The Sinclair Co.

THE SINCLAIR COMPANY The Sinclair Company and General Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy & Highway Construction Employees, Local No. 404, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters . Cases 1-CA-5266 and 1-RC-8713. May 2, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On January 12, 1967, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions, with a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's 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. 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 the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modification set out below. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, The Sinclair Company, Holyoke, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete the word "other" from paragraph 1(c) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and substitute therefor the words "like or related ...." 2. Delete the word "other" from the paragraph beginning "WE WILL NOT in any other manner" in Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and substitute therefor the words "like or related ee 261 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for certification of representative filed in Case 1-RC-8713 be, and it hereby is, dismissed, and that all prior proceedings held thereunder be, and they hereby are, vacated. ' Contrary to the assertion made by the Respondent, we do not read the Trial Examiner's Decision as relying on the distribution of the book "The Enemy Within" as a part of the totality of the Respondent's conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act In any event, we would not find the distribution unlawful in itself or in context, either as a violation of Section 8(a)(1) or as grounds for setting aside the election TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Louis LIBBIN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, involving consolidated cases, was heard at Springfield, Massachusetts, on October 4 and 5, 1966, pursuant to due notice. The complaint in Case 1-CA-5266, issued on July 22, 1966, pursuant to charges filed by the Union, on December 14, 1965, alleges, in substance, that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act (1) by refusing at all times after September 20, 1965, upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union which was the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in a designated appropriate unit, and (2) by engaging in various specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. Respondent's duly filed answer denies the unfair labor practice allegations and asserts certain affirmative defenses. Case 1-RC-8713 arises out of a representation election conducted by the Board on December 9, 1965, timely objections to the election filed by the Union on December 14, 1965, and timely exceptions filed by the Union on February 2, 1966, to the Regional Director's report on objections. The Board, on March 8, 1966, ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by the Union's objections and exceptions. For the reasons hereinafter indicated, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, that there is merit to some of the Union's objections, and that the election should be set aside. Upon the entire record' in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, The Sinclair Company, is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Holyoke, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of papermill rolls, wires, and related products. Respondent receives materials, annually valued in excess of $50,000, at its Holyoke plant directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; it also ships products, having an annual value in excess of $50,000, from its Holyoke plant to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits in its answer, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ' Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected 164 NLRB No. 49 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record shows, and I find , that General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers , Building Materials, Heavy & Highway Construction Employees , Local No. 404, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Charging Party herein called the Union or Local 404, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTION TO ELECTION A. Introduction; the Issues The Union began organizing Respondent's employees in July 1965.-' By letter dated September 20, the Union informed Respondent that it represented a majority of Respondent's journeyman wire weavers and apprentices, and requested recognition and a meeting to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement. At that time, the Union had signed authorization cards from 11 of Respondent's 14 journeymen wire weavers. The Respondent employed no apprentices. By reply letter dated September 28, Respondent refused the Union's request for recognition on the asserted grounds that it doubted the Union's claimed majority status, the appropriateness of the unit, and the reliability of authorization cards to prove majority status. Upon the filing of a representation petition by the Union on November 8, the Board, pursuant to a consent-election agreement, conducted an election among Respondent's journeymen wire weavers on December 9; of the 13 ballots cast among the 14 eligible voters, the Union was defeated by a vote of 7 to 6. Meanwhile, during the period from July up to and including the day before the election, Respondent President Sinclair addressed the employees through a series of speeches, letters, pamphlets, and individual talks, to induce them to reject the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. The principal issues in this case are (1) the speeches, letters, pamphlets, and individual talks of President Sinclair, either separately, or in their totality, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act;3 (2) by so much of the foregoing conduct which occurred after the filing of the representation petition, the Respondent interfered with the employees' exercise of a free choice in the election of December 9 so as to warrant setting aside the election; and (3) Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union was motivated by a good-faith doubt with respect to the requested unit and the Union's majority status therein. B. Background The Sinclair Company was founded by President David H. Sinclair's father in 1925. From 1933 until 1952 the American Wire Weavers Protective Association, herein sometimes called the AWWPA, represented Respondent's journeymen wire weavers and apprentices and had contracts covering this unit on a national basis. President David Sinclair began working for Respondent on a full- Unless otherwise indicated , all dates hereinafter mentioned are in the year 1965 1 Also in issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of Superintendent William Seavey, an time basis in 1947, and, until 1952, was Respondent's representative in the contract negotiations with AWWPA for the journeymen and apprentice wire weavers, which negotiations were held on an industrywide basis in Cleveland and New York. In 1952 Respondent's plant was closed for about 12 or 13 weeks as a result of a strike called by AWWPA. The strike terminated in September 1952, when the plant was reopened without a union contract on the basis of Respondent's last offer to the AWWPA. Respondent had no further dealings with AWWPA which thereafter "faded out" and no longer represented any of Respondent's employees. From the termination of the strike in 1952 until the Union began its organizational efforts in July 1965, Respondent's employees were not represented by any union. In 1963 Respondent opened a weaving plant in Florence, Mississippi, which was known as the Sinclair Wire Works. Gary Brunault, a member of the Union's employee organizing committee in July 1965 but no longer employed by Respondent at the time of the instant hearing, testified that sometime in the summer of 1963 he went to President David Sinclair's office and asked for a raise, that Sinclair stated that the Company could not afford one, that Brunault stated that the good thing about a union is that you could negotiate for a raise with power, and that Sinclair replied that there would not be a union at Respondent's plant as long as he was president and that if Brunault did not like the conditions he knew where the door was. President Sinclair remembered an occasion about that time when Brunault asked for a raise; he testified that he told Brunault that there was nothing he could do about it at that time, and specifically denied having made the other statements attributed to him by Brunault. Although Brunault testified that the conversation lasted about 20 minutes, he could not remember anything else that was said. President Sinclair impressed me as a forthright and candid witness. I was not favorably impressed by Brunault. Under all the circumstances, I do not credit Brunault's disputed testimony and credit Sinclair's denials. In 1964 the Lindsay Wire Weaving Company of Cleveland, Ohio, herein sometimes called Lindsay, acquired 100 percent of the stock of Respondent, which then became a division of Lindsay. Respondent's Florence, Mississippi, plant at that time also became part of the Lindsay operation which, in addition, consisted of plants in Cleveland and Mentor, Ohio. However, David Sinclair continued as, and still is, president of Respondent. C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion President Sinclair first learned of the Union's organizational campaign in the early part of July when he was informed by some employees, and was given a copy, of the leaflet and attached authorization card mailed to the homes of employees. From that time until the day of the election, President Sinclair, through a series of speeches, letters, pamphlets, and talks with individual employees, engaged in a campaign to induce the employees to reject the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. admitted supervisor, in allegedly attempting to cause the South Hadley American Legion Post to deny the use of its meeting hall to Respondent's employees for a union organizational meeting THE SINCLAIR COMPANY 263 1. The facts " a. The July speech Early in July President Sinclair talked to all the employees in separate groups concerning the Union's organizational drive. He had no written speech and used no notes. His speech to the wire weaving group, which lasted about 10 to 12 minutes, is the only one concerning which Sinclair testified as follows: When he talked to the weaving department, which included the wire weavers, he told them that he was "going to be blunt" with them because he knew that the union organizing campaign started in their department. He told them that "I was disappointed" that they were considering getting a union into the plant "because they had union experience, that the last union [with which] we had had dealings in our wire weaving group had a strike of a good many weeks [sic] duration and that most of the people there could well remember that had almost put our company out of business at that point and that I was disappointed to see that some of what I considered to be lessons of the past weren't living with them any more." He spoke of the Company's financial condition, indicating that ever since the last strike the shop has been running on "thin ice"; pointed out that "strikes were initiated by unions" and not "by any act of the Company"; emphasized that if the Company could not agree to the Union's demands, "the union's only weapon is a strike"; and pointed out that, while he did not intend to close, a strike "could lead to the closing of the plant." Sinclair also told the group that the wire weavers craft was a small one, that it would be difficult for them to find other jobs because it was not like finding a job as a machinist, that many of them did not have the education, which would make it difficult for them to find another job, and that many of them were getting too old to go out and find new jobs. He further told the men that he did not have a great deal of respect for the Teamsters, that he had read a great deal about their leadership, and that this was not the kind of an organization that he would like to deal with. He also stated that "there were inequities in our method of compensating or paying the weaving shop," that he had been concerned with this for a long time, that "if I was involved with negotiations I would certainly correct this," and that "by correcting these it would mean that I would negotiate down in the instance where these things would correct themselves in that direction as well as up in other directions." He told the group that "we had basically been given a second chance in the chance to grow through our merger with Lindsay," that "we had to earn our own way," and that he "hoped that we would be able to reach a point where we would put in new and more modern equipment than we had to make everyone's job better, but that certainly the Lindsay Company was not going to pour money into this if we were not making a profit." He also told them that "we had a very sad experience with a union before, which they knew of, and that he did not want to get into the position" where the Union would strike the Company when it could not meet the Union's demands, with the resultant possibility of the plant closing, adding that the last thing he wanted was a closed plant. Sinclair further told the group that he did not feel that Lindsay needed the production equipment in Respondent's weaving department to meet the total needs for wire cloth of the entire organization, that he did not think "the Lindsay organization was going to be concerned" if "through contract negotiations with a union our people went on strike," that a strike could close Respondent's plant and nothing would prevent Lindsay from having Respondent's weaving work done at Lindsay's plant in Ohio or Mississippi. He also stated that Respondent was subject to foreign competition and that it was conceivable that if the plant was closed, under any circumstances, that some of the work would go to foreign companies and that Respondent had handled foreign wires in the past. He pointed out that all they had to do was to look around Holyoke if they thought a strike could not close Respondent's plant.' b. The November 2 letter On November 2, President Sinclair mailed to all employees a letter bearing that date and addressed "To All Employees." The letter informed the employees that the pending Board election "raises a number of questions which should be answered." Then, in answer to hypothetical questions raised by Sinclair, the letter states, among other things, that "there is nothing that the Teamsters or any other Union can offer you which will in any way increase your job security under the circumstances existing at this plant" (p. 2), that "We are still on `thin ice,"' and that "it just doesn't make sense for us to meet unreasonable Union demands which will result in further losses and eventually the necessity of closing the plant" (p. 3). c. The November 5 letter This letter from President Sinclair is dated November 5 and is also addressed "To All Employees." President Sinclair testified that this letter was mailed to all employees on that date or a few days thereafter. In this letter Sinclair reviewed the Company's "poor earnings history," and emphasized that the "new ownership is interested in profits and not pressure. They have no ties with Holyoke or Massachusetts. If a dollar invested here can't earn as much as a dollar invested in Mississippi or Ohio, or somewhere else, you can be sure that their dollars are going to go where they can earn the most pennies" (p. 2). Contrasting what the Union would do, he stated that "the Teamsters Union promises you a lot, but what can they deliver except pressure-the threat of a strike?" He ' Unless otherwise indicated, the factual findings in this section are based on evidence which is either admitted or undisputed 5 The above findings are based on the credited testimony of President Sinclair Richard Bougie, the only other witness who testified to the content of Sinclair's speech, testified as a witness for the General Counsel that Sinclair also stated during the course of his talk that "if we attempted to bring in a union at this time that Lindsay was sure to close," and that "if he was instructed to negotiate a contract he would negotiate down and not up " Sinclair denied having made these statements With respect to the first statement, Bougie testified that he was "reasonably sure" that Sinclair said it, he then added that it was "probably not in those words " He either did not know or could not "recall" what Sinclair said on most of the other subjects Although the General Counsel called as witnesses 10 of the weavers who were employed at the time of Sinclair's speech, he adduced no testimony from them or from any other witness in corroboration of Bougie in this respect Under all the circumstances, I am convinced that Bougie's testimony merely reflects his impression of what Sinclair said, I do not credit Bougie's testimony that Sinclair in fact made the above statements attributed to him, and credit Sinclair's denials in this respect 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD then stated that "I do not believe the threat of a strike will cause the new owners any loss of sleep. However, a long strike would be bad for me because I would like to remain in Holyoke. I have pride in the Sinclair family and would like to see the plant modernized, expanded and prosper" (p. 2). d. The November 22 letter and book entitled, "The Enemy Within" By a covering letter dated November 22 and addressed "To All Employees," Sinclair enclosed "a copy of the book written by Senator Bob Kennedy entitled, `The Enemy Within"'; informed the employees that "this book is the experience of Senator Kennedy when he was Attorney General of the United States and investigating racketeering aspects of the labor movement in the United States"; and urged them to "take the time to read it." f. The November 30 letter In this letter, addressed to "ALL WIRE WEAVERS," President Sinclair again reminds the employees of the long strike 15 years ago, when Respondent was "virtually out of business" and the plant was "reopened on a non-union basis." He then warns that "a strike can still close the Holyoke plant, but other plants can pick up the work," and that the new ownership "is interested in profits and not pressure." He then points out that the "Teamster Union" cannot do anything "to improve our profit position," but can only make "big" demands "which the Company cannot meet" and then "call you out on strike" because "a strike is a Union's only weapon" to enforce its "big" demands. He then asks, "can you afford a long strike" "when you know the Holyoke plant has been given a second chance to stay in business and furnish jobs for all of us?" e. The undated November pamphlet It was stipulated that this pamphlet was sent by President Sinclair, as it is addressed, "TO ALL WIRE WEAVERS" about 2 to 3 weeks before the December 9 election. Page one shows a Teamsters picket in front of the Respondent's plant with the question "Who would buy the Groceries ... while you walk the Teamsters picket line?" A heading in bold red letters on page two asks, "Do you want another 13-week strike?" Another paragraph on page two has the italicized heading "No changes at this time," and states: During a union organizing campaign an employer is prohibited by law from making any changes in wages or other benefits which could induce any employee to change his mind on how he will vote. Because of this rule, we are unable to discuss wages with other groups of our employees whom the Union does not wish to represent at this time- Other paragraphs on page 2 point out that "the Union has only one weapon with which it can try to make good its big campaign promises to the Wire Weavers. That weapon is a strike. We had a 13-week strike in the Wire Weaving Department in the early 1950's. The Wire Waving Department was closed ... We have no doubt that the Teamsters Union can again close the Wire Weaving Department and the entire plant by a strike. We have no hopes that the Teamsters Union Bosses will not call a strike ... The Teamsters Union is a strike happy outfit ... Unions sometimes call strikes as a 'face-saving' gesture." On page 3 appears the statement that "you have an equal right to refuse to strike and to come through the Union's picket line. This might be very rough for a while. The Teamsters Union is notorious for its picket line violence." Following these remarks is a cartoon showing Respondent's plant closed down with a "Sinclair" flag flying at half mast and the statement in red letters next to the cartoon, "The `Closedest' Closed Shop In Town." Towards the end of page 3, the Respondent states that the Teamsters Union Organizers "obviously" cannot make good on their promises, and asks, "how long a strike can you afford?" This appears near a cartoon of a "closed shop worker" with his empty pockets labeled "IBT Was Here." The entire last page contains the admonition, in bold red and black letters, to "VOTE RIGHT, AVOID STRIKES,` followed by an X in a square with the word "NO" over the square. g. The December 1 letter In the December 1 letter, addressed "TO ALL WIRE WEAVERS ," Sinclair devotes three pages to informing the employees that the Teamsters Union is involved with "serious crimes," "racketeering," "hoodlum domination," "shocking misdeeds," "goon squads," "threats to run down children," and "unlawful acts." He then warns that "if the Teamsters Union wins this election, it will be very difficult for you to get another election to vote it out." He then concludes with the admonition that "A `No' vote is a vote against surrendering your rights to the Bosses of the `Hoodlum saturated' Teamsters Union" while "A `yes' vote is a vote to become a part of them." h. The December 7 letter This is a four-page letter or handbill, dated December 7, from President Sinclair "TO ALL WIRE WEAVERS," and entitled "LET'S LOOK AT THE RECORD." The first page contains a large cartoon , showing that certain named companies lie buried in a graveyard with the Teamsters Union about to bury the Sinclair Company. The letter opens with the statement that "the Holyoke-Springfield industrial graveyard is filled with Companies which died under union pressure," and warns that before deciding how to vote in the December 9 election "every WIRE WEAVER in this plant would find it profitable to visit a few of the sites of once prosperous companies in the Holyoke area." Page 2 lists the names of companies which closed down, with the number of jobs lost, and points out that "these companies needed higher production and better quality to meet stiffer competition. The `union doctor' gave them bloodletting strikes, restricted production and higher labor costs. The result, as you can see as you look around you, was the death of these companies." Sinclair then states in part , that "whatever your feelings about unions may be, these facts exist ! Factories are gone ! Jobs are gone !" (P. 2.) He asks, "what facts do you have which would lead you to believe that a hoodlum dominated union, like the Teamsters , can give you real job opportunity at the Sinclair Company?" {P. 2.) He then warns that "against a background such as ours, your dreams of `union miracles' can be dangerous to your real job security," and urges that "before making your decision, drive past a few of the vacant plants where business died," assuring that "it will not be a pleasant drive but it could be a very informative one for you" (p. 3). At the bottom of page 3, in bold black letters, appears the THE SINCLAIR COMPANY slogan, "VOTE RIGHT, AVOID STRIKES," with an X in a square and the word "no" over the square. Page 4 contains the names and pictures of five plants which closed down, with statements such as: "Remember When These Plants FURNISHED Jobs To Area People?"; "Unions Furnished No Job Security Here !"; "Death Along The River"; and "So Quiet Today." Sinclair admitted at the instant hearing that he had no objective basis for stating that a union had anything to do with the closing of these plants. i. The December 8 leaflet The parties stipulated that this leaflet was handed out to the unit employees (wire weavers) on December 8 by President Sinclair at a company meeting. One side of this leaflet refers to the convictions of Teamsters International officials and to the "Hoodlum" and "Racketeer" domination of the Union. The other side repeats the slogan to "VOTE RIGHT, AVOID STRIKES" and enumerates what a "NO" vote will do, such as "never called a strike" and "never cost you a single day's pay" or "a cent of your paycheck." It concludes with the indication that a "NO" vote will "protect yourself" and "protect your family." j. The December 8 speech President Sinclair delivered a speech to the unit employees (wire weavers) at 1:30 p . m. on December 8, in the presence of the weave shop foreman. This time he talked from notes which he had before him. Many of the things he said were admittedly a repetition of what he had previously stated in his July speech. He opened his speech by referring to the corruption in the Teamsters and the conviction of some of its officials. Among the statements admittedly made by Sinclair were, in substance, the following: The Lindsay Company has made it clear that they want to make a profit in Holyoke at Sinclair and will not sink a bundle of money in Sinclair "for the fun of it"; if the Sinclair Company does not make a profit on its own, there was nothing to prevent Lindsay from having the work done at its facilities in Mississippi or Ohio; we have been operating on "thin ice"; the Teamsters Union can only demand higher wages and expensive welfare and pension plans which could lead to even larger losses, and can call you out on strike; we could not accede to unreasonable demands; the Union 's only weapon is a strike; a strike could lead to the closing of the plant; the weaving production at Sinclair was not a necessity to the success of the total operation of the Lindsay organization because Lindsay had other facilities where the material could be woven ; he did not think the Lindsay organization was going to be concerned about the threat of a strike; we were still subject to foreign competition and it was perfectly conceivable , if under any circumstances the plant should close, that some of this work could go to the foreign wire companies ; we had had to handle foreign wires in the past; the Teamsters cannot guarantee you another job if the plant should close because of a strike; it made no difference to the Teamsters whether or not Sinclair stayed in business ; the Teamsters might feel that other companies with whom they had contracts would pick up our lost business ; "they don't care which sheep they shear F The findings concerning the December 8 speech are based entirely on Sinclair's testimony and Resp Exh. 20 ' The findings as to this conversation are based on the credited 265 so long as they get the wool"; "it makes a lot of difference to me who is working"; I "want my job and I suppose that you want your job"; the wire weavers had a skilled trade which had limited use; "we are all Jack Benny's," with no one admitting that he is getting older ; some of the wire weavers were over 60 years old, which is a difficult time in life to start over again ; "most companies probably have a large number of applicants who are younger and better experienced," with "a lot better insurance rating," who "could be hired for less money"; "I am giving you the facts today and by my mailings previously"; "I am not concerned with beating a union ," but "I am concerned with our future." At the end of his talk, he asked if any of the employees would like to ask questions. No questions were asked.6 k. Individual employee talks President Sinclair admitted that during the period from July to the date of the election on December 9, he talked to about 10 of the 14 wire weavers in the unit , individually, in the weave shop where they worked. He admitted that on these occasions he told the individual employees that he would like to talk to them about the Union, asked if the employees had any questions concerning President Sinclair's position and the Company's feeling about the matter, and stated that he would answer any such questions if he could. Some of the employees asked questions which he attempted to answer . These questions "included some of the matters that were in my talk to the group in July." The record contains the specific content of only one of these conversations. In the latter part of September or the first part of October, after Sinclair had been informed by the Union in a letter dated September 24 that Richard Bougie, a wire weaver, was appointed a member of the union organizing committee, President Sinclair came to Bougie's workplace and asked what Bougie expected to get out of the Union, adding that "I realize that you are sold on this idea and I am here to try to unsell you." Bougie replied that he would like to see job security, seniority rights, and possibly a pension plan. Sinclair mentioned the things he liked such as a health and accident plan, stated how much these things would cost, and explained that he could not afford them.7 2. Concluding findings I am convinced and find that the series of letters, pamphlets, leaflets, and speeches from and by President Sinclair, hereinabove described, taken together and considered as a whole, reasonably tended to convey to the employees the belief or impression that selection of the Union in the forthcoming election could lead Respondent to close its plant , or to the transfer of the weaving production, with the resultant loss of jobs to the wire weavers. I reach the same conclusion and make the same finding based only on the totality of so much of the foregoing as occurred after November 8, the date on which the Union filed its representation petition , particularly when considered in the light of the letters and speech which preceded that date as background." By the foregoing conduct, Respondent in each case interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the testimony of Bougie Sinclair did not deny Bougie 's testimony in this regard 8 Cf Dee's of New Jersey, Inc , 161 NLRB 204 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9 Sinclair admitted that his Company had made a small profit in 1965, that the Charging Union in this case, Local 404, had never made any demands at all upon Respondent, and that he had no basis for concluding that this Local or its leaders were in any way connected with racketeering or hoodlums or picket line violence. But the message which the foregoing preelection campaign, even after November 8, reasonably tended to convey to the employees was that if they selected this Union as their bargaining representative, a strike would be inevitable because the Union would make excessive demands which Respondent would refuse to meet, that a strike could lead to the closing of the plant or the transfer of the weaving production to Lindsay's other facilities, and that the wire weavers would then lose their jobs and find it difficult to get other jobs because of their age and limited craft skills. The General Counsel further contends in his brief that certain specific statements in the July speech and subsequent letters and the individual talks with the 10 unit employees, each independently constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In view of my previous findings concerning Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(1), I deem it unnecessary to consider and to pass upon these contentions. D. The Allegation Concerning the Rental of the American Legion Hall Paragraph 14(c) of the complaint alleges: "Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, William Seavey, during the month of November 1965 or the first part of December 1965, in the Holyoke or South Hadley, Massachusetts area, attempted to cause the officers and/or managing agents of the American Legion Post organization not to allow its employees to use the American Legion Post facilities located at South Hadley, Massachusetts for the purpose of holding a union organizational meeting, and said Legion Post has officers and members who are employees of the Respondent, in order to interfere with, restrain and coerce the employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." William Seavey is employed by Respondent as superintendent of the machine division and is admitted to be a supervisor and agent of Respondent. During the past 10 years, Seavey has been a member of the American Legion Post 260, headquartered in a building owned by the Legion Post and located about one-half to three-quarters of a mile from Respondent's plant. At one time or another, Seavey has held every position with the Legion Post; in November 1965, he was the chaplain, a member of the board of directors, and the president of the board of trustees. Seavey has been a member of the board of directors since the time when he was the moving force in the purchase of the Legion Post building in 1959 or 1960. During his stewardship and because of his efforts, the membership of the Post had risen to 176 but had fallen to 140 or 150 in November 1965. Seven of the members were employed by Respondent, including Post Commander Nadeau and President Sinclair. The top floor of the Legion building is rented from time to time to other organizations, and was regularly rented for B See, e g , Harold Miller, et al dlb/a Miller-Charles and Company, 146 NLRB 405, affd 341 F 2d 870 (C A 2), Harvey Aluminum, 156 NLRB 1353, Suprenant Mfg Co , 144 NLRB 507, the monthly meetings of labor organizations which represented employees at two,area companies. Although this hall was never rented by Respondent, a going-away party for two of Respondent's employees was held there in 1963, attended by Seavey and President Sinclair, and a retirement party for one of Respondent's employees was held there in 1965, attended by President Seavey. Respondent has an employee association which takes care of this type of functions. During the time material herein, the manager of the building was Harold Geissler, who was also on the board of directors but was not an employee of Respondent. The steward was Richard Meta, who was also employed there as the bartender. The board of directors consisted of 14 members. There are two trustees who have the authority with respect to the upkeep and maintenance of the building. When a question arises regarding the use of the building, the board of trustees will meet and pass upon it. Either a member will leave a note for the manager regarding a proposed rental or the manager can arrange the rental. The board of trustees acts officially in rental matters only when a problem arises, and this does not occur in more than one case out of a hundred. In November 1965 Post Commander Nadeau, who was employed by Respondent as a truckdriver, asked Seavey if he knew that Respondent's employees were attempting to rent the Legion Hall for a union organizing meeting. It was Nadeau's practice to request Seavey's opinion on all matters pertaining to American Legion business. Seavey replied that he had heard about it but had not heard anything official. Nadeau asked Seavey what he thought about it. Seavey replied that he "didn't like it," stating that President Sinclair and five other employees of Sinclair were members of the Post and that he "didn't think it was right." A few weeks later, Seavey was approached by two members of the Legion Post's board of directors, Geissler and Petri, concerning the hall rental for the proposed union meeting. Geissler was also the manager of the Legion Post. Seavey stated that he would rather not discuss the matter at the bar, and they moved to an adjoining room. The bartender or steward informed them that "one of the boys" gave him a $10 down payment for he use of the hall. All three expressed surprise, and this was the first time Seavey obtained any real information about the matter. Geissler and Petri asked Seavey how he felt about it. Seavey replied that he didn't like it, that there would be conflict with members that were in the shop, that the Legion had worked hard for members, that he had tried to build the Post up and had brought seven members in from Sinclair, that he didn't want to use the Legion Hall as grounds for an argument, and that he would prefer that the meeting be held somewhere else, on neutral grounds. No meeting of the board of directors or of the trustees was held; nor did Seavey request such a meeting, although he was a member of both boards. Seavey gave no instructions to the steward or to the manager concerning this matter; nor did he mention it to President Sinclair or any other agent or supervisor of Respondent. However, as a result of this matter involving the rental of the hall to Respondent's employees for union organizational meetings, Seavey resigned as president of the board of trustees before his term had expired. 510-511, enfd 341 F 2d 756, 761 (C A 6), Ideal Baking Company of Tennessee, Inc , 143 NLRB 546, and Kolmar Laboratories, Inc, 159 NLRB 805, and cases cited in fn 3 THE SINCLAIR COMPANY 267 Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the above-described conduct of Superintendent Seavey. E. Objections to Election An election was conducted by the Board in a unit of Respondent's journeymen wire weavers on December 9, 1965. As previously noted, the Union lost the election by a vote of 7 to 6. Thereafter, timely objections and exceptions were filed by the Union, and the hearing ordered by the Board was for the purpose of resolving the issues raised thereby. The hearing was consolidated with the hearing in the unfair labor practice case. It is well settled that the Board will consider only conduct which occurred after the date of the filing of the petition as a basis for objections to an election. 10 In this case, the petition was filed on November 8, 1965. As I have previously found, the series of letters, pamphlets, and leaflets, and the December 8 speech, from and by President Sinclair after November 9, taken together and considered as a whole, particularly in the light of his letters and speech which preceded that date as background, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because they reasonably tended to convey to the wire weavers the belief or impression that selection of the Union in the forthcoming election could lead Respondent to close its plant, or to the transfer of the weaving production, with the resultant loss of jobs to the wire weavers. I further find that the aformentioned conduct also interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election involved here. See Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786-87. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's conduct deprived the employees of their right to express a free choice in the election. I there- fore find merit in and sustain the objections 1, 2, and duplicate 2, and recommend that the election of December 9, 1965, be set aside. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's above-described conduct is not found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I nevertheless recommend setting the election aside. It is clear that Respondent's entire preelection campaign after November 8 generated an atmosphere of fear of economic loss which completely polluted the free atmosphere which is indispensable to a valid election and tended to foreclose the possibility that the election issues will be decided on the basis of the employees' judgment as to whether the Union will be able to represent them effectively in light of existing economic conditions." F. The Refusal to Bargain 1. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority status therein The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that all journeymen wire weavers of Respondent employed at its Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive of all other employees, all production and maintenance employees, service employees, office clerical employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The parties stipulated to the names of the employees in the appropriate unit at all material times herein, which consisted of a total of 14 employees; they further stipulated that the same 14 named employees were the only ones employed in the unit by Respondent during the period from July 6 through December 9, 1965. The General Counsel introduced into evidence union authorization cards signed in July 1965 by 11 of the 14 employees in the appropriate unit . At the hearing, but no longer mentioned in his brief, counsel for Respondent objected to the cards signed by Gary Brunault , Victor Goulet, and William Dean. He affirmatively stated that he had no objections to the cards signed by the other eight employees, thus conceding that in July 1965 the Union had valid authorization cards signed by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. The objection to the card signed by Brunault was on the alleged ground that the date was not properly authenticated. His card bears the date of "7-20-65." Brunault credibly testified that he received the union card at his home by mail about July 6 or 7, 1965, that he filled it out and signed it at home but did not date it, that he then put it in his shirt pocket, and later mailed it when he got to a mailbox. He further credibly testified that to the best of his recollection it was July 8 when he filled it out and signed it. The card bears a United States postal stamp of July 9. Brunault explained that someone must have put the date on the card after it was received by the Union. I find that Brunault signed the card between July 6 and 9, 1965, and that this is a valid authorization card for the purpose of determining the Union's representative status. The objection to the card signed by Goulet was on the alleged ground that Goulet could not testify positively concerning the facts in connection with the card. Goulet credibly testified that he signed the card on July 7, and that he filled it out himself, including the date. I find no merit in Respondent's objection, and find this to be a valid authorization card for the purpose of determining the Union's representative status. The objection to the card signed by Dean was on the ground that he allegedly did not voluntarily mail the card or deliver it to the Union. Dean credibly testified that he received the card in the mail, he signed it at home, he had read it before signing it, he then placed it on his bureau because he wanted to think it over for "a little while," and the next day his wife told him that she had his son mail it. He further credibly testified that, although he had not authorized his wife to mail it, he did nothing thereafter to try to get his card back or to revoke his authorization. I find this card to be a valid authorization card for the purpose of determining the Union's representative status. It thus appears that a clear majority of the employees in an appropriate unit had validly designated the Union as their bargaining representative when the Union made its demand on September 20, 1965, for recognition and bargaining. While a Board election is normally the best method of determining whether or not employees desire to be represented by a bargaining agent, where, as here, an employer engages in unfair labor practices which make impossible the holding of a free election, there is no alternative but to look to the signed authorization cards as the only available proof of the choice employees would have absent the employer's unfair labor practices.12 To the 10 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453 " See, e g., Ideal Baking Company, supra , 553, General Industries Electronics Company, 146 NLRB 1139, and Brunswick Corporation, 147 NLRB 428 12 Bryant Chucking Grinder Company, 160 NLRB 1526 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD extent that the election revealed a loss of union support, such loss must be found attributable to the Respondent's unfair labor practices. I find that at all times on and after September 20, 1965, the Union has represented a majority of the employees within the appropriate unit and has been, and still is, the exclusive representative of all the employees within said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 2. The request and refusal By letter dated September 20, 1965, from Union President Carmin Napoli and addressed to Respondent's President Sinclair, the Union advised that "the majority of your journeymen-wire weavers and apprentices at your Holyoke, Massachusetts, location have designated this Local Union, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as their collective bargaining representative"; requested "recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of the aforementioned Employees" and a "meeting, as soon as possible, for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement covering wages, hours and other conditions of employment"; and offered "to submit signed authorization cards of your Employees to a neutral party, mutually agreed upon, and to allow the third party to compare these cards with your present payroll" if "you have any doubt as to our representing a majority of your employees in the above described bargaining unit." The letter concluded with the statement that "we would appreciate hearing from you on this matter at your earliest convenience." President Sinclair admitted receiving this letter and replying by a letter dated September 28, 1965. The reply letter acknowledged receipt of the above-described letter of the Union; stated that "your request for recognition is denied (a) because the Company has a good-faith doubt that Local 404 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents an uncoerced majority of its weaving department employees, (b) because as stated by NLRB Chairman McCullough [sic], authorization cards are unreliable as a means for determining a Union's majority status , and (c) because the Company expects that there will be questions concerning the appropriate bargaining unit which should be determined by the Board"; and suggested "that Local 404 follow the election procedures established by the Board." The Union admitted receiving this letter. 3. Respondent's contentions and concluding findings Sinclair testified that "I was not at all sure that they represented a majority of the employees because I didn't actually know exactly what they were talking about as far as bargaining unit is concerned." He further testified that he was questioning the appropriateness of the requested bargaining unit of journeymen wire weavers and apprentices because "we had no apprentices at that time" and "I did not know what was meant by an apprentice." I find this argument to be specious. Sinclair very well knew what an apprentice wire weaver was. He admitted that Respondent had in the past employed wire weaver apprentices , that it had not been unusual for a wire weaving department to employ both journeymen and wire weaver apprentices , that the only union which ever represented any of Respondent 's employees represented the journeymen wire weavers and apprentices , and that many of the journeymen wire weavers employed by Respondent during the period from July through December had started as apprentices and had served their apprentice years with Respondent. He further admitted that the helpers employed in the weaving department "to assist the weavers in the various operations of setting up and removing cloth" are not apprentices. Sinclair admittedly made no effort to ascertain to whom the Union was referring by the category of apprentices in his employ at that time and that there were only 14 journeymen wire weavers employed . In the latter part of November, Respondent entered into a stipulation that its journeymen wire weavers constituted an appropriate unit . I find that Respondent did not have any good-faith doubt as to the composition of the bargaining unit which the Union claimed to represent13 or that such a unit was appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes even if Respondent at that time employed no apprentices. Moreover , a good- faith , but erroneous, belief that a unit is inappropriate is no defense to a refusal to bargain. 19 As previously noted, the Union's bargaining request of September 20 and the representation petition which it filed on November 8, covered a unit of journeymen wire weavers and apprentices . However, as Respondent employed no apprentices, the stipulation which the parties executed in the latter part of November and the instant complaint covers a unit only of journeymen wire weavers as an appropriate unit. Counsel for Respondent contends in his brief that there was no bargaining request in a unit confined solely to journeymen wire weavers and that there is a fatal variance between the unit requested and the unit for which it is alleged Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain . I find no merit in this contention . I find that there is no substantial variance in the units and that the Union's bargaining request was a valid request for bargaining in the unit to which the parties subsequently stipulated and herein found appropriate. 15 Nor do I find any merit in Respondent 's contention that it had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority representation claim . Sinclair testified that this doubt was based on his "personal feeling." As previously found, after the Union's bargaining request, Respondent engaged in a coercive course of conduct designed to induce the employees to abandon their support for the Union and which dissipated the Union's majority status and prevented a free choice in the subsequent election. Such conduct gives rise to this inference , which I herein make, that Respondent's refusal to bargain on and after September 20, 1965, was not motivated by any good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority status in an appropriate bargaining unit but was instead motivated by a desire to gain time within which to dissipate that majority status. Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F.2d 732, 737, 741 13 See, e g , Jack Gordon, et al d/b/a Ivy Hill Lithograph Co , 121 NLRB 831,835 14 Tom Thumb Stores, Inc, 123 NLRB 833, United Butchers Abattoir, Inc., 123 NLRB 946, 957; Southland Paint Company, Inc , 156 NLRB 22, and cases there cited; and Owego Street Supermarkets, Inc., 159 NLRB 1735. 11 See, e g, Edwards Fields, Incorporated, 141 NLRB 1182, 1195, Mid-West Towel & Linen Service, Inc, 143 NLRB 744, 752, Sabine Vending Co , Inc, 147 NLRB 1010,1011, Hamilton Plastic Molding Company, 135 NLRB 371, 373, Galloway Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 405, Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co, 149 NLRB 862, 873, and Fleming & Sons of Colorado, Inc, 147 NLRB 1271,1273. THE SINCLAIR COMPANY (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914. By such refusal, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 16 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All journeymen wire weavers of Respondent employed at its Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive of all other employees, all production and maintenance employees, service employees, office clerical employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 2. At all times on and after September 20, 1965, the Union has been, and still is, the exclusive representative of all the employees within said appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 3. By refusing to recognize and bargain with General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy & Highway Construction Employees, Local No. 404, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing conduct and by threatening employees with the possible closing of the plant or the transfer of the weaving production, with the attendant loss of employment for the wire weavers, if they were to select the above-named labor organization as their collective- bargaining representative, in the manner described in section C, supra, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 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 which will effectuate the policies of the Act. 18 I find no merit in the procedural contention of counsel for Respondent that the 8(a)(5) allegation in the complaint is defective because it fails to contain an affirmative allegation that Respondent did not have a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status when it refused its request for recognition and bargaining While the burden is on the General Counsel to establish affirmatively that a good-faith doubt of majority was not 269 Having found that Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I will recommend that, upon request, Respondent recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. Moreover, I would recommend the same bargaining order even if the record had warranted the conclusion, contended for by Respondent, that it relied on a bona fide doubt of the Union's majority in refusing to bargain with the Union. As previously found, the Union represented a clear majority of the journeymen wire weavers when Respondent began its unlawful campaign directed at destroying that majority. To the extent that the election revealed a loss of union support thereafter, such loss must be found attributable to the Respondent's unfair labor practices. Therefore, effectuation of the policies of the Act would still require such a bargaining order in order properly to remedy Respondent's other unfair labor practices herein found. 17 Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent, The Sinclair Company, Holyoke, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy & Highway Construction Employees, Local No. 404, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment: All journeymen wire weavers of The Sinclair Company employed at its Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive of all other employees, all production and maintenance employees, service employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. (b) Threatening the employees with the possible closing of the plant or the transfer of the weaving production, with the attendant loss of employment, or with any other economic reprisals, if they were to select the above- named, or any other, labor organization as their collective- bargaining representative. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described the reason for Respondent's refusal to bargain , there is no requirement that the complaint must contain such an allegation John P Serpa, Inc, 155 NLRB 99 H & W Construction Company, Inc., 161 NLRB 852 As found in the text, the General Counsel has satisfied his burden in this case 17 Bryant Chucking Gnnder Company, 160 NLRB 1526 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. (b) Post at its plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, upon being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.19 I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the election in Case 1-RC-8713, held on December 9, 1965, be set aside. 11 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 " 1s In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps 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 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the possible closing of the plant or the transfer of the weaving production, with the attendant loss of employment, or with any other economic reprisals, if they were to select General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy & Highway Construction Employees, Local No. 404, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, or any other labor organization, as their collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. The bargaining unit is: All journeymen wire weavers employed at our Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive of all other employees, all production and maintenance employees, service employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. THE SINCLAIR COMPANY (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 , Telephone 223-3353.