F. P. Adams Co., Inc.

F.P. ADAMS CO., INC. 967 F. P. Adams Co., Inc. and Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America F. P. Adams Co., Inc. and Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Cases 21-CA-7371 and 21-RC-10169 August 1, 1967 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On April 19, 1967, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in the unfair labor practice alleged in the com- plaint 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 recommended that Ob- jection 1 to the election in Case 21-RC-10169 be sustained. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross- exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional 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 briefs, and the entire record in this case, and finds merit in the exceptions of the Respondent. Ac- cordingly, the Board adopts the Trial Examiner's Decision only to the extent consistent herewith. Union organizational activity commenced on July 26, 1966. A demand for recognition was made on August 9 and rejected by the Respondent on August 11. On the same date Respondent posted a notice on plant bulletin boards stating its opposition to the Union. Paragraph (6) of the notice announced the following no-solicitation rule: No person will be allowed to carry on union organizing activities on the job. Anybody who does so and who thereby neglects his own work or interfer-s [sic] with the work of others will be subject to discharge. The notice was also mailed to each employee. On August 22, in response to the Union's charge of ambiguity in the rule, Respondent posted and mailed to all employees a second notice which stated in pertinent part: . no employee will be allowed to carry on activities for or against the union on working time . . . . If you want to talk about the Dodgers or Angels, whichever your favorite baseball team may be, or about anything else before or after work, during meal periods and during rest periods, this, of course, is your privilege.' On September 22, the Regional Director, follow- ing a hearing on a petition filed by the Union,2 directed the conduct of an election on October 21. The preelection campaign was vigorously waged by both parties and included numerous mailings of campaign propaganda to individual employees. The Union lost the election by a vote of 34-21. On Oc- tober 28, the Union simultaneously filed objections to the election and charges of unfair labor practices, specifying the same five items in each. On December 13 the Regional Director overruled Ob- jections 2, 3, 4, and 5, and noted that Objection 1, alleging the unlawful promulgation of the no- solicitation rule here in issue, was the subject of a complaint issued on December 9. He ordered the cases consolidated for hearing. Following a hearing held on February 16 and 17, 1967,'the Trial Examiner issued his Decision find- ing that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in that the promulgation and posting of the no-solicitation rule was motivated by an antiunion animus. The Trial Examiner expressed the opinion that Re- spondent's campaign letters to its employees, in the context of the organizational campaign, necessarily imparted to the August 11 notice an illegal coercive effect, which effect was illustrated by the cessation of discussion of union matters after August 1 I ex- cept amongst known union adherents. The Trial Examiner cites Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 162 NLRB 1275, in support of his conclusions. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that the record as a whole does not substantiate a finding of unlawful motivation in the promulgation of the rule. The rule on its face is presumptively valid since it seeks to regulate employee activity only during working hours. In the past the Board has found the presumption rebutted and the rule invalid where cir- cumstances surrounding the promulgation and en- forcement of similar rules necessarily imparted to ' Emphasis supplied. Both notices were taken down on September 2. 2 Case 21-RC-10169. 166 NLRB No. 112 968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them an illegal coercive effect.3 William H. Block Company, 150 NLRB 341; Ward Manufacturing, Inc., 152 NLRB 1270; Serv-Air. Inc., 161 NLRB 382; TRW, Inc., 161 NLRB 690. In William H. Block, the Board found the rule unnecessary to maintain production and discipline . It further found the rule disparately enforced within a context of nu- merous other unfair labor practices . In Ward there was evidence of discriminatory promulgation and enforcement. No justification for the promulgation of the rule was presented by the Employer. The Serv-Air rule was promulgated and enforced within a context of other unfair labor practices , including discriminatory discharges , which were found to be an integral part of a campaign to combat union or- ganization . And in TRW, the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's finding of discriminatory promul- gation where there was evidence of disparate en- forcement of the rule and no evidence of prior em- ployer experience as to the effect of union organiza- tion on production and discipline . Such circum- stances are absent in this case. Here, the surround- ing context is deviod of unlawful activity.4 Moreover, Respondent's uncontroverted evidence as to the nature of the operation involved supports its contention that the rule was promulgated in the interest of serving production , order, and discipline.5 In view of the foregoing , and the fact that the rule in question was limited to on -the-job solicitation interfering with production,6 we shall dismiss the complaint in Case 21-CA-7371 in its entirety , and overrule Objection I in Case 21-RC-10169. As the tally of the ballots in the latter case shows that the Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the complaint in Case 21-CA-7371 be, and the same hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. 3 The Trial Examiner's reliance on Greensboro is inapposite . That case was not directly concerned with a no-solicitation rule The sole issue raised by the complaint in this case is Respondent 's motivation in promul- gating its no-solicitation rule 4 We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the testimony of em- ployees Kissel, Anderson , and Smith contradicts the testimony of em- ployee Haskins , and that their testimony supports a finding that full and free discussion of union matters among Respondent 's employees con- tinued after the posting of the August 11 notice 5 Respondent's employees operate large injection molding machines which apply from 100-450 tons of clamping pressure Damage generally occurs when an operator fails to reach into his machine between mold pat- terns at the end of a cycle to remove all the plastic parts A cycle vanes in length from 10 to 75 seconds Respondent 's general manager testified that even under normal conditions the plant has experienced an accident rate 26 percent above the norm for the industry 6 Any ambiguity as to the scope of the rule would appear to have been clanfied by the August 22 notice which specifically permitted union ac- tivity on the premises "before or after work , during meal penods and dur- ing rest penods " CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes in Case 21-RC-10169 has not been cast for the Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HOWARD MYERS, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge (Case 21 -CA-7371) duly filed on October 31, 19661 by Sales Drivers, Food Processors , Warehousemen & Hel- pers, Loca! Union No. 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respective- ly called the General Counsel2 and the Board , through the Regional Director for Region 21 (Los Angeles, Califor- nia), issued a complaint dated October 31, against F.P. Adams Co., Inc., herein called either Respondent or the Employer, alleging that 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time , 36 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Pursuant to a petition (Case 21-RC-10169) duly filed by the Union , seeking to be certified as the statutory collective-bargaining representative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees , a heanng was duly held before a Hearing Examiner of the Board. On September 22, the aforementioned Regional Director, for and on behalf of the Board , issued and served on the parties copies of a Decision and Direction of Election. Pursuant to the aforesaid Decision and Direction of Election , an election by secret ballot was conducted under the auspices of said Regional Director on October 21 among Respondent's employees in the unit found ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Union lost the election.3 On October 28, the Union filed and served due and timely objections to the Employer's conduct affecting the results of the election ; specifying therein five items. On December 13, the said Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision in which he overruled Objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 , and noted that Objection 1 was based on the same facts as the allegations of the complaint in Case 21-C A-7371, and that Objection I "can best be resolved in a consolidated heanng with Case 21-CA-7371." The Regional Director in said Supplemental Decision4 then 1 Unless otherwise noted, all dates mentioned herein refer to 1966 ' This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel ap- peanng at the hearing J Of the appropriate 58 eligible voters, 57 cast ballots Twenty-three ballots were cast for the Union and 34 against 4 Actually , the Decision is entitled "Supplemental Decision and Order Directing Hearing , Order Consolidating Cases and Notice of Hearing " F.P. ADAMS CO., INC. 969 ordered that Case 21-CA-7371 and Case 21-RC-10169 "be consolidated for the purposes of hearing, ruling, and decision by a Trial Examiner , and that, thereafter, Case 21-RC-10169 be transferred to and continued before the Board in Washington , D.C., and that the provisions of Section 102.46 and 102.69(e) of the [Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended ] shall govern the filing of exceptions." Copies of the charge, the complaint, the Union's objec- tions to the election, the Regional Director's Supplemen- tal Decision, with respect to said objections , were duly served on Respondent and the Union. 5 On January 16, 1967, Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices al- leged. Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held at Los An- geles, California, on February 16 and 17 , 1967, before me. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full and complete opportunity was afforded the parties to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to in- troduce evidence relevant to the issues , to argue orally on the record at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or before March 24, 1967. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Respondent's counsel which have been carefully read and considered.6 Upon the basis of the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS Respondent, a California corporation, has its principal offices and place of business at Fullerton, California, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of molded plastic products. Respondent's 1965 out-of-State sales of finished products amounted in excess of $50,000. Upon the basis of the above facts, the Trial Examiner finds, in line with established Board authority, that Respondent is engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting to mem- bership employees of Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. The pertinent facts 7 The record discloses no union organizational activities among Respondent's employees prior to July 1966, even though Respondent has been in business since about 1955. In the latter part of July, the Union commenced a campaign to unionize Respondent's production and main- tenance employees. The Union's campaign soon came to Respondent's at- tention and Jack R. Adams, general manager, member of the board of directors, and brother of the founder of Respondent, reacted thereto by writing and mailing to the home of each employee a letter, dated August 2, in which he, after stating "It has recently come to our attention that the Teamsters Union Local 952 are (sic) attempting to organize you by having you sign a consent card so that only they (sic) can act in your behalf," stated that he wanted "each employee to know our feelings on this matter and we in turn will respect yours." These "views," expressed in no uncertain terms, clearly disclosed management's union hostility. The letter's concluding paragraph reads: Please think this over carefully and ask yourselves if you and your family can afford to turn over a large part of your pay check every month in hopes that the union will fulfill the many promises they will make. Remember, they cannot guarantee you anything in the way of better wages, working conditions, or job security. The only guarantee will be dues, fines, and assessments. Under date of August 9, the Union wrote Respondent a registered letter- addressing it to Jack Adams and ad- mittedly received by him the following day-stating that it represented a majority of Respondent's production and maintenance employees for the purpose of collective bar- gaining, requesting to be recognized and dealt with as the bargaining agent of the employees involved, and suggest- ing, if Respondent doubted the Union's claim of majority status, the Union "would be pleased to permit a check by the State Conciliation Service or [by] any other responsi- ble disinterested third party of the authorization cards in our possession." On August 11, the day following the receipt of the Union's letter referred to immediately above, Respond- ent posted on its three plant bulletin boards the following notice: TO ALL EMPLOYEES Since the Teamsters are putting on a campaign to get in here, a good many questions have arisen with re- gard to the following matters. We have decided to state the company's position on these questions as clearly as we can for everybody alike: (1) This matter is, of course, one of concern to the company. It is also, however, a matter of serious concern to you and our sincere belief is that if the union were to get in here it would not work to your benefit but in the long run would be against your best interest. (2) It is our intention to oppose the union and by every legal and proper means to prevent it from coming into this operation. 5 Naturally, the charge was not served on the Union. 6 The General Counsel appended to his brief proposed remedy, conclu- sions of law, recommended order, and notice. These proposals are disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations hereinafter set forth. There is present for decision this question: Whether under the circum- stances of this case, Respondent's so-called "non-solicitation" rule promulgated and posted on August 11, 1966, and thereafter maintained and enforced, interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL (3) We would like to make it clear that it is not necessary, and it is not going to be necessary, for anybody to belong to the Teamsters, or any other union, in order to work for this company. (4) Those who might join or belong to a union are not going to get any advantages or any preferred treatment of any sort over those who do not join or belong to any union. (5) If anybody causes you any trouble at your work or puts you under any sort of pressure to join the union, you should let the compan) know, and we will undertake to see that this is stopped. (6) No person will be allowed to carry on union or- ganizing activities on the job Anybody who does so and who thereby neglects his own work or in- terfers (sic) with the work of others will be sub- ject to discharge. Apparently, to be sure that each employee knew that it intended to oppose the Union's efforts to unionize the plant, Respondent, on the very day it posted the afore- mentioned notice, mailed a copy thereof to the home of each employee. The communication sent to the em- ployee's home was in letter form, on Respondent's letter- head, and signed by Jack Adams. After the saluation, "Dear Fellow Employees," the letter stated To insure full communication of our position against organization attempts by the Teamsters we had posted the following in our plant. The concluding paragraphs of the aforesaid communica- tion are: Anybody who tells you anything contrary to the foregoing is not telling you the truth We will keep you up todate on any further develop- ments. Admittedly, Respondent, prior to or at the time of the posting of the notice, had no knowledge that any em- ployee had discussed the Union in the plant before, dur- ing, or after work, nor had it any knowledge that any em- 8 It is significant to note at this juncture , that the above- quoted notice is almost identical to the notice which was under attack in Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc, 162 NLRB 1275, decided January 30, 1967 For con- venience, the Greensboro notice is set forth here at length TO ALL EMPLOYEES Since the Union is putting on a campaign to try to get in here, a good many questions have arisen with regard to the following mat- ters. We believe that we should answer these questions as clearly as we can for everybody alike It seems to us, furthermore, that you are all entitled to know definitely what the Company's position is on these subjects (1) This matter is, of course, one of c one ern to the Company It is also , however, a matter of serious concern to you and our sincere belief is that if this Union were to get in here , it would not work to your benefit but, in the long run , would itselfoperate to your serious harm (2) It is our positive intention to oppose this Union and by every proper means to prevent it from coming in here (3) We would like to make it clear that it is not necessary, and it is not ever going to be necessary, for anybodi to belong to the LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployee had carried on any union activity in the plant be- fore, during, or after work. The record, furthermore, does not support the notice's self-serving statement, "A good many questions have arisen with regards" to the Union's campaign. On August 11, Adams wrote the Union that Respond- ent (1) could not recognize or deal with it on the basis of a card check, (2) seriously questioned whether the em- ployees desired to be represented by the Union, (3) questioned the appropriateness of the claimed unit, and (4) in its opinion, the entire matter should be resolved by the Board. In response to Adams' above-referred to letter of Au- gust 11, the Union wrote him as follows: In your letter of August 11, 1966, you seek to justify your refusal to bargain with this organization on two grounds: 1. You question whether the employees (i.e., presumably, a majority of them) desire to be represented by Local 952. 2. You question whether the unit of employees we seek to represent is appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining. As regards the appropriate unit, since the unit we seek has been found appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining by the National Labor Relations Board in many, many thousands of cases, and has never been found inappropriate, your "question" is easily answered. You are completely mistaken. As regards whether Local 952 represents a majority of the employees, that "question" may be easily resolved. Simply agree to have an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board at the earliest possible date. In your letter of August 2, 1966, to the employees you state, "We are not opposed to unions, but ..." On our part, we would be disposed to believe your statement of non-opposition of August 2, but on Au- gust 11, 1966 you informed the employees, "It is our Hosiery Workers AFL-CIO Union, or any other Union, in order to work for this Company The law of North Carolina guaran- tees this to you (4) Those who might join or sign up with this Union are not going to get any advantages or any perferred treatment of any sort over those who do not join or belong to any Union (5) If anybody causes you any trouble at your work or puts you under any sort of pressure to join the Union, you should let the Company know, and we will undertake to see that this is stopped (6) No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities on the job Anybody who does so and who thereby neglects his own work or interferes with the work of others will be subject to discharge Anybody who tells you anything contrary to what is stated above is not telling you the truth GREENSBORO DIVISION KAYSER- ROTH HOISERY COMPANY F.P. ADAMS CO., INC. 971 intention to oppose the union by every legal and proper means to prevent it from coming into this operation." It would appear, therefore, that what your August 2 statement really means is: you do not oppose any union except whatever union your employees favor. Your letter to the employees of August 11 contains a "no solicitation" rule. As expressed, however, the rule is ambiguous , and is unlawfully one sided, as well. First, as your attorney will inform you, you may not prohibit union organizing activities on the job so long as those activities are conducted on the em- ployee's own time (e.g., during the meal period, be- fore and after work, and during rest periods). Second, you will have to enforce the rule impartially. That is, you will have to prohibit your supervisors and any- one else from campaigning against the union during working hours. We hereby formally request you to clarify your statement of the "no solicitation" rule in accordance with the foregoing in an official commu- nication to your employees. Absent that, your "full communication" of August 11 of your opposition to our organizational campaign is unlawful. On August 22, Respondent posted the following notice on its plant bulletin boards:9 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Some question has be raised as to whether the mean- ing of our no solicitation rule is clear to our em- ployees. As published, it stated "No person will be allowed to carry on Union organization activities on the job." In order that there may be no misun- derstanding whatever as to the meaning of the rule, we want you to know that this rule simply means that no employee will be allowed to carry on activities for or against the Union on working time, and this was, of course, our intention at all times in promulgating the rule. If you want to talk about the Dodgers or the Angels, whichever your favorite baseball team may be, or about anything else before or after work, dur- ing meal periods and during rest periods, this, of course, is your privilege. to Regarding the posting of the August 11 and 22 notices, Sharon Haskins credibly testified, and without contradic- tion, that she has been a Respondent press operator on the first shift for a year; that commencing with the passing out of the first union leaflet on July 26, until the posting of the August 11 "non-solicitation" notice, the em- ployees freely discussed the Union among themselves on "our breaks, lunch hours, and in the backroom";lt that after the August 11 notice had been posted the Union was discussed only by the union adherents with other known union adherents even though said discussions were had during nonworking time ; and that prior to Au- gust 11, it was the normal practice for the backroom em- ployees to carry on conversations during working hours in the presence of supervisors about any topic what- soever, including the Union; and that after the posting of the August 11 notice the backroom employees complete- ly ceased to talk about the Union in the backroom. Under date of October 7, Adams addressed a person- al I? letter to each employee to his or her home calling at- tention to the forthcoming October 21 Board election. The letter was sent to the employees' homes to quote from the letter, "[to] officially notify you of the coming election and also to remind you that you are eligible to vote" therein, to advise the addressee the election will be conducted by secret ballot under the auspices of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, and "you have the legal and moral right to vote `No' or however you wish, whether or not you signed a union authorization card." The letter, in pertinent part, continues as follows: ... I can tell you that there is no doubt that the fu- ture holds even better things for all of us. I have al- ready talked with you about the fact that Adams has become a member of the Stanley Home Family just this year. In this short period of time we have already seen results. In the talk I had with you on July 25th, I told you about our new group insurance program, the new job evaluation and rate range program, and the new merit rating review program. All three pro- grams are now in effect, and you are reaping the benefits. In addition, we have already commenced work on our new building. As you know, our new building will be a substantial improvement, and will provide you with better air circulation to help dis- sipate the heat, better lighting, new air-conditioned restrooms, a large private cot room, and a special lunchroom area and facilities. This was done without the prodding of an outside union! * * * * Between now and the election you should carefully consider the facts ... not empty campaign promises. You should carefully consider what Adams stands for and what you can expect from it in the future as a member of the Stanley Home Family, and decide whether or not to forget all this because of something a paid-professional union organizer may say in an election campaign-in the hopes of winning your vote and your dues money. Under date of October 10, Adams addressed a two- page personal letter to the employees at their homes, setting out in detail manner the annual compensation received by the Union's business agents, and that Team- sters International President James Hoffa's annual salary is $100,000 plus a $1,000,000 for his attorney's fees. The letter then asks, "Where do you think this money [comes] from?" which question is thus answered by: First of all, there are monthly union dues. The dues of Local 952 were raised from $6.00 per month to $7.00 per month as of October 1, 1966. This sum would come out of your check each and every month. With this in mind, no one has to think very 9 The record does not disclose whether the August 11 notice (the first so-called "non-solicitation" rule) was removed from the bulletin boards when the August 22 notice (second so-called "non-solicitation" rule) was posted. The record, however, does disclose that the first notice remained posted for two or three weeks and the second until September 2. 11 Apparently, the only one who questioned the ambiguity of the mean- ing of the notice was the Union and that was done in its August 18 letter which Respondent left unacknowledged. 11 The "backroom" is that section of the plant 's working area where parts are trimmed. 12 Meaning, addressing the employee by his or her first name and sig- ning the letter, "Sincerely, Jack " 972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD long or very hard about why the Teamsters are here. They hope to take a substantial amount of money per year out of your paychecks in dues alone. After stating, among other things, "If you are forced to join the Teamsters Union you can be fined for doing anything Teamster officials do not approve of. You can be forced to pay tribute, which the Teamsters call an as- sessment. The Teamsters like your money, the waiving of initiation fees is a 'gimmick,' in order to trick you into voting to join them," the letter concludes as follows: If you believe that the Teamsters are really in- terested in you and not in the dues, initiation fees, fines and assessments you represent, the next time a professional Union organizer is around, ask him this question. Ask him if his Union will agree in writing that should they happen to win the election, they will never ask the Company to sign a contract requiring everyone of you to pay Union dues or agree to never ask us to fire any employee because he fails to pay Union dues, initiation fees, or any other money to this Union. Let's see who the Union is really worried about! This Union has been making you promises. Your Company tells you facts' Everything contained in this letter was taken from Official Government Records. I ask you to think this over carefully and then ask yourself whether you and your family want to turn over a large part of your paycheck every month just because some Union made promises to you. Vote "NO"' Under date of October 13, Adams sent another two- page personal letter to each employee directed to his or her home, stressing: (1) the Union is in a position of only promising the employees better wages and working con- ditions, (2) if the Union happens to win the Board-con- ducted election it still is in the "promising" position, and (3) it is only the Employer who is able to grant increased employee benefits. The letter, after asking the employees to, "just stop for a minute and consider what would hap- pen if the Union should be successful in its efforts to gain control over you and your fellow workers by winning the election," then states, "If the Union should win, we would not suddenly, by some form of magic, change our whole way of doing business. All the Company would be required to do would be to sit down with the Union Representatives and bargain in good faith [but] ... No one knows what would result from these negotiations. You might get more, you could get less, or you could receive the same as you are now getting. . Don't throw away something you know is good to put the Union in a position to horse trade with your wages, benefits, working conditions, and even your job." Under date of October 15, Adams wrote a three-page personal letter containing a sample of a Board election ballot with a cross marked in the "No Union" box, to each employee directed to his or her home, enumerating 18 separate instances where the Teamsters Union in the past year had struck plants in the Los Angeles area, and concluding with the comment, "Remember, shops with NO unions have NO strikes." The Union lost the Board-conducted October 21 elec- tion by a vote of 34 to 23. The following day, October 22, Adams wrote each em- ployee the following personal letter directed to his or her home: I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the substantial vote in favor of the Company at the ballot box last Friday, and to let you know that I deeply ap- preciate your confidence. The issue has now been decided, and rightly so, in our traditionally American democratic manner. Now, irrespective of how you may have voted, let's all work together to make the Adams Company an even better place to work for all of us. 2. Concluding findings Adams, in his August 2, 11, Ociiober 7, 10, 13, 15, and 22, 1966, letters, firmly and graphically conveyed to Respondent's employees management's hostility to the Union's attempt to organize the plant. Of course, Section 8(c) of the Act, reflecting the constitutional protection of speech in general, permits such management arguments and expression provided, however, that they do not con- tain a "threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." It is true that much of the language in the aforemen- tioned letters clearly constituted privileged "free speech," within the meaning of Section 8 (c) of the Act, especially when viewed in isolation, portion by portion. But the letters, especially when viewed under the circum- stances they were written, to whom and in the manner they were addressed, must be considered in their entirety, as indeed, the employees receiving the letters were required to do. Thus, it is clear, as the Foarth Circuit points out in Daniel Construction Co., Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 805, 811, "Words and phrases, each lawful when considered alone can be united in such a fashion as to yield an improper end product."13 So when viewed, individually or collectively, the letters created a picture of inevitable employee grief and economic hardship consequent to the employees' selec- tion of the Union. Adams' basic theme, as disclosed by the letters, was that the improvement in employee conditions could only come from Respondent and that the best the Union could do was to request benefits and to cause a strike and possi- ble shutdown of the plant if Respondent did not accede to the Union's requests. Emphasis was exclusively upon the adverse conditions of organization and the suggestion was more than plain that no possible improvements in employee conditions could result from instituting collec- tive bargaining. Adams, moreover, never balanced his re- marks with any assurance to the employees that there would be no deliberate reprisals for unionization. Rather, 13 The Daniel opinion continues with the oft-quoted quotation from Judge Learned Hand in N L R B v Federbush Company, Inc, 121 F 2d 954, 957 (C A 2), "Words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition they have only a communal existence ; and not only does the meaning of each interpenetrate the other, but all in their aggregate take their purport from the setting in which they are used, of which the relation between the speaker and the hearer is perhaps the most important part What to an out- sider will be more than the vigorous presentation of a conviction, to an employee may be the manifestation of a determination which it is not safe to thwart The Board must decide how far the second aspect obliterates the first " See also N L R B v. Brown-Dunkin Company, Inc, 287 F.2d 17, 18 (C A 10) F.P. ADAMS CO., INC. 973 he repeatedly stressed the importance to the employees of their remaining in their Employer's favor, for all benefits must come from it and the Union could not ob- tain what the Employer did not want to grant. In short, the letters were adroitly and strategically timed to im- press upon the employees that continued adherence to the Union was a fruitless gesture which would bring them naught, and they could rely on their Employer's unilateral generosity to obtain their needs. As Adams put it, Respondent was the source of all employee benefits, and only when it was able and willing to do so would addi- tional benefits be offered and no "outsider" could suc- ceed in getting additional employee benefits if Respond- ent did not care to grant them. Hence, the prediction of dire prospects could well be coercive to employees who were obliged to consider the events predicted lay within Adams' power to translate into reality. Thus, in the above-described setting and in the context of the Union's organizational campaign, the August 11 notice necessarily acquired, as the Board stated, inter alia, in Greensboro HosieryMills, Inc., supra at 1278-79, in passing upon a notice practically identical with the above-quoted August 11 notice, "an illegal coercive ef- fect," and thereby "not only [was it] deliberately calcu- lated to, but [did] result in creating a fear of job insecuri- ty and loss of existing benefits should the employees ex- ercise their statutory right to select a Union representa- tive." In addition, the record discloses, and I find, that the employees, before the posting of the August 11 notice, were permitted to engage in any topic of conversation in the plant's working area during working hours, provided the conversation did not "last too long," and that since said posting the employees were permitted to discuss among themselves in their working areas during working hours any topic except "union matters." The record further clearly establishes, and I find, that before and since the posting of the August 11 notice, employees were permitted to engage in, while at work, certain non- union-connected activities. These findings become in- escapable when consideration is given to the following: The August 11 notice, in no uncertain terms, states that the employees were forbidden "to carry on Union or- ganizational activities on the job" under pain of discharge. Whereas, the August 22 notice, after explain- ing that the August 11 nonunion organizational activities on the job provision merely meant that such activities were intended to be restricted to working time only, the notice then concludes, "If you want to talk about the Dodgers or the Angels, whichever your favorite baseball team may be, or about anything else before or after work, during meal periods and during rest periods, this, of course, is your privilege." The omission of all reference to discussion to any union activity in the August 22 notice forcefully disclosed that such topics were tabooed in the plant at all times. "To conclude otherwise would be to ignore the realities of industrial life." 14 Respondent, while completely ignoring the right of em- ployees to inform other employees of union activities and to solicit their interest, attempts to bring its action, as described above, within the ambit of protected activity by relying, in the main, upon Adams' self-serving, uncon- vincing testimony. Respondent's brief (page 4) correctly summarizes Adams' testimony in this regard as follows: Adams testified that the no-solicitation part of such notice was posted because he felt employees might neglect their work to engage in activities con- cerning the Union, pro or con, during an organizing campaign. Although Adams had no actual knowledge of any employee engaging in activities for or against the Union on working time in the plant... as an em- ployee, he had had prior experience with Union campaigns15 and he felt that there could be some very distracting conversations on a pro or con ba- sis -that there could be some very pointed views as to whether employees were pro-Union or anti- Union- and that this should not be allowed at the machines during working time. Large injection molding machines used in the plant apply from 100 tons of clamping pressure to as high as 450 tons . . . that in order to avert a catastrophy, it is vital that the operators not be distracted or disturbed while at their machines. This catastrophy (if an operator is not careful) could be in the form of great personal harm to an operator, or in the form of very costly damage to a machine. Such costly damage, up to several thousands of dollars, has oc- curred many times in the past. This damage occurs when an operator fails to reach into the machine between the mold patters at the end of a cycle and remove all the plastic parts inside. Accordingly, the Employer posted the notice before it experienced any actual problems either with breakage of machines or with an accident. It is apparently clear, under the circumstances here dis- closed, Respondent's aforementioned defense fails to meet the test laid down in N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105. In that case which stands for the proposition that an employer cannot interfere with his employees' right to distribute union literature and solicit union interest among themselves on company property, without having a valid reason to the management, produc- tion, or discipline of the plant, the Supreme Court stated at page 113, "No restriction may be placed on the em- ployees' right to discuss self-organization among them- selves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline."16 Accordingly, I find that the August 11 notice was discriminatorily promulgated and posted, that said action was motivated by animus against the Union, and that by so doing Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) thereof. 14 Greensboro, supra at 1279. 15 With respect to this "experience with organizing campaigns ," Adams testified under examination by Respondent's counsel, that some 20 years ago, while employed elsewhere as a nonsupervisory employee, a union or unions carried on organizational campaigns. No other testimony on that point was elicited and the matter was thus dropped . Even if we assume that Adams' letters and the promulgation and the posting of the notice were prompted by his experience while employed elsewhere, he was not justified in "making the anticipated events the subject of threats . . to force the abandonment of the Union by the employees " N.L.R B v Parma Water Lifter Co., 211 F.2d 258, 262 (C.A. 9); accord N L.R.B v McCatron, dibla Price Valley Lumber Co., etc., 216 F.2d 212-216 (C.A. 9). 16 See also Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R B , 324 U.S. 793. 974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business opera- tions of Respondent as described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Except for the unlawful conduct found above, the record does not disclose that a danger exists that Re- spondent in the future may commit other unfair labor practices unrelated in kind to those found. Under the cir- cumstances, I will not recommend that the Board issue the usual broad cease-and-desist order LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is, and during all times material was, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is, and during all times material was, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By promulgating, posting, and maintaining an un- lawful no-solicitation rule, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and by such conduct has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]