Reidbord Bros. Co.

REIDBORD BROS . CO. 321 Reidbord Bros. Co . and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , Pittsburgh District Joint Board , AFL-CIO, and Reidbord Pittsburgh Quota Club, Party in Interest . Cases 6-CA-4603 and 6-CA-4604 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN On January 20, 1970, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed Thereafter, both the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with supporting briefs. 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 these cases 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 briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act at its Van- dergrift plant by President Reidbord's and Super- visor Irma Peterson's threats to close the plant un- less the employees ousted their bargaining representative; Peterson's interrogation of em- ployee Patricia Onifer, and Reidbord's suggestion that the employees decertify their bargaining representative in favor of increased employer benefits through a club arrangement,' and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) at Vandergrift by withdrawing recognition of the Union and thereafter refusing to bargain with it. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) at its Baum Bou- levard plant by Reidbord's suggestions that the em- ployees accept increased employer benefits through a club arrangement as a substitute for unionization; Reidbord's coercive interrogation of employees at a meeting in May, and Supervisor Silvaggio 's inter- rogation of employee Maria Coridetti. The Trial Examiner recommended the issuance of a narrow cease-and-desist order. The General ounsel contends that the violation found warrant the issuance of a broad order since they run to the heart of the Act.3 We find merit in this contention as it relates to the Vandergrift plant, where Respon- dent, as the Trial Examiner found , engaged in a broad campaign of unfair labor practices designed to destroy the employees' bargaining representa- tive. However, we find that the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner is appropriate for the Baum Boulevard plant, as it is commensurate with the unfair labor practices committed at that plant.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, Reid- bord Bros. Co , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified. 1 Delete paragraph 1(c) and substitute the fol- lowing. "(c) Suggesting to employees the displacement of the Union as their representative at its Van- dergrift plant in favor of increased Employer benefits through the Club or a comparable arrange- ment; and suggesting to employees at its Baum Boulevard plant that they accept increased Em- ployer benefits through the Club or a comparable arrangement as a substitute for unionization." i These findings and conclusions are based , in part , upon the credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner , to which Respondent excepts On the basis of our own careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear prepon- derance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) "The Trial Examiner credited employee Helen Marchcse's testimony that President Reidbord introduced the subject of a club arrangement at his first meeting with the Baum Boulevard employees , but in one instance in- advertently stated that this had taken place at his first meeting with the Vandergrift employees It was employee% Mavis Coco , Geraldine Sproull, Patricia Onifcr, Ruth Held, Loretta Cappo, and Mary Morgan, who credibly testified that Reidbord introduced the subject of a club arrange- ment at Vandergrift Hugh Casper was employed at the Penn Avenue, not the Baum Boulevard, plant iSee, e g,NLR B v Entwistle Mfg Co, 120F2d532(CA 4),enfg as modified 23 NLRB 1058 " As requested by Respondent, we shall provide for separate notices to be posted at Vandergrift and Baum Boulevard conforming with our order See Lawler'' Cafeteria & Catering Company, 138 NLRB 352 184 NLRB No. 33 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 2. Delete paragraph 1(d) and substitute the fol- lowing: "(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees at its Baum Boulevard plant in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act; and in any other manner in- terfering with, restraining, or coercing employees at its Vandergrift plant in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act." 3. Delete the first sentence of paragraph 2(b) and insert in its place the following: "(b) Post at its plant in Vandergrift copies of the attached notice marked Appendix-Vandergrift; and post at its Baum Boulevard plant copies of the attached notice marked Appendix- Baum Bou- levard." 4 Substitute the attached Notice(s) to Em- ployees, marked "Appendix-Vandergrift," and "Appendix- Baum Boulevard," for that recom- mended by the Trial Examiner. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of Vandergrift employees in the above unit and embody in a written and signed agreement un- derstandings reached as a result of such bar- gaining. REIDBORD BROS. CO. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the APPENDIX-VANDERGRIFT Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES Telephone 412-644-2977. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer- ica, Pittsburgh District Joint Board, AFL-CIO, as exclusive representative of Vandergrift em- ployees in the appropriate unit, namely: All production and maintenance em- ployees at the Company's Vandergrift plant, excluding office clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they displace the Union in favor of greater benefits from the Company through the Quota Club or any comparable arrangement. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em- ployees concerning their membership in or sympathy for the above-named Union. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant because the Union is the representative of em- ployees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exer- cise of their rights to self-organization guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex- tent that any such rights may be affected by an APPENDIX-BAUM BOULEVARD NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they accept greater benefits from the Company through the Quota Club or any comparable ar- rangement as a substitute for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Pittsburgh Dis- trict Joint Board, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em- ployees concerning their memberships in or sympathy for the above-named Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, coerce , or restrain our em- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex- tent that any such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- REIDBORD BROS. CO. 323 ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 7 of the Act. REIDBORD BROS. CO (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. its principal office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is engaged at its Pennsylvania plants in the manufac- ture and nonretail sale of clothing. During the year preceding issuance of the complaints herein the Company received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania and shipped from its Pennsylvania plants directly to points outside the Commonwealth goods valued in excess of $50,000. I find, as the Company concedes, that it is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office , 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This con- solidated proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act, came on to be heard at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on November 5 and 6, 1969.1 The original charges of unfair labor practices had been filed May 22, by the above-in- dicated Charging Party, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Union, and the complaints here were issued on October 2 by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board acting through the Board's Regional Director for Region 6. They allege, in addition to jurisdictional matter, that the above-indicated Respondent, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Company, engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)( I ), (2), and (5) of the Act. The Company's duly filed answer has denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. At the hearing the parties appeared2 and par- ticipated as noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues. Sub- sequent to the close of the hearing briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Com- pany and have been fully considered. On the entire record herein and on the basis of my observation of the witnesses I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find that the Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with Dates hereinafter , unless otherwise specified, relate to the year 1969 = No separate appearance was entered on behalf of the Party in Interest 3 Casper is also a company vice president II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act. The complaint in Case 6-CA-4604 alleges and the answer denies that the above-indicated Party in Interest, hereinafter referred to as the Club, is also a labor organization within the meaning of that section. For reasons hereinafter detailed I conclude that it is not. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction to the Issues The Company's Pennsylvania operations are car- ried on in manufacturing plants at Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, and at Vandergrift, the latter some 35 miles east of Pittsburgh. There is also a distribution center at Penn Avenue, in Pittsburgh where the Company maintains its general offices. There are four West Virginia manufacturing operations, two at Elkins and one each at Buckhannon and Philippi; these are some 100 miles south of Pittsburgh. The Company's supervisory staff includes, in addition to President Murray Reidbord, Baum Boulevard Plant Manager Gregory Silvaggio and Penn Avenue Production Manager Hugh Casper.3 Charles Leff, vice president in charge of manufacturing and an admitted supervisor, rotates regularly among all the manufacturing operations. Leff's second-in-com- mand at Vandergrift is Irma Peterson whose super- visory status is disputed. In 1951 the Union was certified as the statutory bargaining representative of Vandergrift employees in a unit consisting of all production and main- tenance employees, excluding office clerical em- ployees and guards, professional employees and su- pervisors as defined in the Act.4 Contractual rela- tions were maintained thereafter until, by letter of June 24, 1969, the Company notified the Union that it would withdraw recognition on the termina- ' The Union was recertified on August 20, 1958, following an election conducted pursuant to an RM petition 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of the existing agreement on September 1 because of the filing of a decertification petition and because it doubted the Union 's continuing majority status. Union Representative Charies Litell came to Pittsburgh in January to assist in organizing em- ployees at the Baum Boulevard and Penn Avenue locations and on March 25 sent a telegram to Silvaggio claiming majority status at Baum Boule- vard and requesting recognition and collective bargaining. On March 26 the Union filed a repre- sentation petition respecting a production and main- tenance unit at Baum Boulevard and in April a stipulation for certification upon consent election was executed ; the election was held in abeyance following the filling of the charges in the instant case. The case presents the question as to whether, as alleged by the General Counsel and denied by the Company, Reidbord and Peterson engaged , at Van- dergrift , in various acts constituting interference, restraint , and coercion within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and whether the withdrawal of recognition at Vandergrift constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain within the scope of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. It also involves allegations and denials of unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act at the Baum Boulevard plant in the nature of interrogation into union sym- pathy by Reidbord and Silvaggio and creation of the impression of surveillance of employee union activities by Casper . It is also alleged that the Com- pany assisted and dominated the Club , thereby en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. B. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion 1. Vandergrift a. Murray Reidbord Reidbord is alleged , in the course of two talks on or about March 26 and April 14 at the Vandergrift plant, to have threatened employees with the clos- ing of the plant if they retained the Union as their bargaining representative , to have promised em- ployees longer work hours and other benefits to dis- suade them from keeping the Union as their representative , and to have suggested to employees that they attempt to decertify the Union and form an independent labor organization. The Company has denied these allegations . There is no doubt as to Reidbord's addressing Vandergrift employees on or about the dates in question ; there is a dispute as to the contents of his talks. Mavis Cocco, a Vandergrift employee for some 8 years until her layoff in February, testified that late in March she was called by Peterson and asked to attend a meeting in the plant to hear a talk by Reid- bord . Her account is that in the course of his talk Reidbord said that it would not be possible to keep the plant , which was then running only 1 day per week , going under union representation because of the financial burden of paying 4 percent of payroll into the union benefit fund . He also, according to Cocco, said that the girls in the Company's West Virginia operations had a better benefit arrange- ment with their own employee clubs under which the girls paid $1 a payday, an arrangement which Reidbord offered to institute at Vandergrift. Geraldine Sproul, a 16-year employee at Van- dergrift, was also called at home by Peterson and asked to attend the March meeting. Her account of that meeting is that Reidbord said he had been un- derbid on a contract and that employees would have to help him by foregoing union representation in favor of a club arrangement like that in the other company plants so that he could bid lower and get more work. Patricia Onifer a 5-year Vandergrift employee, was on layoff when a company secretary telephoned her to attend the March meeting at the plant . She testified that in the course of the meeting Reidbord referred to the reduced workweek and said that the plant was losing money because of the cost of the union insurance program and that if em- ployees were unorganized and had a club arrange- ment for benefits . like in the West Virginia plants they could have the same benefits for half the cost whereas if they kept the Union he could see little future for the plant. Ruth Held, a 16-year employee of Vandergrift, testified that in the course of the March employee meeting Reidbord referred to tight competition and to the 4.5 percent of payroll paid to the union benefit program and said that he could not con- tinue to give them work under the existing arrange- ment . Also, in reply to an employee question, Reid- bord said, according to Held , that the employees could oust the Union by petitioning the Board for an election. Loretta Cappo, an 8-year Vandergrift employee, testified that at the March meeting Reidbord asked employees to consider ousting the Union because of the 4 - 1 /2 percent benefit cost and replacing it with a club arrangement like the Company had in its West Virginia plants. In reply to a question Reid- bord , according to Cappo, said that if employees gave up the union work would probably flow in in or about 2 or 3 weeks. Beatrice Ward, a 19-year Vandergrift employee, testified that in the March meeting Reidbord referred to his efforts to get more work for the plant and said that the only way he could see of REIDBORD BROS. CO getting work would be for employees to get rid of the Union and its 4.5 percent of payroll benefit cost which would enable him to bid lower on contracts. In reply to an employees question as to how to get rid of the Union, Reidbord, according to Ward, said that four or five girls would have to go to the Board offices for information on the matter. Mary Morgan, a 17-year Vandergrift employee, was called to the March meeting over the plant loudspeaker Her account is that Reidbord said he could not keep the plant operating under the Union and that employees could form a club which would be as good as the Union and he would match their contributions of 25 or 50 cents per week. Accord- ing to Morgan, Reidbord said employees could oust the Union by going to the Board and setting up an election. At the second meeting at Vandergrift, that of April 14, Cocco was again notified to attend by Peterson. She testified that at this meeting Reid- bord said that the West Virginia employees were very happy with their benefit club, and that there would be steady work if the Union were ousted at Vandergrift, whereas if the Union were retained at Vandergrift they would lose work and might have to close the plant. Sproull, notified at work by Peterson to attend the second meeting, testified that Reidbord in- formed the meeting that he would lend $5,000 to start club benefits and said that the starting of the club at Vandergrift would reduce overhead and result in more employment. Reidbord testified that he delivered the March speech at Vandergrift as a result of a conversation with Leff in which Leff voiced the fear of losing girls as a consequence of the 1-day-per-week em- ployment situation . Reidbord testified that in the March meeting he stated that the Company had no intention of closing Vandergrift and was, instead, trying to obtain work to run the plant full time. He stated that in a questioned-and-answer period he explained that the plant had lost a longstanding contract to a nonunion plant in Mississippi and further that Vandergrift was noncompetetive to the extent of the 4.5 percent of payroll paid to the Union pursuant to the benefit program . He also stated that it was only in response to employee questions concerning the clubs at the West Virginia plants that he explained their operation. The second Vandergrift speech was delivered on or about April 14 by Reidbord, according to his testimony, as a result of a report from Leff to the effect that Union Representative Delegatti had distorted his remarks at the first meeting.5 He S Leff, who testified on other matters, was not asked to corroborate Reid- bord on this 325 testified that he had been informed of Delegatti's words and asked for any employee questions to clear the matter. According to his account some girls asked about starting an employee benefit club and he informed the group that he would arrange a $5,000 company loan to be repaid later. Reidbord denied stating that the Club would act like a union and denied stating that more work would be a speedy result of their ousting the Union. He also testified that it was in response to employee Alice Ameno's question as to an immediate vote on oust- ing the Union that he referred to the need of an employee group going to the Board's Pittsburgh of- fices on the matter. I do not credit Reidbord's account of the reasons for and character of his remarks at these meetings Rather, I credit the employee accounts, and par- ticularly that of Sproull to the effect that Reidbord said it would be necessary to have the help of em- ployees in ousting the Union as a means of becom- ing more competetive and insuring fuller employ- ment. I conclude that- Reidbord's remarks con- stituted interference with and restraint and coer- cion of employees in their rights to continue union representation without such employer interference. It is also my conclusion that Reidbord's remarks ap- pealing for replacement of the Union by a club ar- rangement similar to that prevailing in the West Virginia plants and his promises of financial assistance in the establishment and operation of such a club also constituted interference with em- ployee rights under Section 7 of the Act. b Irma Peterson There is a dispute as to the supervisory status of Irma Peterson, floorlady at the Vandergrift plant, who is alleged to have, in or about May 1969, threatened employees with closing of the plant if the Union continued to represent them, inter- rogated employees as to their union membership activities, and sympathies, and created among em- ployees the impression that their union activities were under surveillance. Leff testified that he is at the Vandergrift plant every Monday and, generally, on Friday. It is clear that in his absence Irma Peterson is in sole charge of the 50 to 60 employees. It is also clear from Pres- ident Reidbord's testimony that on occasion Peter- son exercises her own judgment in such matters as allowing time off for girls without consultation with Leff. Cocco's credited testimony indicates that Peterson assigns work and grants time off, and that of Onifer is to the effect that Peterson transfers girls to different jobs and orders improper work redone. Peterson concedes that she seldom per- forms manual work herself and that Leff has in- 427-835 0 - 74 - 22 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD structed her to enforce rules against excessive con- versation in the plant . Since Peterson is in sole charge of the Vandergrift operation most of the time , assigns work, transfers employees, orders work corrected, grants time off, and performs the usual functions of supervision and since it is quite plain that she performs her functions without any superior in the plant most of the workweek I find and conclude that she is supervisor within the scope of Section 2(1 1) of the Act. Onifer, whom I found to be a thoroughly credible witness, testified that sometime around Memorial Day she was talking to Peterson in the plant and that Peterson asked her how she felt about the Union and added that if the girls decided to keep the Union Murray (Reidbord) was going to shut the plant down. Although Peterson denied these ac- counts I credit Onifer's testimony and find that in these talks Peterson engaged in the interrogation and threats as alleged in the complaint and that thereby the Company engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The complaint also alleges that in May the Com- pany, through Peterson, created among employees the impression that their union activities were being kept under surveillance. In this connection, Ward testified that sometime shortly after, Reidbord's speech referring to employee action to oust the Union, she joined a group which included Peterson and complained about employee Marilyn Clauser soliciting her signature on the decertification peti- tion during working hours, to which Peterson stated that she knew about this inasmuch as Clauser had reported to her that Ward had refused to sign the decertification petition. I cannot conclude that this evidence suffices to make out a case of a creation of the impression of company surveillance of em- ployee activities regarding the Union. Neither do I find any support for the General Counsel's position in Tyrone Hydraulics, Inc., 161 NLRB 1476, cited by the General Counsel. Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. 2. Baum Boulevard a. Murray Reidbord Reidbord is alleged in the complaint to have in- terrogated employees concerning their union sym- pathies and to have suggested to them the reactiva- tion of the Club while promising increased com- pany contributions to the Club for the purpose of dissuading employee adherence to the Union Helen Marchese, the only Baum Boulevard em- ployee who testified at the hearing concerning Reidbord's discussion at Baum Boulevard, testified that in the course of an employee meeting in May, which employees were instructed by Silvaggio to at- tend , Reidbord disparaged union representation and asked what employees were unhappy about and why they wanted the Union. I credit Marchese's testimony and find that this question, in the context of disparagement of the Union consituted unlawful interrogation and an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Reidbord is also alleged to have engaged in con- duct constituting interference, restraint and coer- cion by suggesting to employees, in or about April, 1969, the reactivation of the Club and promising increased Company contributions to it for the pur- pose of dissuading employees from union member- ship and representation. It is clear that shortly after Company receipt of the March 25 telegram de- manding recognition at Baum Boulevard, Reidbord called an employee meeting at that location for the purpose of stating the reasons why the Company felt employees should reject representation by the Union. Employee Marchese testified credibly that in the course of his talk Reidbord told employees that it would be preferable to settle problems among themselves without the intervention of a third party, unmistakably referring to the Union, and added that benefits available under the Club could be increased with the Company matching in- creased employee contributions. Reidbord's testimony does not materially dissipate Marchese's account. I find on all the evidence relating to the April meeting at Baum Boulevard that, as alleged in the complaint Reidbord suggested reactivation of the Club as a substitute for union representation and promised increased Company contributions as a device for dissuading employees from union representation in favor of Club participation, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. b. Hugh Casper Casper is alleged to have, at the Baum Boulevard plant, created among employees the impression that their union activities were kept under company surveillance. I find no evidence to substantiate this charge and recommend dismissal of the allegations in this regard.6 c. Gregory Silvaggio Silvaggio, admittedly a supervisor, is alleged in an amendment to the complaint to have, in March, by e The General Counsel 's brief points to an instance of Casper's telling employees that he knew the union men had been around , this is plainly in- sufficient to establish the creation of the impression of surveillance r REIDBORD BROS CO. telephone interrogated employees as to their own and their fellow employees' union activities Maria Corradetti, an employee on layoff status in March, testified that in the course of a telephone conversa- tion with Silvaggio concerning her unemployment compensation, Silvaggio asked her who had signed for the Union and that she gave him the names of four or five who had signed. Although Silvaggio de- nied this account, I credit Maria Corradetti's testimony and find that the Company, through Sil- vaggio, engaged in unlawful interrogation in this re- gard and committed the unfair labor practice al- leged in the amended complaint. C. Assistance and Domination and Support of the Club The Club was organized sometime in 1964 ap- parently along lines established in the West Virginia locations some 15 or 20 years ago. All Pittsburgh- based employees of the Company are eligible for membership but the instant case relates not only to Baum Boulevard employees but also to Vandergrift where the Company is alleged to have suggested formation of a plan of representation patterned on the Club. The Club's constitution and bylaws are in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 14. Member- ship is voluntary after 30 days' employment and the fundamental objective of the Club is stated to be furnishing general welfare , insurance , and death benefits and 40 percent for other approved expen- ditures Benefits are financed through employee monthly dues which, under the bylaws and practice, are matched monthly by a company contribution. The General Counsel points to a provision of the bylaws to the effect that the Club's board of directors shall act as a grievance committee as an indication that the Club was empowered to act and recognized as a labor organization. The more reasonable interpretation of the provision in question appears to me, however, to be that the grievance authority conferred was in relation to disputes arising as to eligibility for and disposition of payments under the established benefit program and that the section in question confers no authori- ty on the board of directors to act as a collective- bargaining agent In this connection there appears to be a want of evidence that the Club ever negotiated terms and conditions of employment with the Company and I conclude that it did not exist in whole or in part for the purpose of dealing with the Company on collective-bargaining matters The circumstance that the Club could by increasing or decreasing dues effect an increase or decrease in the amount of the company contribution and the resultant benefit does not suffice to make the na- ture of the Club that of a labor organization within the scope of Section 2(5) of the Act. I find that the Club was not a labor organization under that sec- tion of the Act and accordingly shall recommend 327 dismissal of the allegations of the complaint relating to Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. The evidence, however, abundantly indicates that the Company used the existence and availability of the Club as a device to interfere with employee freedom in the exercise of their rights under Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Thus, although Reidbord's testimony would indicate that his reference to the Club in speeches to employees of both Boulevard and Vandergrift was only in response to employee questions and that on those occasions he did no more than explain the existence of benefits under the Club plan, stated that the Company practice was to match employee contributions, and ex- pressed the Company's willingness to make a loan up to $5,000 to start Club operations, I credit the testimony of the several employee witnesses casting a different light on the matter . Thus, I credit the testimony of employee Marchese which indicates that, at the first meeting for Vandergrift employees addressed by Reidbord, the latter introduced the subject of the Club immediately after he had asked the reason for employee dissatisfaction and their apparent interest in the Union and was told by em- ployees that they were interested in more employee benefits. I also credit the testimony of Mavis Cocco that Reidbord said at the first meeting that benefits would be better under a club arrangement like that in West Virginia than they would be under union representation. Geraldine Sproull credibly testified that Reidbord said at the first meeting at Vandergrift that em- ployees could help the Company by working under a Club arrangement rather than under union representation. Patricia Onifer testified credibly that if employees elected to operate under a club type arrangement they could have benefits com- parable to those under union representation but at half the cost, whereas if they continued under the Union he could see little future for the plant. Loretta Cappo credibly testified that Reidbord, at the first meeting at Vandergrift, directly appealed to employees to get rid of the Union in favor of a club similar to that in the West Virginia plants. I credit the testimony of employee witnesses and find that on the occasion of the speeches in question Reidbord directly appealed to employees to reject union representation in favor of the establishment of a system comparable to that in the West Virginia plants, whereby an employee club would handle benefit programs with company con- tributions, and an initial loan, sharing in the financ- ing burden of the benefit program. It is concluded that in the appeals to the em- ployees to reject the Union in favor of a club benefit program as outlined above, the Company 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion respecting employee rights under the Act. D. Refusal To Bargain The Union was certified June 6, 1952, as the statutory representative of employees of the Van- dergrift plant in the following, concedely ap- propriate, unit: All production and maintenance employees at the Company's Vandergrift plant, excluding of- fice clerical employees and guards, profes- sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Vandergrift employees were thereafter covered under collective-bargaining agreements until the expiration on September 1, 1969, of the most recent agreement. By letter dated June 24, 1969, the Company withdrew recognition of the Union as representative of Vandergrift employees as of Sep- tember 1, 1969. The letter asserted that the action was taken because of receipt of notice of a decer- tification petition' and because of a doubt of the continued majority status of the Union. The Com- pany's withdrawal of recognition is alleged to be an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(5). As the General Counsel's brief points out it is well established that an employer may not withdraw recognition from an incumbent representative because of an asserted doubt of majority status un- less its action is taken in a context devoid of unfair labor practices and supported by objective indicia of the representative's loss of majority status. Nu- Southern Dyeing & Finishing, Inc., 179 NLRB 573. The Company's action of June 24 was taken closely following upon a substantial campaign of unfair labor practices including coercive appeals to em- ployees to reject the Union and absent objective in- dicia of a loss of majority status.' I conclude that the Company's withdrawal of recognition of the Union as representative of Vandergrift employees in the established unit constituted an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the company set forth in section III, above, and there found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the Company's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the ' I he decertification petition was filed June 5, 1969, by employee Ruth Held, it was dismissed by the Regional Director on October 3, 1969, because of the issuance of the complaint herein Previously, on June 15, 1958, the Company had filed an RM petition resulting in an election vic- several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY In view of the finding set forth above to the effect that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, ►t will be recommended that it be required to cease and de- sist therefrom and from like or related practices and take certain affirmative action as appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act including bargaining with the Union respecting an agreement covering the Vandergrift employees. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the fol- lowing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating employees respecting their membership in and sympathy for the Union, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By threatening closing of the Vandergrift plant if the Union were continued as collective-bar- gaining representative of employees, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By suggesting to employees the displacement of the Union and the substitution of an arrange- ment whereby employee benefits would be furnished by the Club, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. All production and maintenance employees at the Vandergrift plant, excluding office clerical em- ployees and guards, professional employees and su- pervisors as defined ►n the Act constitute a unit ap- propriate for collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 7 of the Act. 7. By withdrawing recognition of the Union at the Vandergrift plant and by refusing thereafter to recognize and bargain with it as the statutory tory for the Union and a recertification of August 20, 1958 " As the General Counsel points out, the mere filing of a decertification petition is not an indication of loss of majority status nor of a good-faith be- lief thereof r REIDBORD BROS . CO. 329 representative of employees , the Company has en- gaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 8 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 9. Except as specifically otherwise found herein the Company has not engaged in unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaints. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Reidbord Bros Co., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Coercively interrogating employees respect- ing their membership in or sympathy respecting the Union. (b) Threatening closing of its Vandergrift or other Pennsylvania plants if the Union became or continued being the representative of employees within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. (c) Suggesting to employees the displacement of the Union as the representative of employees at its Pittsburgh or Vandergrift plants in favor of representation by or substitution of an arrangement comparable to that of the Club (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulation of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections 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 Na- (e) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative within the mean- ing of Section 9 of the Act of employees of its Van- dergrift plant in the established appropriate unit. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) On request, bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of all Vandergrift employees in the established appropriate unit as set forth above, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment and embody in a signed memorandum of agreement understandings reached as a result of such bargaining. (b) Post at its plants in Vandergrift and at Baum Boulevard copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." [Board's Appendixes substituted.]" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by the Company's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' o IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaints herein be dismissed with respect to allegations of unfair labor practices not herein specifically found to have been engaged in. tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read " Posted Pur- suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " "' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall he 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 "