Madison Brass Works, Inc.

1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Madison Brass Works, Inc., and Surf, Inc., Respondents and Lodge No. 1406, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Charging Party. Case 30-CA- 312. November 18, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On May 25, 1966, Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack issued his Deci- sion 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 certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief.' The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief as .well as a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision,,- and an answering brief was thereafter filed, by the Respondents. 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 made by the Trial Examiner 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 Respondents' exceptions and brief,2 the General Counsel's cross-exceptions and brief, the Respondents' answering brief to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions and brief, and the entire rec- ord in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3 [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 1 Respondents filed a motion to strike the General Counsel ' s brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision as not being timely filed . Respondents' motion is hereby granted, it being clear the aforesaid brief was not filed within the period prescribed by the Rules and Regulations of the Board. 2 The Respondents have excepted to the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner on the basis that they are contrary to the evidence . After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing them Standard Dry Wadi Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3). 3 Member Brown agrees with the Trial Examiner's findings that all the authorization cards are valid and establish the Union' s majority status , but does so for the reasons set forth in his separate statement in the case of Dan Howard Mfg. Co , and Dan Howard Sportswear, Inc., 158 NLRB 805 161 NLRB No. 104. MADISON BRASS WORKS, INC. 1207 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case was heard at Madison, Wisconsin, on March 24 and 25, 1966, by Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack , pursuant to a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on February 21, 1966, upon a charge filed by, the, Charging Party, herein called the Union. The complaint alleges that the Respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union , in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, and engaged in threats and interrogation, awarded wage increases,' and conducted and participated in a nonsecret poll of employees to determine their union sympathies , in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. After the close of the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondents filed briefs which have been fully considered. Upon the entire record ,2 including my observations of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Madison Brass Works, Inc., and Surf, Inc. (herein collectively referred to as the Company), are affiliated corporations engaged at Madison, Wisconsin, in the manu- facture of brass and aluminum castings and marine hardware . Each corporation annually receives from , and ships to, points outside Wisconsin , more than $50,000 worth of materials, goods, and products. The parties stipulated that the two cor- porations constitute a single employer for purposes of this proceeding. Upon these facts, I find that the Respondents constitute an "employer " as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Lodge No. 1406, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of events The Company employed approximately 12 production and maintenance employ- ees during October 1965 .3 On October 26, Peter Burkeland received authorization cards from Vernon E. Zitlow, the Union's business representative. Burkeland signed a card and obtained signed cards from eight other employees dated October 27 and 28. By letter of October 29, Zitlow advised the Company that a majority of its "production and maintenance employees employed as molders , coremakers, furnace- men, saw operators , grinders, shakeout men" had authorized the Union to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining . He- requested an early conference to discuss "formal recognition and the terms of a collective bargaining agreement." The Union's letter was delivered to the Company on October 30. That same day, Harry S. Vogts, the president of Surf and general manager of Madison Brass, took employee Bonney Erickson home with him so that Erickson could help with some yard work. While on the way home in his station wagon, Vogts, according to Erickson, said that there had been a union in the shop before , that it did not work, that the business was too small for a union, and that he would rather sell or close the shop than see a union in there again. Vogts also remarked that he was only holding the shop because of his father who had started it from nothing and had built it up over the years. Vogts denied that he said he would rather sell or close the shop than have a union come in. I The complaint was amended at the hearing over Respondents' objection to include the allegation of unlawful wage increases. 2 Respondents' motion to correct the transcript is granted. All dates are in 1965 unless otherwise noted. 1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 2, the Company sent copies of the following letter to its employees 4 Dear Pete: This letter is directed to you and your family. It concerns a very serious matter which affects your future and the future of the Company. We understand from a letter sent to us by the International Association of Machinists Union that the Union is making an organizational attempt at our plant. We want to make it very clear we are opposed to unionization and urge you to resist this attempt. This letter expresses some of our reasons for being against the Union. We have been in business in Madison for 58 years. During that time we have tried our level best to be fair to our employees and to continue in busi- ness in a very competitive field. We want this business to give every one of you job security twelve (12) months out of the year. We are very much concerned over the organizational campaign which is being put on by the Machinists Union. Unions have been organized on the basis of creating discontent among employees and a feeling of distrust among employees toward their employer. We have always wanted to work as a team-as one unit working toward the development of a company we can all be proud of-and which gives all of us jobs twelve (12) months out of the year. The Machinists Union appears to want to break up that team. They want you on one side and management on the other with the Union in between. Unionization is costly to both you and the Company. 1. It increases costs of administration, which additional cost might otherwise be available for employee wages and benefits. 2. It takes management's time which could be devoted to sales and improve- ments of production techniques, both of which contribute to your benefit. We must have sales and make continued improvements to stay in business. 3. Dues and initiation fees go out of your pocket into the Union treasury. They usually run over 2¢ for every hour worked. 4. Unionization unnecessarily leads to costly strikes in some cases. In Madi- son there have been some long and costly strikes recently. Let's look at them a moment. A. The 1963 Ray-O-Vac strike lasted almost four months and the employees got no additional wages. B. The 1963 Bruns strike lasted 27 weeks, and the employees went back without a contract at precisely the same wages they were receiving when they went on strike. C. The 1964 Ohio Chemical strike lasted one month and employees wound up with almost the same three-year package they would have had without a strike. D. The 1964 Neesvig strike lasted for over six months and only a few employees returned to work. They returned without a contract and without a a wage increase. The employee will never regain the wages lost during the strikes. We hope you have enough confidence in us that we can work as a team without having an outside union organizer cause us to work against each other. Our door has always been open to you and always will be. We hope you won't permit an outsider to close that door. Sincerely, Henry Harry On November 4, Vogts posted a notice that there would be a meeting for all employees at 3:30 p.m. at the Company's warehouse .5 All employees attended the meeting. Vogts said he had called the meeting to explain why the Company opposed the Unions He sketched the start and growth of the Company and said that he and his father had tried "our best to be fair to you men" and had kept them at work 4 The letter reproduced is the one sent to Burkeland. 5 The working day ended at 4 p in. 6 The description of the meeting is based on the testimony of Harry Vogts, Burkeland, Erickson, Emil Anderson , and Charles McLean. Vogts used an outline in talking to the employees. MADISON BRASS WORKS, INC. 1209 "when you could just as well have been laid off" because "we know and appreciate how much that weekly paycheck means to you." He said that it was silly to have a union in a small shop, that the Company had had a union before but it did not work out. He declared that unionization would put an end to the close relationship between the Company and its employees, because unions "divide a company in two classes" and the Company would have to deal exclusively with the Union. He explained that the Company's financial position was poor, that unionization might cause it to lose orders and might force the Company to close its doors? He advised the employees that the Company had lost $11,000 during the past year and that neither he nor his father had taken "any salary." He expressed doubt that the Com- pany could meet the Union's demands and said the Union might call a strike to make good its "pie in the sky" promises. He referred to several companies in the area which had had strikes, and concluded his remarks by saying, "Strikes lose cus- tomers. They lose money and stability for the Company. They lose wages you can never regain." Henry Vogts, president of Madison Brass, next spoke to the employees. He said he had "started the foundry from scratch," that he had been working there for 58 years, that he would like to live out his few remaining years in the foundry,8 that it was his "life" to come in and "skim the crucibles and just work around," but that if the Union came in it could possibly stop him from working within the plant "as being a part of management." Harry Vogts added that he kept the plant operating only in the interest of his father and the employees. Employee Charles McLean suggested that a vote be taken. Vogts said the men could vote for or against the Union without putting their jobs "in question or jeop- ardy." He asked all employees not in favor of the Union to stand and raise their hands. All employees present did so except for Burkeland.9 Vogts then asked those in favor of the Union to vote. Burkeland refrained from voting. By letter dated November 5, 1965, an attorney for the Company advised Union Business Representative Zitlow that "the companies doubt that you represent a majority of employees in an appropriate unit" because 12 employees "voiced their opposition to representation by your union" at a meeting held on November 4; and that the vote indicated "no useful purpose would be served by an election," but that he would attempt to arrange for an expedited election "if you still feel there is a question concerning representation." On November 12, the Union filed a petition with the Board seeking to represent a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees of -the Company. On November 22, the Union filed the charge in the present proceeding, alleging that the Company had refused to bargain in good faith with the Union, that it was inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees with respect to their rights under the Act, and that it had discharged Burkeland on November 12 because of his union activities.10 The Company was served with a copy of the Union's charge on November 20. On November 22, Attorney Gerald C. Nichol came to the plant and interviewed 10 employees individually in the office of Harry Vogts.11 Nichol began the interview by handing the employees a statement reading as follows: This investigation is conducted solely to prepare a defense to unfair labor practice charges which have been filed by the Machinists Union against the Company. 4I do not credit Erickson's testimony that Vogts said he would rather close or sell the shop than have the Union come in. Infra, pages 1210-11. 8 Henry Vogts is in his late eighties.' 9I credit the testimony of Harry Vogts that he and his father did not vote. I also credit Foreman Schwenn's testimony that he did not vote. 18 On February 15, 1966, the Board's Regional Director approved the Union's requests to withdraw the allegation concerning Burkeland's discharge and to withdraw its repre- sentation petition. ' 11 The description of the interviews ' is based on the testimony of Nichol'and employees Emil Anderson, Wendell Leonhardt , and Charles McLean. Nichol' refused to produce written statements obtained from the employees interviewed pursuant to a Board subpoena duces tecum issued at the request of the General Counsel. I denied Nichol's petition to revoke the subpena as the statements were clearly relevant to the allegation in the complaint that Nichol coercively interrogated employees about their union activities on November 22, 1965. In view of Nichol 's refusal to produce the statements , which would have indicated the questions asked of the employees, I have discounted his testimony where in conflict with that of the employees interviewed. 1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Your participation or lack of participation in this investigation will in no way affect your job or your rights as an employee. You have the right to refuse to participate without affecting your job or your rights as an employee. We are not interested in ascertaining whether you are for or against the Union, and we positively assert you have the right to join or refrain from join- ing any labor organization without fear of reprisals. We are interested only in the truth. After the employee had read the statement, Nichol asked him if he had signed a union card, who had asked him to sign, and what was said to him at the time he was solicited to sign a card.12 With respect to possible misrepresentations of the solicitor, Nichol said he was "very careful to give [the employee] examples" such as the signing of a card "would bring on an election" or would give the employee "a waiver of initiation fees." Nichol also questioned the employee about the speech made by Harry Vogts at the plant on November 4 and what he knew about the facts relating to Burkeland's discharge. Nichol asked each employee to sign a statement covering the matters discussed. Eight of the ten employees interviewed did so. In February 1966, the Company gave wage increases to Emil Anderson, Nancy Byrd, Vernon Lyons, George Schroeder, and Hyacinth Muskat. Anderson testified that he had not asked for the increase, that he was not told why he was receiving the increase, and that this was his first wage increase in about 3 years. B. Concluding findings 1. Interference, restraint, and coercion Erickson testified that Harry Vogts told him on October 30 that he would rather sell or close the shop than see a union in there again. Erickson attributed a similar threat to Vogts in his November 4 speech to the employees at the plant. Erickson's testimony about the November 4 speech is uncorroborated in this respect.13 The alleged threats do not appear in a statement given by Erickson to a Board agent. I therefore do not credit Erickson's testimony that Harry Vogts told him on Octo- ber 30, and the assembled employees on November 4, that he would rather sell or close the shop than see a union in there again. I find, however, that Harry Vogts' remarks at the November 4 meeting conveyed threats of economic reprisal if the Union came in. Vogts emphasized the Company's poor financial position and declared that layoffs had not been effected because he and his father appreciated how much the men needed their weekly paychecks. He next spoke about the "divisive" effects of unionization and expressed his conviction that the Union could not work in such a small shop and that its coming in might lead to strikes and to a loss of orders and so force the closing down of the business. Henry Vogts expressed his fear that the advent of the Union might make it impos- sible for him to work around the plant which was his "life." In this setting, I con- sider Harry Vogts' assertion that he was carrying on the business only in the "inter- est" of his father and the employees tantamount to a threat that he would effect a layoff or even close down the business if the men brought the Union in, for the men could reasonably anticipate that such conduct on their part would end the "interest" of Harry Vogts in their welfare and lead to layoffs or even to the closing down of a business which purportedly had been losing money for a number of years. I find no threat of economic reprisal, however, in the November 2 letter sent to all employees by Harry and Henry Vogts. The principal message conveyed by this letter was that the Vogts and the employees formed a "team" which provided job 12 Nichol said some employees "volunteered" the name of the person who solicited cards. He denied asking any employee whether he had signed a card and said he cautioned em- ployees against disclosing their union activity or the activity of other employees. Em- ployees Leonhardt and McLean testified that Nichol asked them if they had signed cards and who had solicited them to sign cards. Leonhardt impressed me as a sincere witness and McLean's testimony was consistent with a statement he gave to a Board investigator. I credit McLean and Leonhardt over Nichol. 13 Burkeland's testimony about Vogts' remarks is confused. While it indicates that Vogts said unionization might cause a loss of orders and lead to the closing down of the plant, it does not warrant a finding of any express threat by Vogts to close down if the Union came in. MADISON BRASS WORKS, INC. 1211 security "12 months out of the year," that the Union wanted to break up "that team," and that the employees should not permit the Union to come between them and "close [the] door" which "has always been open to you and always will be." I con- sider these remarks no more than a forceful appeal for direct dealing between man- agement and the employees, and hence an expression of views, argument, or opinion privileged by Section 8(c) of the Act. The poll at the November 4 meeting was plainly inspired by the remarks of Harry and Henry Vogts and called upon the employees to reveal their union sentiment to employers who had just expressed their strong opposition to the Union.14 I therefore find Harry Vogts' taking of the poll by a show of hands coercive notwithstanding his assurances that the employees could vote for or against the Union without fear of economic reprisal Cf. Mid-West Towel & Linen Service, 143 NLRB 744, 751, enfd. 339 F.2d 958 (C.A. 7). In conducting individual interviews at the plant on November 22, Attorney Nichol asked the employees if they had signed union cards, who had solicited them to sign cards, and what was said to them by the solicitor. The record shows, however, that Nichol advised the employees of the purpose of the questioning, gave them assur- ances against reprisal, and obtained their participation on a voluntary basis. His questions concerning the soliciting and signing of union authorization cards were pertinent to the refusal-to-bargain allegation in the Union's unfair labor practice charge Accordingly, as Nichol's questioning of employees on these matters did not go beyond the needs of trial preparation, and avoided any purposeful intimidation of the employees, I find that this questioning was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Joy Silk Mills v. N.L.R.B., 185 F.2d 732, 742-744 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914. I also find nothing unlawful in Nichol's conduct of the interviews immediately upon receipt of the Union's unfair labor practice charge, or in his use of examples of "possible misrepresentations" when he asked employees what was said to them when they were solicited to sign union cards. As Nichol's took adequate precautions to minimize any coercive impact of his questioning on the employees, no infer- ence is warranted that the interviews would unduly interfere with a subsequent inves- tigation by the General Counsel of the Union's charges. Cf. May Department Stores Company, a Corporation d/b/a Famous-Barr Company, 70 NLRB 94, 95-96. Simi- larly, no inference is warranted that Nichol's use of examples of misrepresenta- tions would coerce the employees into giving untrue answers to a Board investigator or false testimony at a Board hearing concerning their signing of union authoriza- tion cards. Harry Vogts told the employees at the November 4 meeting that the Company's financial position was poor and had been so for several years. Nevertheless, the Com- pany gave wage increases to five employees in February 1966. Emil Anderson testi- fied that he asked for no increase, that he was given no explanation for the increase, and that his last increase was about 3 years ago. The Company offered no explana- tion for the wage increases at the hearing. In view of the Company's statements that it was losing money, and its unlawful efforts to discourage support of the Union, the employees would reasonably attribute the wage increases to their rejection of the Union at the November 4 meeting. As the Company offered no explanation to the employees, I find that the wage increases were given to discourage support of the Union and hence were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405. 2. The refusal to bargain Upon receiving the Union's majority claim and its request for a meeting to dis- cuss "formal recognition" and contract terms, the Company engaged in antiunion conduct calculated to dissipate support for the Union, including threats of economic reprisal and a coercive poll of the employees' union sentiment. The Company is therefore precluded from asserting that its refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union was motivated by a good-faith doubt that the Union represented a majority 14 In Blue Flash Express, The, 109 NLRB 591, the questioning of employees on whether they had signed union cards "occurred in a background free of employer hostility to union organization," 109 NLRB at 593-594. The Company's reliance in its brief on the Blue Flash line of cases is therefore misplaced 1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd. 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914. The Union in fact had been designated as their bargaining agent by 9 of the 12 production 'and maintenance employees who, I find, comprised the bargaining unit at the time recognition was requested and refused.15 The Company contends, how- ever, that misrepresentation were made to employees Bonney Erickson, George and Clarenton Schroeder, and Hyacinth Muskat which invalidate their cards. Erickson testified that he told Burkeland on the morning of October 27 that he would sign a card "if everybody else went along" but that he "wasn't going to be alone in signing it." After punching out at 4 p.m., Erickson, Burkeland, Wendell Leonhardt, and David Olson gathered at Burkeland's car. Leonhardt signed a card and Olson said he would fill out a card at home and return it in the morning. According to Erickson, he signed a card when Burkeland said he had talked to all the employees and that they were "all going to sign." Erickson could not reasonably regard Burkeland's statement on the future signing of cards as more than an expres- sion of opinion. He had just seen Leonhardt sign a card and heard Olson say he would return a signed card in the morning. I find that Burkeland did not misrepre- sent the signing of cards by other employees and that Erickson signed a card because he was satisfied that he would not be "alone" in signing up with the Union. George Schroeder testified that he refused to sign a card at the plant but that he took a card home with him and returned it signed to Burkeland. Schroeder said he signed the card with the understanding that Burkeland would not send it to the Union and in reliance upon representations by Burkeland that the card meant noth- ing, that there would be a vote on the Union, and that all the other employees were going to sign cards. The Union's authorization card unambiguously recites that the signer is designating the Union as his bargaining agent; it contains no reference to a vote of any kind. I consider George Schroeder's testimony that he did not read the card before signing it at home wholly unbelievable. As to Burkeland's alleged state- ment that there would be a vote on the Union, Schroeder admitted that he did not know "what kind of vote was going to be taken or nothing." I discredit George Schroeder's testimony that Burkeland told him that the card meant nothing and that there would be a vote on the Union, and find that he validly designated the Union as his bargaining representative. Clarenton Schroeder testified that he signed a union card because Burkeland said the card' "wouldn't mean that we belong to the Union. A vote would have to be taken." He admitted under cross-examination that he did not know "what kind of vote [Burkeland] meant." Bonny Erickson credibly testified that Clarenton Schroeder and Charles McLean signed cards at the same time, that Clarenton Schroeder said he would sign a card if McLean would do so, that McLean said u The parties stipulated that the Company's production and maintenance employees were an appropriate bargaining unit and agreed upon the inclusion of 10 named employees in the unit. The General Counsel opposed the inclusion of James Wilson in the unit as a casual employee and of Vernon Lyons as a supervisor. The Company contends that Burke- land should be excluded as a supervisor . Wilson, Harry Vogts' brother-in -law, has worked irregular hours at Surf since October 14, 1965. Although he works full time elsewhere, his timecards show that he has worked a substantial number of hours at Surf each week. I find he has sufficient interest in conditions of employment to warrant his inclusion in the bargaining unit. Harry Vogts and Foundry Foreman Schwenn were away from the plant during the week ending October 30. During this week, Vernon Lyons took care of the "shipping out of castings and ordering things." He also issued orders and instructions to the other employees. I consider incredible the Company 's contention that the foundry ran without direct supervision this entire week and find that Lyons is a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act and therefore ineligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit. Burkeland worked at Surf until October 17. His principal task was to assemble, pack, and ship marine hardware . Burkeland, who was paid $1.80 an hour, had authority to hire and discharge a helper paid $1.25 an hour. Burkeland was transferred to Madison Brass as a production employee on October 18 at the same wage rate of $1.80, which was among the lowest paid by Madison Brass. He had no further connection with Surf except "to show Jim Wilson the ropes" for a few hours on Saturday , November 6. As Burkeland exercised no supervisory authority after October 17, I find it unnecessary to determine his supervisory status before that date and find that he was in the bargaining unit at relevant times. MADISON BRASS WORKS, INC. 1213 he would sign, and that both men did so. McLean's testimony indicates that Burke- land said nothing about a vote at this time. I discredit Clarence Schroeder's testi- mony that he signed a card in reliance upon representations by Burkeland that the card meant nothing and that a vote on the Union would be held, and find that he validly designated the Union as his bargaining representative. Hyacinth Muskat signed a card at home and returned it to Burkeland the next day. He admittedly read the card before signing it. I therefore discount his testi- mony that he relied on Burkeland's alleged representations that signing the card would "show our interest in the Union" and that a union representative would then talk to the employees. Muskat also testified that he relied on Burkeland's representation that most of the employees had signed cards. Burkeland credibly testified that he answered questions on the signing of cards by other employees truthfully. I find that Muskat understood the significance of signing the union card, that no misrepresentations were made to him about the signing of cards by other employees, and that he therefore validly designated the Union as his bargaining representative. The Company also contends that the cards obtained by Burkeland were invalid because he falsely represented to employees that Foreman Schwenn was in favor of the Union. Burkeland testified that some employees asked him about Schwenn and that he told them Schwenn was for the Union. According to Burkeland, Schwenn told him in one or two conversations at the foundry during 1965 that he favored the Union. Schwenn denied that he ever told Burkeland he was for the Union. Burkeland impressed me as a witness who tried to be accurate in his recollection of events. In view of his positive testimony on the subject, I credit his testimony that Schwenn told him that he favored the Union. In any event, as Burkeland was an ordinary rank-and-file employee, no inference is warranted that the other employees would give any particular weight to his statement about Schwenn in deciding whether or not to sign a union card. Indeed, only one employee, Charles McLean, referred to such a statement by Burkeland in his testimony on the signing of a union card. I therefore find that the Union represented a majority of the Company's produc- tion and maintenance employees on and after October 29, 1965, and that the Com- pany has refused to bargain in good faith with the Union since November 5, 1965. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening its employees with loss of work if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative, by coercively polling its employees about their desire for union representation, and by granting employees wage increases to dis- courage their support of the Union, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By refusing to bargain with the Union as the statutory bargaining representa- tive of its production and maintenance employees, the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) and 2(6) and (9) of the Act. THE REMEDY I shall recommend that the Company cease and desist from its unfair labor prac- tices, and affirmatively, that it bargain with the Union upon its request,. and post appropriate notices. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, there is hereby issued, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent corporations, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with loss of employment because of -their union activity. (b) Polling employees or otherwise interrogating them concerning their union sentiments. 1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Granting employees wage increases or other economic benefits in order to discourage their support of a labor organization. (d) Refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of their production and maintenance employees. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in their exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of their production and maintenance employees. (b) Post at their plant in Madison, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 30 of the Board, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, where notices to employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.I7 ie 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 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." 11 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 bargain with Lodge No. 1406, International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the representative of our production and maintenance employees. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with their exercise of this right. Specifically, WE WILL NOT poll them or otherwise interrogate them concerning their union sentiments. WE WILL NOT threaten them with loss of employment because of their union activity. WE WILL NOT grant them wage increases or other benefits to discourage their support of the Union or any other labor organization. All our employees have the right to join or support a labor union. MADISON BRASS WORKS, INC. AND SURF, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 230, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 272-8600, Extension 3866.