The Gates Rubber Co.

THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY 95 The Gates Rubber Company and Lithographers and Pho- toengravers International Union , Local 276, AFL-CIO. 'Cases 27-CA-2750 and 27-,RC-3634, April 23, 1970 DECISION, ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On December 31, 1969, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint, and recommended that such allegations be dis- missed. The Trial Examiner further found that the con- duct of the Respondent had not interfered with an election held among Respondent's employees, and rec- ommended that the results be certified.' Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examin- er's Decision and a brief in support thereof. 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 con- nection with these cases to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner made at the hearing dud finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as mod- ified below. It is undisputed that beginning in 1966, Respondent had a policy that printshop employees, who were unre- presented, would be granted whatever wage raises were negotiated with the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, herein called the Rubber Workers, for employees represented by that union. Respondent followed the policy in 1967 and 1968, but in 1969 a 13-cent-per-hour wage raise was granted to the employees represented by the Rubber Workers eff ec- tive June 25, which was withheld from the printshop employees until after the election among the latter employees was held on July 11, 1969. Approximately 1 week after the election, a notice was posted indicating that Respondent "recommended" an increase of 13- cents-per-hour to all "non-union production employees ' Although the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the results of the election be certified was directed to the Regional Director, this was erroneous, inasmuch as consolidation of the representation proceeding with the unfair labor practice case for hearing constituted a transfer of the representation case to the Board under Section 102.69(h)(1) of our Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended in Department 2" (printshop) effective June 25, 1969. The payment of the increase to the employees in the Rubber•Workers unit was made August 1, and on August 15 the printshop employees received the same increase. As fully set, forth by the Trial Examiner, beginning in June the printshop employees were inquiring whether they would also get the then-rumored 13-cent increase, and the Respondent stated that the 'increas'e- was being withheld from the printshop temporarily pending -the election in order to avoid an appearance of an attempt to influence the election. In addition, one of Respond- ent's supervisors admitted that when asked by a printsh- op unit employee whether the raise would be granted, he responded that "under the conditions, we could not give the raise at this particular time based upon the NLRB poster [election notice]." The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act and did not interfere with employees' free choice in the pending election by its attempts to maintain neutrality through withholding the wage increase it otherwise would have granted. However, we find merit in the General Counsel's exception to this finding. It is uncontradicted that unit employees expressed a keen interest in the timing of the wage increase, and it is undisputed that, were it not for the union election, the printshop employees would have received the wage increase comparable to and at the same time as that negotiated by the Respondent and the Rubber Workers. In these circumstances, neu- trality is not maintained by an announced withholding of a wage increase because of a pending Board-conducted election. It is well settled that the employer' s legal duty is to proceed as he would have done had the union not been on the scene. Here the Respondent withheld increases which would normally have been granted but for the presence of the Union and pendency of the election and advised employees that their wage increases were being withheld for this reason. By such conduct the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and interfered with employee free choice.' Accordingly, we shall set the election aside and direct that a new election be conducted at a time to be determined by the Regional Director. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Gates Rubber Company, Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Withholding wage increases, which would other- wise be granted to its employees in accordance with its past practices, because of the pendency of a conducted election and informing such employees that such increases cannot be granted for that reason. 'Dan Howard Mfg. Co , 158 NLRB 805, 813, 818 , enfd as modified in other respects 390 F.2d 304 (C A 7) 182 NLRB No. 15 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Reprim indmg employees foi engaging in pro tected, concerted activities, such as arranging a meeting tion ] of employees with an agent of Respondent to discuss employee complaints about working conditions (c) In my like or related manner interfering with restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self organization , to form join, or assist labor organizations to bargain collectively through repre sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act [Direction of Second Election4 omitted from pubhca " In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc 156 NLRB 1236 N L R B v Wyman Gordon Compan) 394 U S 759 Accordingly it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list containing the names and addresses of all eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 27 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed APPENDIX 2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act ( i) Rescind the reprimand issued on about July 29 1969, by its agent , Chris M Hernandez, to an employee and expunge the reprimand from the personnel record of such employee (b) Post it its pl'int at Denver Colorado at all places where notices to employees are customarily post- ed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "3 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, shall be signed by Respondent s authorized representative upon receipt thereof, and be immediately thereafter posted by Respondent in con spicuous places, at the locations above stated, and be maintained as posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter, taking all reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, folded under or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27 in writing within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Decision what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on July 11, 1969, in Case 27-RC-3634, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 27 to conduct a new election when he deems that circum- stances permit the free choice of a bargaining representa- tive 9 In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT withhold wage increases, which would otherwise be granted to our employees in accordance with our past practices, because of the pendency of a Board-conducted election and inform such employees that such increases cannot be granted for that reason WE WILL NOT reprimand employees for engaging in protected , concerted activities , such as arranging a meeting of employees with our agent to discuss employee complaints about working conditions WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization, to form , join, or assist labor organizations , to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act WE WILL rescind the reprimand issued on about July 29, 1969, by our agent, Chris M Hernandez, to an employee and expunge the reprimand from the personnel record of such employee THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY 97 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. Any questions concerning this notice , or compliance with its , provisions , may be directed to the Board's Office , New Custom House , Room 260 , 721 19th Street, Denver , Colorado 80202 , Telephone 303-297-3555. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION tained its principal office, plant, and place of business in Denver-, Colorado, where it has been continuously engaged in the manufacture of rubber products; and that Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi- ness, annually sells and causes to be shipped from points within the State of Colorado to points located outside said State, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is engaged'in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES R. HEMINGWAY, Trial Examiner: Upon a' charge filed on July 15, 1969, and an amended charge filed on August 11, 1969, by Lithographers and Photoen- gravers International Union, Local 276, AFL-CIO, here- in called the Union, against The Gates Rubber Company,r herein called the Respondent, a complaint issued on August 27, 1969, alleging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq., herein called the Act. Respond- ent's answer, filed on September 5, 1969, denied the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Con- sent Election, dated June 6, 1969, a Board-conducted election was held on July 11, 1969, which the Union lost. Thereafter, on July 17, 1969, the Union filed timely objections to the election. Following an investigation by the Regional Director for Region 27, the latter found that there was an issue of credibility which could best be resolved by a hearing. The Regional Director therefore ordered that a hearing be conducted to resolve' the objections and ordered, that that hearing be consolidated with the hearing in the complaint case. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before. me at Denver, Colorado, on, October, 14 and 15, 1969. At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied and the Respondent, then proceeded with its case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested, and were given, time within which to file briefs with the Trial Examiner. Briefs have been received from the Respondent and from the General Counsel and have been considered. From my observation of the witnesses and'upon the entire record in-the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT, . 1. THE FACTS OF COMMERCE The complaint alleges and the answer admits, that Respondent is a corporation organized under, and exist- ing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Colorado;' that Respondent, at all times material hereto, has main- ' The charge and complaint, as entitled, give the name of Respondent as Gates Rubber Company The answer gives the name as The Gates Rubber Company Most exhibits in evidence show the latter to be the correct designation. It is therefore' ordered that the name of the Respondent be corrected to be preceded by the word, "The " 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. Interrogation Employee Melvin Gramm testified that on two occa- sions, the first in May 1969, and the second in June, his supervisor, David Burke,' asked him whether or not he was a union man. The first incident, according to Gramm, occurred in the cafeteria during lunchtime while he was eating with some of the employees, when Burke sat down and joined them. Gramm quoted Burke as saying to him, "I understand you are a union man," and that he had replied that he did not know, that if going to a union meeting made him a union man, he guessed he, was. • According to Gramm, the group of employees he was with had been discussing the Union before Burke joined them. Burke testified that he had no recollection of such an incident or of making any such statement. Burke, I found, was an honest witness and I am sure that he was not attempting to evade the question by testifying that he did not remem- ber. Since Burke's question, if such it was, was asked in the course of a conversation about the Union already in progress, and since Gramm could remember no other part of the conversation, I find there is insufficient, evidence from which to determine whether or not the question was coercive. To the extent of the evidence, I would deduce that it ,was not, however. Gramm testified that the second incident occurred in the dieroom, in June, at his place of work. Near him were his assistant and another employee. Gramm testified: I was going to ask him [Burke] about the raise, that was my,, main concern, so I hollered as he [Burke] went by, and Ed [Eckstein, an employee working to the'left of Gramm] had asked a question about the job, and so I waited until after he was through. Then he came up and I asked him, and before I could get anything out why he kind of threw this on me. He. says, "You are a union man," and I says, "Well, I don't know, I went to a couple of meetings." , Y Burke became a supervisor on March 1, 1969 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gramm went on to, testify that he had then asked his question about the raise . Burke, for his part, testified that Gramm had called him over to him in the dieroom at the rear of the printshop and asked about the raise. Burke was not specifically asked either on direct or cross-examination about Gramm's testimony of Burke's question or comment about Gramm's being a union man. I 'am skeptical of Gramm's testimony about this. In the first place, it does not make much sense. In the second place, when a witness injects words like "he kind of" into his testimony, I suspect either a very poor memory or fabrication. Considering this together with Gramm's rather obvious bias and prejudice, I refrain from crediting this portion of Gramm's testimo- ny. 2. Threats a. Layoff Employee Walter Kahler, an employee of better than 22 years, testified that about a week before the election, George McDonald, manager of printing services for Respondent, came to where he was working on a machine that had broken down, asked what the trouble was, and, in the course of a conversation, remarked that if there had been a union there, they (the men who operated the machine) would be sent home. At that time, it was customary, when a machine broke down, to transfer the operator to another job. McDonald admit- ted a similar conversation with Kahler, fixed the date as May 19, 1969 (3 days before the Union had filed its petition), but testified that Kahler had asked him what happens "on a downtown shop" [sic]3 when a mechanical breakdown occurred, that he had told Kahler that to the best of his understanding the downtown shops did not permit their pressmen to tear down and repair their machines, and that the pressman might be sent home. McDonald conceded that he did not have firsthand knowledge of what the downtown shops' agree- ment provided but had just picked up the information in his daily contact with outside suppliers. Kahler was not asked, when he was on the stand, whether or not he had elicited his answer from McDonald by asking him the question which McDonald testified Kahler had asked him, and he was not recalled to testify on rebuttal. But in view of the fact that Kahler admitted he could not remember the portion of the conversation between that about what was wrong with the machine and the part where McDonald made the statement about what would happen under the downtown shops' contract with the Union, I find that Kahler did ask the question, as testified by McDonald, and I find that McDonald's reply did not constitute interference, restraint, or coer- cion within the meaning of the Act. J The downtown printing shops had an agreement with the Union and, in effect , this question would call for knowledge of what was in that agreement. b. Reduction of work by contracting it out ' Employee Paul Prantel, an apprentice pressman's help- er, testified that in late April he had attended a union meeting at the home of an employee named Doug Van- dervort and that, about a week later, he had had a conversation with his supervisor, Burke, in which he had told Burke that he had been to that meeting and that Burke had asked "if I went and who was there." (Later, Prantel testified that Burke did not ask the identity of those who were there.) Prantel testified that he told Burke that five or six people were there and that they had discussed what the Union could do if they organized and "what the company could not do to us for trying to get the Union in." Asked if he recalled anything else, Prantel testified, "There was something to the effect that the union wouldn't help us because the compa- ny would send some work out to nonunion shops, and if we did happen to get the, union in there • and happen to go on strike that, they could continue to send it out to non-union shops." Burke, was not specifically questioned about his conversation,; but when Burke was on the stand, the Trial Examiner offered Burke a chance to give his side of any conversation testified to by anyone. He then denied that he had any knowledge of the meeting at Vandervort's house before the hearing and testified that he thought Prantel must have been confused in testifying to a conversation with him in which that was mentioned. Even without Burke's denial, I would not credit Prantel's testimony. I find in Prantel's testimony suggestions of vague memory (in use of such words as "to the effect that") and presumptive inconsis- tencies. It is not logical that Burke would say that the Respondent would send work out to nonunion shops merely because the Union was chosen by the employees and then add that, if there was' a strike, the Respondent would continue to send work out. Since the former situation would appear to include the latter, one wonders why the latter should be mentioned at all. I am convinced that Prantel was confused and, at best, gave a garbled version of Burke's statements which is not reliable. Furthermore, it is obvious that Burke did not seek to undertake any investigation of union activity, since the information brought out, according to Prantel, was volunteered in the first instance by himself. I find no violation of the Act based on Prantel's testimony. ' c. Withholding of wage increase Before 1966, the' Respondent had paid a scale of wages to its printshop employees based on that in a union agreement for the "downtown" print shops. In 1966, however, it changed its policy and began to give its printshop employees whatever wage raises were nego- tiated with the Rubber Workers union.4 Respondent followed this policy in 1967 and in 1968 also. In 1969, the Rubber Workers were in negotiations with the Respondent in June, and in late June the Respondent offered a' general 13-cent wage increase. Before the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY members of that union had accepted this offer (they did ratify the agreement on June 29), the rumor of a 13-cent increase was going around, and Respondent's printshop employees learned, of it and more than one of them asked their supervisors if and when they would get,the 13-cent increase. Kahler, Prantel, Gramm, and Richard Meyer testified to conversations in which they had asked Burke if they were going to receive the 13-cent increase, while employee Reggie Keyes testified to a conversation with Edwin Moore and George McDon- ald, both conceded supervisors. Meyers, who had asked the question in late June or early July, testified that Burke had replied that he did not know but that it would have to be after the election. According to Kahler, Burke had answered his question about the raise by saying "that there will be no raise until the union question is clarified." Prantel testified that he had asked Burke if they would get a 13-cent-an-hour raise, and that Burke had answered, "No," and that Prantel had asked why not. He quoted Burke as replying, "Do you think the company will give you the raise and, in a few weeks vote the union in and maybe have to go on strike?" According to Prantel, this was before it was known whether or not the Rubber Workers would accept the 13-cent offer. Burke was not asked about this conversation. I was not impressed with the accuracy of Prantel's testimony and, after observing both him and Burke, I would evalu- ate Prantel's testimony as unreliable. I do not credit it. Gramm did ask Burke about the 13-cent wage raise, but Gramm's testimony as to Burke's reply differs from Burke's testimony. Gramm testified that Burke had said, "Gates don't have to give you nothing, just out of spite, just because of the Union being in, they don't have to give us nothing.' Burke admitted that such a question was asked by, Gramm, but placed the date as June 30 and testified'that his answer to that question was that the Respondent, could not grant the increase at that time because of the upcoming election. Burke added that he had obtained that information that morning from the NLRB election poster (which listed examples of conduct interfering with rights of employees that might result in setting aside the election). I credit Burke's testimony. Employee Reggie Keyes testified that he had gone to the office of Ed Moore, a supervisor, to take some work to him in order to ask about the raise, and had asked the question. He testified that Moore had called George McDonald,, the manager of printing services, into his office and had put the question to McDonald. According to Keyes, McDonald had answered that if the raise were. given to the printshop employees before the election, the raise would be considered bribery. McDonald quoted himself as answering that "under the conditions, we could not give the raise at this particu- lar time based upon the NLRB poster posted on the bulletin board (election notice)." I find that the testimony 99 of Keyes is consistent with McDonald's and I credit both as to this one conversation.5 The 13-cent wage increase provided for by the agree- ment between the Respondent and the Rubber Workers was stated to be effective June 25, 1969. About a week after the election of July 11, 1969, a notice to printing service personnel was posted on the bulletin board, indicating that Respondent had "recommended" a gener- al increase of 13 cents per hour to all "non-union production employees in Department 2" (printshop) effective June 25, 1969. Actual payment of the increase was made on August 1, 1969, to the Rubber Workers, and on August 15 to the printshop employees. In each case, the increase was given retroactively to June 25, 1969. 3. Conclusions The Respondent argues in its brief to the Trial Examin- er that the complaint merely alleges that Respondent threatened to withhold a wage increase and that the complaint fails to allege that the mere temporary with- holding of the general wage increase was an unfair labor practice. The Respondent further argues that no threat to withhold was actually proved. By this, its brief indicates Respondent means that it was not telling employees that they would not get the increase at all or that they would receive it only if the Union lost the election, but was merely telling them that Respondent could not give it pending the election. Depending on all the circumstances, even this could constitute a threat if the employees could reasonably understand that they were being penalized for attempting to get union repre- sentation. A threat need not be one filled with malice. As used in connection with the language of the Act, a threat may be no more than a statement, by one in a position to control an event, that harm to, or gain by, employees will take place. In the past 3 years, Respondent had given effect to a policy of granting a wage increase to the unrepresented printshop employ- ees identical with that granted to employees represented by the Rubber Workers. Absent a union election the printshop employees would have received a wage increase comparable to that negotiated by the Respond- ent and the Rubber Workers. If Respondent had said that this would not be the case in 1969, its ' statement could be regarded as a threat within the meaning of the Act.6 Even a statement of postponement calculated to persuade the employees that any loss they might suffer in delay was attributable to the union petitioning Respondent attacked Keyes' credibility because he gave inconsistent statements as to the source of his understanding that the Respondent had agreed to give a 13-cent wage increase It turned out that Keyes could not have received his information from the source Keyes testified to The source of Keyes' information was of no importance, since the fact that Respondent had offered Rubber Workers a 13-cent increase and that the latter had, on June 29, accepted it is undisputed Therefore, nothing was to be gained by Keyes by testifying falsely on a collateral issue I attribute his inconsistency to a weak memory of a single detail 9 Sterling Cabinet Corp., 109 NLRB 6; N L.R B v Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc , 346 F.2d 1003 (C.A 5) 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for an election could be interpreted to be a threat I However, in this case, the Respondent did not make any prediction that the printshop employees would not receive the general increase at all or only if they voted in favor of the Union The Respondent's statements were merely an explanation that the increase was being withheld temporarily pending the election in order to avoid an appearance of an attempt to influence the election Such statements are reasonably to be interpret- ed as a desire to maintain neutrality" and not as a threat that the increase will not be forthcoming because of the Union This is all the more true because Respond ent was not gratuitously advancing an argument against the Union It was merely answering specific questions put by identified employees Accordingly, I find that the Respondent did not make threats as alleged in the complaint and did not thereby engage in unfair labor practices 4 Reprimanding employee for engaging in concerted activities and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 5(a) to (e), inclusive, of the complaint but it has engaged in such unfair labor prac tices as alleged in paragraph V(f) of the complaint 4 The said unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Paragraph V(f) of the complaint alleges that on or about July 29, 1969, Respondent, acting by its agent Chris M Hernandez, caused to be issued to an employee a written reprimand because of said employee's actions in instituting a meeting between Hernandez and certain of Respondent's employees for the purpose of discussing complaints about working conditions Originally, Respondent's answer had denied this paragraph, but at the hearing, Respondent amended its answer to admit the allegation Hence, no evidence was adduced to explain the reason why Hernandez issued the warning If there had been a reason to justify Hernandez' act," Respondent neither pleaded it nor offered any evidence of it No question was raised as to the sufficiency of the complaint to support a finding of an unfair labor practice I find that paragraph V(f) of the complaint is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of violation of the Act and I find, accordingly, that by the conduct there alleged, Respondent interfered with, restrained, Since it has been found that Respondent has commit- ted an unfair labor practice which requires a remedy, I shall recommend an order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and post a notice as is customary in such cases I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed as to alleged unfair labor practices not herein found to have been committed Since the unfair labor practice found was committed after the date of the election, I find that it had no effect thereon I shall therefore recommend that the results of the election of July 11, 1969, in case No 27-RC-3634 be certified by the Regional Director [Recommended Order omitted from publication Alton Box Board Company 173 NLRB No 105 Standard Coil Products Inc 99 NLRB 899 Columbus Marble Works 111 NLRB 1162 Dudley Mfg Corp 167 NLRB 107 Sahara Tahoe Corporation 173 NLRB No 204 1 Such as in Terry Poultry Co 109 NLRB 1097