Dixie Wire Corp.

DIXIE WIRE CORPORATION Dixie Wire Corporation and Perfection Electrical Products, Inc and District Lodge No 155 , International Associa tion of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO Case 26-CA-3459 April 29, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On January 20, 1969, Trial Examiner George J Bott issued his Decision in the above-entitled matter, 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 further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommend- ed that such allegations be dismissed Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel's exceptions 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 this case to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner 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 hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela tions Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Dixie Wire Corporation and Perfection Electrical Products, Inc , Nashville, Ten- nessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE J BOTT, Trial Examiner Upon charges of unfair labor practices filed by the Union on August 29 and October 3, 1969, against Dixie Wire Corporation and Perfection Electrical Products, Inc , herein called Respondent or Employer, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated October 10, 1969, in which he alleged that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act Respondent's answer admitted certain allega- 211 tions of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices, and a hearing was held before me in Nashville, Tennessee, on November 18 and 19, 1969, at which all parties were represented Subsequent to the hearing, General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have been considered Upon the entire record' in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Dixie Wire Corporation and Perfection Electrical Products, Inc , are a single integrated enterprise occupy- ing the same plant and offices with common ownership, supervisors, and management who formulate and admin- ister a common labor relations policy affecting the employees of both corporations During the 12-month period prior to the issuance of the complaint, the Employer shipped from its Nash- ville, Tennessee, plant, where it is engaged in the manu- facture of wire and wiring assemblies, goods and mate- rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Tennessee I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I The no-solicitation rule All of the alleged unfair labor practices in the case occurred during or shortly after the Union's organization- al drive, which appears to have commenced on March 6, when union cards were brought into the plant, and ended with a Board election on the afternoon of April 25, 1969 Within a day or so after Respondent learned that the campaign had begun it posted on its employee bulletin board the following 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 interferes with the work of others will be subject to discharge Such a rule prohibiting union solicitation by employees during their working hours is presumptively valid,' but General Counsel, conceding that the rule is valid on , General Counsel s unopposed motion to correct the transcript is hereby granted 2 Pepsi Cola Bottlers of Miami Inc 155 NLRB 527 528 South wire Company 145 NLRB 1329 1331 fn 5 182 NLRB No 34 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD its face, contends that it was adopted for a discriminatory purpose. Richard Douglas, Respondent's president, testified that the rule in question was posted on March 11 so that employees would know that "they were not suppos- ed to walk around talking about' the Union" during working hours. Prior to the posting, Respondent had no such rule, but Douglas said that the Company always had a rule against interrupting other employees at work by "promiscuously." talking, but he also stated that such a rule had not been posted for at least 2 years. Douglas also explained that the problem to which the rule was directed had not existed before the Union's campaign began, and he amplified his reasons for announcing the rule by stating that Respondent felt that, "there are certain rights and privileges and do's and don'ts that go on during Union campaigns and people should know . . . what they have a right to do and what they don't have a right to do . . . during a Union organizing campaign." Asked what business justification Respondent had for instituting the rule, Douglas said none other than as stated in the rule ,and in his testimony. It appears from the testimony of other witnesses that collections for flowers or to financially assist employ- ees in some emergency have been taken up in the plant during working hours. Douglas agreed that it was likely that on occasion employees had gone to the assist- ance of others. He said he had no knowledge of solicita- tions for a Christmas gift for a supervisor, as one employee testified, and he added that collections for flowers had been discontinued because they consumed too much time. Douglas conceded that he discussed the Union's cam- paign to organize Respondent with employees assembled in the Company's cafeteria during working hours. These meetings lasted from 5 to 20 minutes at shift change. There is also some evidence that one of Respondent's supervisors discussed unions with employees during their working time. Employee Underwood testified that Bree- den, supervisor on the night shift, stopped at her work station and asked her how she felt about the Union. She indicated some uncertainty about the matter, and Breeden then, argued that he had worked in a plant in- Chicago that was organized, but had never derived any benefits,from the union. Employee Baker testified that she asked Breeden more than once before the election when he came to her machine' what would happen if the employees voted for the Union. She said Breeden always- replied that Respondent would probably shut down and the employees would lose their jobs. Employee Meadows testified that, at the beginning of the organizing drive, Breeden asked her at her machine if she had heard anyone mention anything about the Union. Breeden then spoke unfavorably of unions and wrote on a paper sack the amount of dues he said the Union would collect from employees. With respect to collections during working hours for charitable or other causes, Meadows stated that employ- ees had collected money during working hours on her shift, and Breeden knew about it. Collections were made for flowers and also for a Christmas gift for the foreman, she said. In addition an office employee entered the department and took orders for cookies. Employee Baker confirmed Meadow's testimony about some of the collections in the department. Former employees Underwood and Jackson, who had also been employed on the second shift, testified that they had been solicited for certain causes in the plant during working hours. Foreman Breeden did not deny that collections for various purposes had gone on in the department during working hours, but he did deny that he had spoken to any employee about unions. I find and conclude that the no-solicitation rule was promulgated, maintained, and enforced in order to inter- fere with employees, organizational efforts. Respondent appears to have had no reason to promulgate such a rule until the Union's campaign to organize the employ- ees began on March 6. Although Douglas said that it was understood that employees were not permitted to engage in promiscuous talking and by so doing inter- fere with others at work, the written rule in question was aimed only at union solicitation and at no other activities The nature of the rule as well as its timing is evidence that it was based on considerations other than an interest in maintaining production. As a matter of fact, Douglas explained that its purpose was to make clear to employees what their rights were during the Union's campaign, and he did not indicate that it had any other reason for its existence. It is also clear from the credited testimony of the employees, which is actually uncontradicted, that employees, with Respon- dent's knowledge, have in the past solicited for a variety of causes during working hours without restrictions and this disparate treatment of causes is evidence that the rule was designed to inhibit the employees in the exercise of their right to discuss unions and not to maintain production and discipline. Although I found Breeden to be credible in other respects, I was not impressed by his denials of having talked about unionism with any employee, and I credit Meadows', Underwood's and Baker's statements that he talked to them at work and was critical of the Union in his conversations. This is also some evidence that Respondent was more interested in its employees' union views and in preventing them from being proselyted for the Union than in possible neglect of their daily duties.3 By promulgating, maintain- ing, and enforcing its no-solicitation rule for the discrimi- natory purpose of discouraging union activity, Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.4 3 I do not find, however, that Douglas' noncoercive talks with employ- ees in the cafeteria during .working hours but away, of course, from the work area is any evidence that Respondent discriminatorily enforced its own rule Republic Aviation Corp v N L R B , 324 U S 793, fn. 10; Pepsi- Cola Bottlers of Miami, Inc , 155 NLRB 527, The Wm H Block Company, 150 NLRB 341; Ward Manufacturing, Inc , 152 NLRB 1270, Electra Plastics Fabric, Inc ,157 NLRB 1030 DIXIE WIRE CORPORATION 2 Interrogation and threats I have found above that Breeden was not candid in his disavowals of conversations with employees about unionism, and I credit employee Underwood's testimony that he asked her how she felt about the Union's efforts to organize the plant I also find that Breeden's actions in this area were not isolated for he also spoke unfavor- ably about unions to Meadows and asked her if she had heard any of the employees speak about the Union B Although Breeden's antiunion activities do not appear to have been extensive, he also told Baker that the plant would close and the employees lose their jobs if the Union was successful In the light of the totality of his conduct, I find that by interrogating employees about their union sentiments or the sentiments of others, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The fact that Baker asked Breeden for his views is of course no excuse for his responses that the plant would close if it were organized By such threats Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act B The Alleged Discriminatory Discharges I Eleanor Underwood Mrs Underwood had been employed by Respondent for about a year when she was discharged on April 30, 1969 Underwood admittedly had a loaded pistol in her possession in the plant on the day she was discharged Respondent claims that it fired her for this and nothing else, but General Counsel contends that the real reason was her union activities Underwood worked on the second shift in the molding department under Supervisor Breeden I have credited her testimony that sometime during the organizing cam paign prior to the election Breeden asked her how she felt about the Union There is also evidence that employ- ee Meadows, who was also allegedly discharged for her union activities or sentiments, discussed the Union with Underwood and that Breeden overheard the discus- sion At the outset, however, I find that there is no evidence in the record that Underwood was especially active in the Union or in union activities, or that Respondent indicated or expressed any resentment against her for any union sentiments she may have had or activities she may have engaged in prior to her discharge Underwood lives approximately 17 miles from the plant and normally drove to and from work alone Since her shift ended at midnight, she carried a loaded pistol in her purse for her protection, although she admitted that she knew this is against the law Under- 8 Some light is thrown on Breeden s reason for talking with employees about the Union in Underwood s uncontradicted testimony that she overheard Douglas ask Breeden if he had heard anyone say how they were going to vote the union question When Breeden tried to assure Douglas that he had nothing to worry about on that shift Douglas warned him that one never knows and said to let him know if he did hear anything Breeden asked what the Respondent expected to do about it and Douglas replied We are going to fire them 213 wood said that she usually left the gun in the car's glove compartment, but on occasion has taken it into the plant in her purse " According to Underwood, her possession of a pistol in her purse at various times was well known to employees and supervision At one time in the past, she said, Supervisor Fleming, who is no longer with the Company, having been replaced by Breeden, picked up her purse and commented on its weight She explained to him that it contained a gun which she carried for protection She also recounted a conversation which she said she had with Breeden about guns some months before her discharge during which she took the pistol from her purse and showed it to him Underwood testified that on the night before her discharge she overheard employee Pettit tell Breeden that she thought Underwood had a gun in her purse The next evening when she reported for work Breeden informed her that Douglas wanted to see her As she started to accompany Breeden to the office, he insisted that she bring her purse with her When she reached the office, Douglas asked her to give him the gun, and she did At that point Douglas discharged her, stating that it was against company policy to have a gun in the plant Underwood asked for the return of her property, but Douglas refused to return the pistol, and a policeman was called When the officer arrived, the gun was unloaded and returned to Underwood No charges were brought against her, and she left the plant with the policeman According to Underwood and former employee Mead- ows, sometime in December 1968 or January 1969, employee Green brought a pistol to work and fired a number of shots out the plant door in the direction of the the parking lot to frighten someone who the employees felt was stealing gasoline from their cars Meadows said that Supervisor Fleming observed Green I find that General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Underwood was discharged because of her union activity Douglas tes- tified credibly that he first learned that Underwood might have a gun in her possession from Breeden on the morning of April 28 Douglas, after discussing the matter with the Company' s personnel manager and the Compa- ny's attorney, decided to discharge Underwood if the facts were as reported by Breeden Underwood was discharged as she had testified Although there was no specific rule against having loaded weapons in the plant, Douglas said that the problem had never arisen before, and he assumed that anyone would know that carrying a gun in violation of law would not be permitted Subsequent to Underwood's discharge, the employee manual was reissued, and it now contains a rule covering the possession of guns by employees I also credit Douglas' testimony that he knew of no other employee who had brought a gun into the plant It also appears from his testimony, and it was corroborated by Personnel Manager Wilson and General Foreman Cromer, that 6 She explained the reason for this but I find it unnecessary to evaluate the explanation 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an employee by the name of Crouch has recently been discharged for the same offense. Breeden testified that his first information that Under- wood might have a gun in her possession came from employee Taylor on the night of April 25 . On Monday, April 28 , he told Douglas about it , and on Wednesday Douglas had him bring Underwood to the office, where he participated in the interview . Underwood readily admitted possession of the pistol and accused another employee , who she claimed was the only one who knew she had a gun , of informing on her . Breeden denied the Underwood had ever revealed to him her possession of a weapon , and he added that she had never heard of any other employee bringing a gun into the plant . Personnel Manager Wilson , who was also present when Underwood was discharged , described the incident and noted among other details that Under- wood was "quite upset " and accused another employee of telling the Company about the gun. Wilson also had no knowledge of anyone else having taken a gun into the plant before the Underwood episode. I have indicated that I found Douglas' testimony acceptable , and I also credit Wilson 's and Breeden's statements that they had no knowledge that Underwood or anyone else had a loaded gun on Respondent 's premis- es before Underwood was reported to Breeden by anoth- er employee . Underwood conceded that she did name an employee as her accuser when she met with Douglas, Wilson, and Breeden . Since Respondent did not know earlier that Underwood was in possession of a gun in violation of law and because there is no evidence of any substance that Respondent's responsible officials knew or should have known that one employee at some uncertain time had fired a gun in the plant, Respondent cannot be said to have condoned Underwood ' s actions in the past . I am also unable to find that Respondent's treatment of Underwood when it did learn about the gun is such a departure from accepted employment standards that it permits an inference that Respondent's motive was other than it says. I find and conclude , therefore , for the reasons stated that Respondent did not discharge Eleanor Underwood in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. 2. Julia Meadows Mrs. Meadows also worked on the night shift as a molder under Supervisor Breeden until her discharge on March 27 , 1969. Meadows said that the reason for discharge stated on her separation slip was "left her machine unattended ." Douglas testified that the termina- tion slip, which is not in evidence , read : "cutting off her machine , leaving her work station and engaging in conversation relating to the Union during working hours." Douglas said Meadows' discharge was a result of her violation of the rule about union activity during working time and also because ' Respondent does not permit employees "to walk around when they should be working." He explained that although it happened that Meadows was talking about the Union while away from her machine , she was discharged because she was away from her machine talking with another employ- ee and would have been terminated regardless of the subject of the conversation. Breeden had been supervisor on the second shift since sometime in February 1969. At the time there were nine employees , including Meadows, operating molding machines . Breeden explained that the machine utilizes heat and a plastic compound in molding wires into an assembly. If the heat is turned on, but the machine is not running , the plastic will harden and its container will have to be cleaned before the machine can be operated satisfactorily . He said it was his practice near the end of lunch or break period to turn the heat on the machines again so that they would be ready for the operators when they returned . Sometime after he took over supervision of the department he noticed that some of the employees were stopping to talk with other employees after a break or lunch period instead of returning to their machines promptly. He said he called all employees , including Meadows, togeth- er and told them that the practice must stop. After his admonition , Breeden said all employees except Mead- ows stopped visiting with other operators . Breeden saw Meadows away from her machine on a number of occa- sions talking with others. He named Underwood, Mang- rum, and Baker as employees who Meadows had visited to his knowledge. As a result , he said he warned her again about leaving her machine . A few days later Breeden said he saw Meadows at Underwood ' s machine talking to her while Underwood continued to work. As he approached them he heard Meadows state that Ford Motor was organized and the Company would be a better place to work if it were organized . Breeden made some comment to interrupt the conversation, and Meadows returned to her machine . Breeden followed her and admonished her for leaving her machine. He said that Meadows turned on the machine and contended that she was being "shoved around," but things were going to change . Breeden insisted that he was not harrass- ing Meadows but only asking her to do her work. According to him , Meadows commented that she was going to vote for the Union in the coming election and began to cry. Breeden was fed up with his inability to control Meadows, he said , and reported his problem to Shillis, his superior . After a conference with Shillis and Douglas it was agreed that Meadows should be discharged. Bree- den and Comer , the general foreman , met with Meadows at the beginning of her next shift and Breeden, after referring to their conversation of the previous evening, told Meadows that she was being terminated because he could not control her . He said that Meadows did not deny that she had been away from her machine without reason. Mrs. Meadows testified that she did not leave her machine unattended the day before she was discharged except to clock off one job and on to another, which takes only a few minutes and is required by the Company. She said that when Breeden discharged her and accused her of being away from her machine talking with Under- wood she was "shocked " and denied it. She stated, DIXIE WIRE CORPORATION however, that there was some kind of discussion with Breeden the previous evening about employees being away from their stations, but it appears from her testimo- ny that it involved other employees and that she brought the matter to Breeden's attention Her testimony is not crystal clear, but it seems from it that Breeden's response to this information was to accuse her of "trying to run the job " Meadows also said she was unaware of the existence of a no-solicitation rule, and that no one had ever told her that she should not leave her machine unattend- ed She also maintained that the meeting at which Bree den advised employees to return promptly to their work stations after a break or lunch occurred after she was fired She later recalled that sometime before her dis- charge Breeden spoke with her at her machine and told her not to leave it during working hours except to go to the ladies room, or to lunch, or on a break She thought he may have told all employees this Regarding her alleged visit and talk with Underwood which caused Breeden to seek her discharge, Meadows flatly denied that she had left her machine to talk with Underwood and discuss unions with her Underwood testified that since Meadows did not talk with her at her machine on the night of March 26, Breeden could not have overheard any conversation about unions Although she conceded that in the past Meadows might have stopped to chat with her at her machine as she returned from clocking out after a job was done, she said that on the night in question Meadows left her machine only to clock out and did not stop to visit with her Like Meadows, Underwood also had no recollection of a meeting of employees on the second shift called by Breeden to caution them all about not returning to their work stations promptly Former employee Baker worked in the molding depart- ment with Meadows She said that Meadows did not talk with her about the Union during working hours the night before she was discharged and that she left her machine only to clock in and out, which took only a few minutes Baker's machine was right next to Mead ows Baker also said she did not see Meadows at Under- wood's machine that night Baker admitted that she had occasionally left her machine to talk with other employees, and she conceded that Meadows might have done so also, but she was unwilling to agree that Mead ows did this more than any other employee in the department Unlike some of the other employees, she was able to recall Breeden's lecture to the employees on the subject of leaving their machines unattended This took place about 2 weeks before Meadows' dis- charge Employee Pettit testified that Meadows called her over to her machine during working hours more than once during the month of March to speak to her about the Union In addition, she saw Underwood leave her machine a night or two before her discharge and speak with Baker, Mangrum, Taylor, and Underwood at their machines On other nights, she saw Meadows go to the machines of other employees, but she did not name them On these occasions, Meadows was not away 215 from her machine for any length of time, according to Pettit, and she returned to her machine after convers- ing with the other employees Although Meadows was not especially active in union activities, she was in favor of the Union, and Respondent knew it I have credited Meadows' testimony that Bree- den asked her during the Union's campaign if she had heard anything about the Union and that, during a short conversation which then developed, Meadows told Breeden that she knew as much about unions as he did because her husband had been a member for 25 years Also, according to Breeden's testimony, when he saw Meadows at Underwood's machine the day before her discharge, he overheard her remark that Respondent would be a better place to work if it were organized Moreover, when he accompanied her to her machine and told her he expected her to stay there, Meadows emotionally claimed she was being pushed around and was going to vote for the Union in the election Although Meadows denied having had this exchange with Breeden, or even having been at Under- wood's work station, I credit Breeden's version In my opinion, Meadows understated the frequency of her visits with other employees at their machines and concealed the nature of her conversations with them Pettit testified credibly that Meadows spoke to her about the Union more than once in March after calling her to her station during working hours Pettit, contrary to Meadows, also said that Meadows visited four other employees during working hours shortly before her dis- charge Employee Taylor, although she conceded that she too may have left her machine contrary to Breeden's instructions, pretty clearly indicated that Meadows did so too, and continued to do so after she was told not to Moreover, despite employee Baker's testimony that the only time she saw Meadows leave her machine the night before she was fired was when she went to clock in on a new job, she added under cross- examination that she "guessed" that Meadows did leave her machine to talk with other employees before her discharge, and, unlike Meadows, she remembered Bree- den's warning to all the employees not to leave their machines unattended Breeden, therefore, found Meadows at Underwood's machine on March 26, after she had been twice warned to stay at her own station These warnings had followed a meeting with all employees, including Meadows, short- ly after he became supervisor on that shift, in which he gave similar instructions and explained the reason for them Although I have also found that Breeden concealed the extent of his conversations with employees in regard to unions, I found nothing odd or unbelievable about his stated reaction of being "fed up" with Mead- ows He consulted his immediate supervisors, and after a conference with Douglas it was decided to discharge Meadows I credit Breeden's testimony that he reported the circumstances surrounding Meadows's derilictions to higher authority I also credit Douglas' testimony that Meadows was discharged because she stopped her machine, left her work station, and engaged in conversa 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion relating to the Union during working hours. This leaves the question of whethell Respondent discharged Meadows merely because she engaged in union conversa- tion during working time in violation of a rule which I have found' was' promulgated for discriminatory rea- sons. Douglas also stated that Meadows was discharged because Respondent was unable to keep her at her work station. He explained that she would leave her machine to talk with others, and as it happened she was talking aout the Union, but regardless of what she was talking about, Respondent, would have fired her. •I am unable to say on this record that Respondent singled out Meadows for discharge because she talked union on the job and used the rule to cover its real motive. I conclude that Respondent did not violate Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Actin discharging Meadows as alleged in the complaint. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR)LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE It is found that the activities of the Respondent set forth above in section III, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY As it has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the Board issue the Recommended Order set forth below requiring Respondent to cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. 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. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the conduct found to be violations set forth in section III, A, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent did not discharge Eleanor Underwood and Julia Meadows in violation of law as alleged in the complaint. 5. 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 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees regarding their union sen- timents or the sentiments of others in a manner constitut- ing interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (b) Posting , Ipaintaining' , or enforcing 'any.rules against union solicitation or 'other activity which are designed solely to impede the union organization of its employees. (c) Threatening employees with plant closure in the event, that they select the Union. as their collective- bargaining representative. - , (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the'exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the, Act. 2. Take the following, affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the rule against union activities which it posted on March 11, 1969. (b) Post at its Nashville, Tennessee, plant, a copy of the notice attached marked "Appendix. "7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Board' s Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by the Company's authorized representative, be posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained thereafter for 60 consecutive days in conspic- uous places, including all places where notices to employ- ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply with the terms hereof.' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of the complaint that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act be dismissed. ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objection thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 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 " o 9 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 " DIXIE WIRE CORPORATION APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their union sentiments or the sentiments of others in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if employees select District Lodge No 155 , Interna- tional Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as their collective-bargaining representative We have rescinded the rule against union activi- ties during working hours which we posted on March 11, 1969 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees 217 in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act Dated By DIXIE WIRE CORPORATION AND PERFECTION ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, INC , (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone 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, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161