees to meet in the shop after working hours on the coming Wednesday to discuss shop union . On the evening of Wednesday , February 23, the employees met in the shop . Lewandowski and Kuta having resigned from the com- mittee earlier in the week, the employees selected Raymond Messier and Richard Goodness to take their places on the committee . The committee members then pro- ceeded to discuss several demands which could be presented to the Johnson brothers, deciding eventally that their "committee" would ask for a 25-cent-per-hour raise in wages and a new vacation system. The shop committee met with the Johnsons on the following Friday, February 25, in the company office during working hours and after a meeting of approximately an hour, the Johnsons advised the committee that while the new vacation proposal was acceptable, the requested raise would mean the elimination of the prior exist- ing Christmas bonus. The Johnsons informed the committee that they would consider JOHNSON METAL PRODUCTS CO. 849 its demands and furnish their answer to the committee at some time during the following week. On February 21, the Union had filed its petition for certification of representa- tives for a unit of all production and maintenance employees , excluding all office clerical employees , professional employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Case 1-RC-8846. This petition was received by the Respondent on February 24, before the meeting with the shop committee . As noted, the Union filed its charge in the instant case (1-CA-5351) on February 23, this charge being received by the Respondent on Saturday, February 26 . On receipt of this charge , Clifford Johnson sent word to the committee that the Respondent could no longer deal with it. As noted above, the Respondent on March 7 answered the letter of the Union of February 12, in which it stated that it had a good -faith doubt of the majority status of the Union. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, including the admissions of witnesses Robert Johnson and Clifford Johnson, shows that the Union represented a majority of the production and maintenance employees of the Respondent on February 12, that the Union made a proper demand for recognition as representative of a unit appropriate for collective -bargaining purposes , and that the Respondent initiated and continued from the time of the demand of the Union for recognition a campaign of illegal acts aimed at inducing its employees to abandon the Union. The Union has shown that it did not only and does not only have the right to claim majority representation of the employees in the appropriate unit, but also that after having requested the employer to enter into the bargaining negotiation, the Respond- ent engaged in coercive conduct intended to undermine and weaken the Union majority. The Union's demand stated the unit and reaffirmed the propriety of the unit in its petition . The Respondent failed to ask the Union at any time to demon- strate its majority, or to request the Union to prove its majority status , but instead engaged in a course of conduct which cannot possibly justify its refusal to bargain in the face of the evidence which so completely reveals that the employer deliberately engaged in unfair labor practices in order to dissipate the majority held by the Union at the time of the request for recognition , thereby precluding the holding of a fair election C. Concluding findings 1. The bargaining unit is an appropriate bargaining unit, and the Union has at all times since February 12, 1966, been the duly designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees within the unit. The request of the Union to bargain was timely made, and the refusal of the Respondent to bargain was and continues to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263 , enfd. 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert denied 341 U.S. 914; UMW v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 71, 72, footnote 8. 2. The filing of the representation election petition by the Union does not excuse the Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union and bargain upon request . N.L.R B. v. Poultry Enterprises, Inc., 207 F.2d 522 (C.A. 5); Whitelight Products Division, 298 F.2d 12 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 369 U.S. 887. The filing of a representation peti- tion does not absolve an employer from the duty to bargain in the absence of a bona fide doubt of the Union's majority status. N.L.R.B. v. Elliott-Williams Co., Inc., 345 F.2d 460 (C.A. 7). 3. The action of the Respondent in interrogating employees and instituting an un- lawful poll, suggesting and initiating a dominated labor organization for bargaining with such labor organization at the time it did, with presumptive knowledge of the Union's majority , violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act . Monarch Foundry Co., 106 NLRB 377, 378, 381 , citing Protein Blenders Inc., 105 NLRB 890, 893. The so-called "shop committee" was a labor organization since it was created for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances , wages, rates of pay and hours of employment. Merrill Transport Co., 141 NLRB 1089. The "committee" established at the suggestion of the Respondent's and existing only by virtue of the Respondent 's blessing was a clearly dominated organization within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Han-dee Spring Manufacturing Co., Inc., 132 NLRB 1542. 4. The union authorization cards relied upon by the Union to show its majority status as bargaining representative , were properly executed, and were valid designa- tions by individual employees for union representation . N.L.R.B. v. Taitel, 261 F.2d I (C.A. 7), cert. denied 359 U.S. 944, enfg. 119 NLRB 910, 911, footnote 3; Merrill Axle and Wheel Service, 158 NLRB 1113. 264-188-67-vol. 161-55 850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. Opposite to the contention of the Respondent Company that the unfair labor practices which arise under Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act are privileged under Section 8(c) of the Act,5 I find that the provisions of Section 8(c) are totally in- applicable and do not apply to the facts in this case. By the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent Company, it has violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, and has interfered with the rights of its employees as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent Company set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations set forth 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The proper remedy, I find, is the conventional remedy provided in such cases and set forth in the Recom- mended Order below, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, and pursuant to Sec- tion 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Robert W. Johnson and Clifford W. Johnson, co-partners doing business under the trade name of Johnson Metal Products Co., Respondent herein, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's plant in South- ampton, Massachusetts, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit' appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. Since February 12, 1965, the Union has been and continues to be the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the fore- going appropriate unit. 5. By refusing after February 12 and on March 7, 1966, and at all times thereafter to bargain with the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. By interrogation, threats, and warnings, and by, the formation of the labor organization called the Shop Committee, as hereinabove found, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) and (2) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER , Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Robert W. Johnson and Clifford W. Johnson, co-partners doing business under the trade name of Johnson Metal Products Co., the survivor of the other, their ' officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall. 5 Section 8 (c) provides : J The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination therefore, whether in written. printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of any unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, If such'expression contains no threat or reprisal or force or promise of benefit. JOHNSON METAL PRODUCTS CO. 851 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's plant in Southampton, Massachusetts, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, profes- sional employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Recognizing the Shop Committee or any successor thereto as the representa- tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concern- ing grievances, wages, rates of pay, or conditions of work. (c) Interrogating employees with respect to their union membership or activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (d) Threatening employees with closing the plant because they have designated the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. (e) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees by conducting a poll to determine their desires on the question of union membei slap. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the ex- clusive representative of all employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached (b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish, the Shop Committee, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of their em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with them concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, or conditions of work. (c) Post in conspicuous places at their plant in Southampton, Massachusetts, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, upon being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by them as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.? 0In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 7In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this proiision shall be modified to read : "Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 (lays from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent har taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A 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 interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities, 852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD except to the extent that such rights might be affected by an agreement requir- ing 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. WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's plant in Southampton, Massachusetts, but excluding office clerical em- ployees, guards, professional employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. WE hereby completely disestablish the Shop Committee as a representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev- ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of employment, and withdraw all recognition from the Shop Com- mittee as such representative. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the closing of the plant if they join or assist the above-named labor organization. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees by conducting a poll to determine their desires on the question of Union representation. All our employees are free to become or remain members of a labor organization, or refrain from doing so, except to the extent that such right may be affected by any agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which might require membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. ROBERT W. JOHNSON AND CLIFFORD W. JOHNSON CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME OF JOHNSON METAL PRODUCTS Co., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3353. H & W Construction Company, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 826, AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-2298. November 10, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On September 27, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent had engaged 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 161 NLRB No. 77.