Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc.

SHELBY WILLIAMS OF TENNESSEE, INC. Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc. and Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-6476. June 21, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On November 3, 1966, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.' 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, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner's Decision as are consistent with the following: While we agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent did not refuse to recognize the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we do not fully adopt his rationale in this regard. The Trial Examiner concluded, inter alia, that the Respondent did not breach its bargaining obligation on February 25, 1966, by rejecting the Union's demand for recognition and promptly filing a petition for an election because he found that the Union on that date did not possess a majority of union authorization cards. We find it unnecessary to consider, and make no determination, whether the Union at the time of its demand had valid authorization cards from a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit. Assuming, arguendo, that the Union possessed majority status, we find no basis to support a finding that the Respondent in bad faith declined to recognize and to bargain with the Union.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the 165 NLRB No. 108 737 Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc., Morristown, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. ' After filing timely exceptions , the Respondent, on December 5, 1966, also filed cross-exceptions setting forth additional exceptions with a supporting brief As the Board's Rules and Regulations do not provide for the filing of cross- exceptions by a party which has previously filed exceptions, Respondent's cross-exceptions have not been considered by the Board in arriving at its determination of this case See Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , revised January 1 , 1965, Sec 102 46. 2 See Hammond & Irving, Inc, 154 NLRB 1071 Cf Aaron Brothers Company of California, 158 NLRB 1077, Mace Food Stores Inc , 162 NLRB 1605 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. BRUCE HUNT, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, in which the charge was filed on March 2, 1966, and the complaint was issued on June 27, 1966, involves allegations that the Respondent, Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 et seq. On August-23 and 24, 1966, I conducted a hearing at Morristown, Tennessee, at which all parties were represented. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE RESPONDENT Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of furniture at its office and plant in Morristown, Tennessee. The Respondent annually ships furniture valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside Tennessee. There is no dispute. and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNION Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, I is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The principal issue is whether the Respondent invalidly refused to bargain with the Union during February 1966. As will appear, the Union refused to participate in an election, and the Respondent, asserting that it doubted the Union's claim of majority status, refused to agree to a card check by an impartial person. Subsidiary issues are whether the Union possessed majority status and whether the Respondent, by granting a wage increase to the employees, demonstrated that it did not have a good-faith doubt concerning such status. 738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Background On November 12, 1964, upon a petition filed by the Union in Case 10-RC-6025, the Board's Regional Director for Region 10 conducted an election in which the Respondent's employees were afforded an opportunity to vote for or against representation by the Union. Of approximately 51 eligible voters, 30 voted against the Union, 18 voted for it , and there were 1 void and 2 challenged ballots. The Union did not file objections to the election , and, on November 20, 1964, the Regional Director certified the result. C. Events During 1965 and 1966 During early November 1965, the Union began another organizational campaign among the Respondent's employees, the number of whom had more than doubled. Two organizers for the Union, Paul D. Vandergriff and John E. Ray, called upon employees over a period of approximately 4 months and solicited signatures to cards designating the Union as the employees' representative. Additionally , signatures to a few cards were obtained by employee solicitors . There were no meetings of employees , the solicitations having been conducted on an individual basis as the organizers learned the names and addresses of new employees from those who had been employed during the 1964 campaign . During November, December, January, and February, respectively, 15, 10, 22, and 6 employees signed cards. Two additional cards were signed on behalf of employees by their wives at their direction , one during November and the other during December. One of those employees is Onnie Dyer, an illiterate. The total number of cards which clearly bear dates during the 4-stated months is 55. Finally, two additional cards, bearing the purported signature of Junior Dawson and the signature of James C . Parker, bear erroneous or illegible dates of signing. i (The cards of Dyer, Dawson. and Parker will be discussed hereinafter.) The grand total of cards is 57. The number of employees in the unit at times material was 112. The latest legible and correct date on a card is February 18, 1966. D.H. Woodall , a representative of the Union, wrote to the Respondent , 2 days later , claiming that the Union possessed majority status in a unit of production and maintenance employees, demanding recognition, and offering to have the claimed status established by a "cross check" to be conducted by "an impartial person." On February 21, prior to receipt of the Union 's letter, but after the Respondent had learned of the solicitation of employees to sign cards, the Respondent called a meeting of employees and announced that a general wage increase would be made effective on March 1 . That increase, discussed in detail hereinafter , is alleged as a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and as proof that the Respondent did not have a good-faith doubt that the Union possessed majority status. On February 23, the Respondent received the Union's letter. On the next day, the Respondent filed a petition in Case 10-RM-434, seeking an election in a unit I If I correctly decipher the signature on G C Exh 44, it is that of an employee named Albert Rucker The date of signing is illegible insofar as it is written in ink because the fluid in a ball point pen did not flow freely onto the card The pressure exerted on the pen , however , made indentations on the card which, by use of a magnifying glass, are a distinct "1-27 66 " 2 In a few instances , signatures on cards do not coincide in spelling with the names on a typed list of employees in the unit of its production and maintenance employees. On February 25, Leslie D.Guyette, the Respondent's general manager, replied to Woodall's letter , saying inter alta that the Respondent "honestly" doubted that the Union possessed majority status , the Union had made a like claim during 1964 but had lost an election then, the Respondent believed that the issue should be decided in an election , and the Respondent had filed a petition. On March 1, the wage increase became effective. On March 2, the Union filed its charge in the instant case. On June 27, the complaint was issued , and on July 27, the Regional Director dismissed the Respondent 's petition for the reason that the complaint had been issued. D. The Refusal to Bargain Collectively 1. The appropriate unit There is no dispute , and I find, that all full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Morristown, Tennessee, plant, including the truckdriver and the leadman , but excluding office clerical employees , professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 2. The Union' s claimed majority status The parties are agreed, and I find , that at times material there were 112 employees in the unit. The Union received a total of 57 authorization cards, a bare majority.2 The Respondent asserts that numerous cards should not be counted. It is unnecessary to detail the Respondent's contentions concerning various cards and to express my disagreement with the contentions . 3 It will suffice to discuss three cards, those of Dawson , Parker, and Dyer. If a single one should not be counted , the Union did not have majority status. Prefatory to a discussion of the three cards, reference should be made to certain data which appear on the reverse sides of all cards. Signatures to 50 of the 57 cards were obtained by Vandergriff and/or Ray, the two organizers , so Vandergriff testified . According to Vandergriff, he and Ray agreed beforehand that, as signatures were obtained , one of the organizers would make notations on the reverse side showing the place and date of signing followed by the initials of the organizer or organizers who had been present . The remaining seven cards were not obtained by Vandergriff or Ray from the employees whose names appear on the faces thereof. On these cards certain notations appear on the reverse sides which purport to identify witnesses to the signatures and, in all instances except one (Dawson 's card), purport to fix the dates of signing or the dates when the cards came into the Union's possession. Dawson's card: The date on its face appears to be 7-15-66, an inaccurate date because all of the cards came into the possession of the Board 's Regional Office on No contention has been made that such variances are material 3 I should note , however , that I do not credit the contradicted testimony of certain witnesses for the Respondent that they were told by a union representa tive that (1) the cards were solely for use in obtaining an election, or (2) that loss of a job would follow a refusal to sign a card Those witnesses for the Respondent did not impress me favorably when giving such testimony SHELBY WILLIAMS OF TENNESSEE, INC. April 11, 1966.4 There is no date on its rear . Dawson did not testify and the record does not disclose whether he was available to any party as a witness. Testimony concerning the card was given by Carroll Holt, an employee. As a witness for the General Counsel, Holt testified that Dawson signed the card in his presence while seated in an automobile in the Respondent's parking lot. He testified further: Q. . . . As far as you know, is the date on that card correct , to the best of your knowledge? A. That's January 15th, 1966. Q. That is not a seven as it appears on the upper righthand corner? A. Right. MR. UEHLEIN : Note for the record that the date on the card , the first number appears to be a seven. Q. This was in January? A. It was in January. There was no further direct examination . Very quickly it developed that Holt may have dated Dawson 's card. Cross-examination began: Q. (By Mr. Pate) Where does the date January appear on that card? (Witness points at card.) Q. You mean that seven is January? A. That's a one, sir. Why that is seven there I do not know . Maybe the pencil , for some reason-5 Q. Who put it on there? A. I believe I did. I don't know. The boy was asked to sign the card, signed it, passed it to me. He said, "Will you put the date on there for me?" Which I was, I'm sure, I was eating lunch , and I believe I put the date on there, to the best of my knowledge. Holt testified that. he does not usually write the numeral "1" so that it appears to be a "7," and the "1" in the numeral signifying the 15th day of the month is clear. As Holt's cross-examination continued , he did not again express uncertainty whether he had dated Dawson 's card, but he voiced a lack of memory in another respect. He testified that two other men had been in the automobile with Dawson and himself, he could not remember the name of either of those men, one of the men had asked Dawson to sign the card , and Holt did not know what Dawson had done with the card after Holt dated it and returned it to Dawson .6 In view of (1) Holt's doubt, expressed at the beginning of his cross-examination, that he dated the card; (2) his professed ability to recall that there were four men in an automobile , one of whom solicited Dawson's signature, plus his inability to recall the identity of the third or fourth man; and (3) the absence of any testimony by Holt as to his ability to fix January as the month of signing, I am not satisfied that Holt was present when the card was signed, Dawson signed it, and the card was signed before February 25, the date upon which the Respondent refused to bargain. Parker's card: Of the 50 cards obtained by the two organizers , this card and one other are the only ones which are not dated on the reverse side. Vandergriff , while on the witness stand , examined a large group of cards, including Vandergriff testified that he turned all cards over to the Regional Office on March 2 when he filed the charge Such testimony is not substantiated by an April 11 date , stamped on each card to show when the Regional Office received it 739 Parker's. and testified that to the best of his knowledge all cards in the group were correctly dated and were signed by employees prior to the Union's demand for recognition. Parker's card does not have a legible date on its face, however. He used numerals to signify the date of signing. The numeral "66" for the year is clear, but I cannot determine the month and day. On the reverse side is a notation bearing Vandergriff's initials that the card was signed in Parker's home, but there is no date on the reverse side, nor is there testimony by Vandergriff concerning the date when Parker signed. I cannot find as a fact that the card was signed prior to February 25. Dyer's card: Dyer is the illiterate who directed his wife to sign his name to a card. Vandergriff and Ray called at Dyer's home and talked to him in the presence of his wife. Before discussing the conversation on that occasion, certain comments should be made about Dyer. He was born in 1933 and is a native of Greene County, Tennessee, which adjoins the county in which the Respondent 's plant is located . He testified that he cannot read at all and that he can write only his name. He testified also that he attended public school in Greene County, dropping out while in the fourth grade, and that he did not remember how old he was at that time. The record does not disclose why Dyer ceased attending school or whether , as a pupil, he learned to read or write anything . I received the impression that his mentality is quite limited , but he was not on the witness stand long enough for me to obtain a more detailed impression . Turning to Dyer's wife who signed the card at his direction , he testified that he was "not sure" but that he believed that "she went to about the seventh" grade. The card reads in pertinent part: I do hereby designate and authorize the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and its representatives to act as my representative for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment and other conditions of employment. The quoted words were not read to Dyer and if they had been read it cannot be said with certainty that he would have understood. Vandergriff testified, however, that: [t] he card was explained to both Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, that it-not exactly what it said-that the Upholsterers' Union was requesting signatures in order to have a majority status to request recognition from the company ; and that the card was for the purpose of a majority to make such a request. Before turning to Dyer's recollection of the conversation , additional testimony by Vandergriff will be recited. He testified that another employee "was told that ... our intention was going an eight -five [8(a)(5)] route, which was something new in the law," and that "all of the employees" were told that "we were going the eight-five route; that we were going to request the company , once we had a majority of signatures on cards, for recognition; and then , if we were forced to an election , why, we had no other alternative .... We explained as well as we could that an eight-five was short of an election , provided we 5 A pencil was not used in filling out the card e On the reverse side of the card the following appears "Signed at the plant in the presence of Carroll Holt turned into Vandergriff " 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD could prove that the Company had depleted their majority, or something to that effect ...."' Dyer testified for the Respondent. On direct examination, he was asked what Vandergriff and Ray had said to him about signing a card, and he answered, "Well, I asked them if they were going to have them sign them. They said yes, about everybody was signing them; about as fast as they'd get to them, they were signing them." Dyer was then asked whether he was told "what the card was for," and he answered, "Said something about they were going to have a voting on it, and that the card didn't amount to anything." Dyer testified further that Vandergriff or Ray said that the caid "would be sent to Nashville, or somewhere, to be checked over, and that card would be destroyed. He said that card didn't amount to anything."" On cross-examination. Dyer gave similar testimony and, in response to additional questions, testified that he did not "remember what all was said," but that Vandergriff and Ray said that "they was wanting to get those cards signed, just about everybody was signing them" and that "they would have an election on it." He testified further that he could not recall having been told (1) that if enough cards were signed the Union could talk with the Company concerning his wages and hours, or (2) anything about better wages, more money, better vacations, or longer break periods, but that he was told that the Union could do "something about better insurance." Upon the completion of counsel's questions, I asked Dyer if he had talked with his wife about the card. She had listened to the remarks of the organizers and had had an opportunity to read the card. Dyer answered: "She told me after they [the organizers] left, said I shouldn't have signed it; and so after a while she said she couldn't understand it .... [W]e didn't talk any more about it. I didn't know I couldn't read it, and I didn't know anything about it. She said she couldn't understand what it meant." The question is whether Dyer was aware that the card designated the Union to represent him, Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc., 160 NLRB 440. Unfortunately, Dyer was not asked to relate his "understanding of the purpose of" the card, a question which may properly be asked of an illiterate, Flint River Mills, Inc., 107 NLRB 472, 476. As recited earlier, there were no union meetings, and thus Dyer had no opportunity to meet with fellow workers concerning the Union. He was asked if he had heard "any talk about the union" while at work, and his unenlightening reply was that he "didn't hear too much about it." He did not talk with Vandergriff or Ray except upon the occasion when they called at his home. His card was signed on November 24 and was the 13th card to come into the Union's possession. He testified that he had nothing to do with the Union after that date, and there is no evidence that he ever had any other contact with a labor organization. He was not an employee of the Respondent at the time of the election during 1964, having been hired less than 4 months before his wife signed the card. ' At other points in his testimony, Vandergnff testified that he never told anyone that the cards were "strictly confidential," but that he told Ivan Cook that the cards were "in confidence, insofar as we [Vandergnff and Ray] were concerned, unless the company didn't recognize us and there would be a cross-check " On the other hand, he testified also that he did not know whether he told "any employee that the cards would be kept confidential except to a person who might conduct a card check " ' Dyer's testimony that Vandergriff spoke of having the card destroyed has the ring of truth Vandergriff testified that he told Cook that the card "would end up at the Board, and that if he I need not determine whether Dyer's card should be counted. My conclusions concerning the cards of Dawson and Parker leave the Union without majority status. There is the possibility, however, that those conclusions will be reversed, and for that reason I have discussed Dyer's card at some length. I add only (1) that Vandergriff's quoted testimony concerning the explanation of the card to Dyer and Dyer's wife may not have been informative to a person such as Dyer, that the same may be true of an explanation to him of "the eight-five route," and (2) that the portions of the organizers' remarks to Dyer which stand out in his memory are that "about everybody was signing" cards and that there would be an election. In summary, I find that the Union did not possess majority status. 3. The general wage increase and the Respondent's refusal to bargain As recited, on February 21, the Respondent held a meeting of employees and announced a general wage increase to become effective on March 1. The General Counsel says in his brief that the announcement came at the culmination of the Union's organizational campaign, and this may be so because, as we have seen, the Union obtained few authorization cards during February and the last card with a legible and accurate date was signed on February 18. On the other hand, the Respondent's general manager, Guyette, testified that he did not know of the Union's solicitation of signatures to cards until February 1 and that the decision to give the wage increase was made prior thereto.9 According to Guyette, a tentative decision to grant the increase was made during December in discussions which he had with Manford Steinfeld, president of both the Respondent and its parent corporation, and J.W. Lawson of Southeastern Employers Service Corporation which supplies various services to the Respondent. Guyette testified further that additional discussions took place during January and that it was decided during that month to grant an increase of 7 cents and to make the announcement during February. The effective date of the increase, March 1, coincides with the beginning of the fiscal years of the Respondent and its parent corporation. Guyette's testimony concerning conversations in which he participated with Steinfeld and Lawson was hardly subject to contradiction by the General Counsel, and I do not believe that Guyette was entirely truthful. On the other hand, Guyette gave other uncontradicted testimony in support of the Respondent's assertion that its motive in granting the increase was economic, and such testimony was subject to contradiction if untrue. Thus, Guyette testified that the Union represents employees in the Chicago plant of the Respondent's parent corporation, the expiration date of a contract there was March 1, and the parent's position in negotiations there was that it could not give an increase above 7 cents. Additionally, Guyette testified that during [Cook] wanted it destroyed, we would either destroy it or return it to him, if he wanted it " " Guyette testified that on February 1 an emp'oyee told him that the employee had been asked to sign a card It is extremely unusual that word of organizational activity in a small town would not reach an employer's ears for a period of 3 months, but in this case there is no evidence that Guyette or any other supervisor learned of the activity prior to February 1 Moreover, there were no union meetings and there is no evidence of organizational activity within the plant Signatures to cards were solicited on an individual basis, principally in employees' homes. SHELBY WILLIAMS OF TENNESSEE, INC. 741 December, January, and "the first part of 1966," labor in Morristown was scarce; that any unemployed person there was not "looking for a job"; that as early as December Burkline, a competitor in Morristown, had publicized a general increase of 5 cents; and that Forest Products, another competitor there, had either announced a general increase or had made known to Guyette its intention to grant one. 10 Guyette announced the increase to assembled employees on February 21. This was 3 weeks after the date that Guyette fixed as the date upon which he learned of the organizational activity, and 2 days before the Respondent received the Union's demand for recognition. Guyette told the employees, so he testified, that the reason for the increase was the "fine cooperation, loyalty, workmanship and et cetera that they had given us and myself at our plant here in Tennessee." He also told them, according to Lula Kate Swann, an employee, that the Respondent "would like to keep us up with the plant in Chicago." At one point in his remarks to the employees, Guyette made an oblique reference to the Union. Swann testified without contradiction that Guyette said that the wage increase would be received "without a $5 discount." Another employee, Olin Johnson, testified without contradiction that Guyette said that the increase would not cost the employees a certain amount each month. The amount was $3 or $5, Johnson having been unable to recall which one. The initial question concerning the wage increase is whether the announcement of it violated Section 8(a)(1). I find that it did. Although there were economic motivations for the increase , Guyette sought in his announcement to hinder future organizational efforts of the Union. Such purpose is shown by his reference to a discount or to the absence of a monthly cost of $3 or $5. The next question is whether the increase, coupled with the Respondent's petition for an election, establishes that the Respondent sought time for the increase to impress the employees enough to destroy any majority status that the Union may have obtained. This question need not be treated thoroughly because it has been found that the Union did not possess such status. Assuming arguendo that the Union possessed majority status, there are definite weaknesses in the General Counsel's contention that the Respondent acted in bad faith in rejecting the Union's demand for recognition. First, the Respondent possessed sound economic motives for deciding to grant the increase. Second, the increase was announced before the Respondent had any reason , insofar as the record discloses, to believe that the Union had obtained majority status. Third, the increase was put into effect after the Union demanded recognition, but the effectuation was no more than compliance with the announcement. Fourth, promptly after the Union demanded recognition, the Respondent filed its petition. If its purpose was to gain time in which to undermine the Union, by filing the petition it took a step which was calculated to decrease the length of time that otherwise would have been available to it. Fifth, the Respondent was aware when filing the petition that little more than 1 year before the Union had claimed to possess majority status but had been unable to prove its claim in an election which, insofar as the record establishes, was not impaired by any unfair labor practice. Sixth, the only unfair labor practice found in this case lies in Guyette's remark about a discount or the absence of a monthly cost of $3 or $5. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Morristown, Tennessee, plant, including the truckdriver and the leadman, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. The record does not establish that the Union has been or is the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The allegations of the complaint that the Respondent invalidly refused to bargain with the Union have not been sustained. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, and in order to effectuate the Act's policies, I hereby recommend that Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Announcing wage increases to employees in a manner calculated to hinder the efforts of any labor organization to become the employees' representative. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post, in conspicuous places at its place of business, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 10, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 10 Much of Guyette's testimony concerning economic motivation for the wage increase is substantially in accord with an affidavit which he gave to the General Counsel on March 9, and there was ample time before the hearing for the accuracy of Guyette's statements to be investigated 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." 299-352 0-70-48 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 12 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES employees in a manner calculated to hinder the efforts of any labor organization to become your representative. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice and to engage in union activities , or not to join a union and not to engage in such activities. SHELBY WILLIAMS OF TENNESSEE, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT announce any wage increase to 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, 528 Peachtree- Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30323, Telephone 404-526-5760.