Sinclair & Rush, Inc.

SINCLAIR & RUSH, INC Sinclair & Rush, Inc. and Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 14-CA-5195 and 14- RC-6179 August 21, 1970 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On April 22, 1970, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and rec- ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National 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 here- by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in these cases and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications: (1) During a conversation with leadman Springmey- er, Plant Supenntendant Ventimiglia commented, according to the credited testimony of Springmeyer, "If the union would get in there and if we go on strike the company possibly would fold up. He said they don't know if they could afford a strike, they couldn't charge their price demands to the prices they had to pay to the union scale and to the operators. If they would strike each time they wanted a raise they probably couldn't afford to strike, they couldn't raise the price of their products." The Trial Examiner found that these remarks were violative of Section 8(a)(1). We do not agree. Rather, we regard such statements as a legitimate economic prediction which does not exceed the boundaries of free speech protected by Section 8(c). Accordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint. 25 (2) Although the Trial Examiner found that Respondent had on a number of occasions engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1), he dismissed other statements made by Respondent's officials to various employees as "ordinary, passing-the-time-of- day conversations without intent to coerce ...." On examining these conversation, we reach a contrary conclusion. The record reveals that a few weeks prior to the election, Foreman John Vickers asked employee Jarvis what Jarvis thought "about the Union coming and the whole thing in general." Then, each day for a week before the election, Vickers asked employee Hunt how he thought the election would go and how he felt about the election. Further, on the Monday following the election, Vickers asked Hunt how he had voted in the election. Employee McFadden also testified that Ventimiglia asked him five or six times how he felt about the Union. Again, Ventimiglia questioned leadman Springmeyer several times as to how the employees felt about the Union and the forthcoming election. Thereafter, Springmeyer did dis- cuss the Union and the election with his fellow night- shift employees and reported their sentiments back to Ventimiglia. The statements described above clearly constitute instances of unlawful interrogation and must be con- sidered as additional violations of Section 8(a)(1), and we so find. (3) The Trial Examiner did not discuss in his Decision the fact that Respondent posted a notice approximately 1 month after the election informing employees that because the Union had filed charges against it, Respondent was as a matter of law ". . . prevented from improving the wages, benefits or other terms and conditions of employment until such time as these legal proceedings end." Respondent's normal business practice was to grant wage increases on an individual basis every 3 months to employees who were performing well. Testimony was offered that Respondent did not, in fact, discontin- ue granting such raises throughout the time period in question. Nevertheless, by posting the above-quoted notice, Respondent misrepresented the applicable law. It is well established that during an organizational campaign an employer must decide whether or not to grant improvements in wages and benefits in the same manner as it would absent the presence of the Union.' To announce that benefits will be withheld because the Union has filed unfair labor practice charges against Respondent is coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1).2 The May Department Stores Company, 174 NLRB No 109 Id, Dorn's Transportation Co, Inc., 168 NLRB No 68. 185 NLRB No. 9 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Sinclair & Rush, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as here- in modified: 1. Add the following as paragraph 1 (e) and reletter the subsequent paragraph accordingly: "(e) Informing employees that legal proceedings initiated by the Union prevent improving wages, bene- fits, or other terms and conditions of employment." 2. Add as the last paragraph in the Appendix: WE WILL NOT inform employees that legal proceedings initiated by the Union prevent improving wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment. It is further ordered that the election conducted herein on May 16, 1969, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of second election' omitted from publica- tion.] ' 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 addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236, N.L R B. v Wvman-GordonCompani 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 14 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 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Thomas S. Wilson, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge duly filed on July 15, 1969,' and thereafter amended on August 5, by Teamsters, Local Union No 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Union or Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the General Counsel' and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 14, St. Louis, Missouri, issued its complaint dated September 3, 1969 , against Sin- All dates herein are in the year 1969 unless otherwise specified This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing clair & Rush, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. By order dated September 3 the Regional Director ordered that the Union's Objections to the Conduct of the Election in Respondent's plant conducted by the Board on May 16 be consolidated with the aforementioned complaint for the purposes of hearing. The election had resulted in a tie vote with two challenged ballots which would, of course, have affected the results of the election and which have to be determined. In addition, the Union had objected to the Respondent's conduct prior to the holding of said election with such conduct also having been alleged in the aforementioned complaint as constituting interference, restraint, and coercion. Pursuant to notice a hearing thereon was held before me in St. Louis, Missouri, on November 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1969. All parties appeared at the hearing, were represent- ed by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, oral argument was waived. Briefs were received from General Counsel and Respondent on January 26, 1970. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I there- fore find: Sinclair & Rush, Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri. At all times Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business in the city of St. Louis and State of Missouri. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of plastic products and related products. During the year ending June 30, 1969, which period is representative of its operations during all times material herein , Respond- ent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its St. Louis plant products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant directly to points located outside the State of Missouri. Accordingly, I find that Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. SINCLAIR & RUSH, INC II. THE UNION INVOLVED Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America is a labor organization admit- ting to membership employees of Respondent. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION A The Basic Facts Sometime in March at the request of employee Ray Hunt, Plant Superintendent Ventimiglia' met with Hunt and the rest of Respondent's employees in the plant. The subject of the meeting was the employees' request for higher wages. After hearing the request, Ventimiglia stated that he would check with Respondent's officials and let the employees know. Thereafter time went by but no word came from Ventimiglia or Respondent about the wage request. Becoming discouraged with the lack of results from the meeting, the employees began suggesting that they join a union. So on April 2 employees Ray Hunt and Steve Marler went to the office of the Union where they put the facts before Organizer Michael F. Dunn. Dunn, who was in a hurry to leave town, gave the employees some Teamsters authorization cards, told them that they needed a majority of the employees signed up, and closed the audience. The next morning Hunt and Marler handed out these authorization cards to numerous employees as they foregath- ered for coffee before work at a nearby restaurant known as Helen's Restaurant. That evening at Hunt's request employee Ethel Carter took cards to a number of temporarily laid-off female employees. By the evening of April 6, 24 of Respondent's 40 employees had executed these unambigu- ous authorization cards which were then mailed to the Union that evening and received by Dunn the morning of April 7. On April 7 Dunn and Teamsters Organizer William Chrostowski went to Respondent's plant, met with some unknown female in Respondent's office, and demanded recognition of her orally without offering the executed authorization cards. This individual informed them that both President George Sinclair and Wayne Rush, Respond- ent's vice president and treasurer, were out of town but that she would let them know upon their return. Under date of April 8 Attorney Allan I. Berger as attorney for Respondent refused recognition on the ground that Respondent had a "good-faith doubt" of the Union's majority status and because of Respondent's distrust of such cards because of "the way they are obtained, and the purposes for which they are used." However Respondent stated that it was willing to cooperate in expediting a Board representation election ' At or about this time Ventimiglia had been promoted from the position of foreman to that of plant superintendent by Respondent 27 Omitting here a substantial number of conversations between management representatives and various employees which occurred between that date and May 16, a representa- tion election was held on this latter date which resulted in a tie vote with two challenged ballots- (1) that of John Vickers challenged by the Union as a supervisor; and (2) that of Mitzi Carter challenged by Respondent as a nonem- ployee. The Union also objected to the election based upon the aforementioned conversations which will be found and discussed in a later section of this Decision. B. The Challenged Ballots 1. John Vickers Throughout his testimony John Vickers referred to himself as a "leadman." The employees referred to him as a "foreman." This is pure semantics. In March or April Respondent made Joe Ventimiglia the "Plant Superintendent" under Plant Manager Froney- berger who with Ventimiglia set the plant production sched- ule daily in order to best take care of Respondent's orders. Ventimiglia then posted the list of machines and operators on a board. He spent most of his time in the office. The man on the production floor during the day working hours was John Vickers He saw to it that the operators were working on the right machines and the right orders. Vickers reported directly to Ventimiglia. Admittedly Vickers was the conduit for Ventimiglia's orders. He took care of matters on the production floor. He corrected timecards. If employees needed help, they went to Vickers. Except for relieving operators for their lunchbreak, Vickers did little, if any, manual labor. He reported poor production to Ventimiglia. He could and did shift operators from one machine to another. Although allegedly having no authority to hire or fire, Vickers discharged one employee for poor production, although at the hearing Vickers main- tained that in this instance he acted solely as a conduit for Ventimiglia. However, Vickers had reported the opera- tor's poor production to Ventimiglia prior to the discharge. Vickers also discharged another employee and on that occasion claimed public credit for the action. He had author- ity to scrap poor production of operators on his own initiative. He also had authority to allow employees to take Respondent's products from the plant. Respondent listed both John Vickers and Gerald Spring- meyer, the leadman over four employees on the evening shift, as employees eligible to vote in the Board election. Springmeyer was permitted to vote without objection, but Vickers' vote was challenged by the Union. Respondent contends that as Spnngmeyer , leadman on the evening shift over four employees, voted without chal- lenge in the May 16 election, Vickers should have been allowed to vote because the jobs of the two are or have been interchangeable. It is true that on occasion, particularly about the time of the election, Springmeyer and Vickers have interchanged their day and night shifts for periods of time. These interchanges seem to have taken place around the time of the election when it seems that Respondent introduced some temporary changes in Vickers' work for 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the apparent purpose of showing him to be an ordinary employee. There are important points of difference in the duties between these two individuals. Vickers has authority to excuse employees from the plant, to change their timecards, to scrap employees' production on his own say so, and, in at least two instances, to discharge employees. Springmey- er has none of this authority. Vickers is paid $3.82 per hour whereas Springmeyer receives $3 10. It is expected that the orders given by Vickers will be obeyed without question by both management and the employees. Vickers does little, if any, manual work whereas Springmeyer does a great deal. Vickers has discharged two employees whereas Springmeyer has not and, indeed, has only the authority to file written evening reports about events in the plant. Vickers has discretion as to whether or not an employee may be excused from work whereas Springmeyer has only authority to excuse a man when he asks to leave the plant. Springmeyer has no discretion in that regard. It is quite obvious that Vickers has a great deal more authority over the employees than Springmeyer, He is also over a much larger staff than Springmeyer's four fellow employ- ees. I have no hestitation in finding that Vickers, at least, is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and, as such, his ballot was properly challenged. 2. Mitzi Carter Mitzi Carter was first employed by Respondent in 1967 as an operator but voluntarily left Respondent's employ in the summer of 1968 for a vacation which she subsequently changed to a permanent change of residence in the State of Texas. She subsequently returned to St. Louis around January 1969 and unsuccessfully requested employment from Respondent. However in February 1969, Ventimiglia sent for Carter to return to work. She returned to work as a new employee but was never covered by Respondent's Blue Cross-Blue Shield insurance. On March 12 Carter was laid off by Ventimiglia for "lack of work," when employee Faulkerson returned from maternity leave. Although Carter has not worked for Respondent since then, she was subsequently given several unemployment compensation forms by Respondent when she reported to Respondent that she was having difficulty in getting her unemployment compensation from the commission. On this slim reed General Counsel bases his contention that Carter had an "expectancy" of reemployment with Respondent. That is such a slender reed that I have no hestitation in finding that Carter's employment ended long before the election eligibility date and even long before there was any union activity in the plant. The challenge to Carter's ballot was therefore also proper. Also as Carter's employment ceased before the eligibility date, her signed authorization cannot be counted. Consequently, I must find that the election results, if the objections to the election are not upheld, ended in a tie vote and, therefore, the Union was not entitled to certification as a result of the election. The elimination of Carter's signed authorization card leaves the Union with 23 employees having signed authonza- tion cards in the unit of approximately 40 employees As the Union thus would have a majority even with the inclusion of four part-time employees in the appropriate unit as requested by Respondent , I see no reason in extending this Decision by a discussion as to whether their inclusion is proper or not. Respondent also objected to certain executed cards on the ground that some of the employees who executed such cards had been misled into believing that these cards were to be used either to get a meeting with the Union or to secure a Board election. I was far from impressed with the evidence Respondent adduced on these points . In view of my ultimate decision in this case, I believe that a discus- sion of this evidence and the legal points raised thereby would serve only to unnecessarily lengthen this Decision. C Interference, Restraint, and Coercion; Objections to the Election From the date of Respondent's refusal of recognition and the Union's filing of its petition for certification to the date of the election on May 16 Respondent's supervisory and managerial staff engaged in numerous conversations about the Union and the election with various and sundry rank-and-file employees Statements made by Respondent officials during these conversations form the basis for both the Union's objections to the election and the allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion alleged in the com- plaint. Thus it becomes necessary to consider these numerous statements. Vice President Rush , Plant Manager Froneyberger, and Plant Superintendent Joe Ventimiglia all had a number of conversations with employee Herman McFadden. During his several conversations with McFadden, Rush told him to vote "the way [he] felt" but that "the company needed more time," "that he would need time to improve things," that "they needed this vote of confidence," and then added that "it was possible that if the union came in that [Rush] had known places, due to high demands, that the union ran the company out of business." During several conversations with McFadden, Froneyber- ger inquired, "if I could tell them where had the company gone wrong down through the employees that they wanted a union," and that "the company needed a vote of confidence and they only needed a year. If they had a year to do things, to improve things." During a number of conversations Ventimiglia told McFadden that "the company needed more time , in general, they needed a vote of confidence, they would improve things, in other words, they had been working on a plan and it took some time to create this thing and they had just got it together previous, I guess, to the union deal that came in. . . . They would have to table that because there was nothing they could do with it because they couldn't offer nobody anything [due to the election]."` Ventimiglia added that "there would be no more favors to any individuals and that there were seniority rights, ' This part of this conversation was not denied by Ventimiglia SINCLAIR & RUSH, INC of course, that the older people would move to different- to higher positions." Employee Ray Hunt described his several conversations with Ventimiglia as follows: A. Well, my best knowledge, Joe [Ventimiglia] asked me if I had ever been in an election before, I told him yes. He asked me what happened, I said, "The union " He asked me if I had any gripes or complaints, and I said, "No " He said he thought that the company could help me and the employees now that he had a better position.... He told this was dust a Mickey Mouse operation, that the plant wasn't big enough to have a union. On the morning of the election John Vickers, heretofore found to be a supervisor, asked how Hunt felt about the election and then said, "I know there was a meeting last night with the union," that Vickers' vote was going to be challenged and that "The company knew who was at the meeting." Employee Fred Quitmeyer had several discussions with Ventimiglia during which "several times Joe would ask for us to give the company a year to rearrange itself and try to make things better for the employees, after this instead of saying a year, he [Ventimiglia] would say all we need is 3 months." After one such conversation Quitmeyer found that Presi- dent Sinclair was working during Quitmeyer's evening shift and so "I asked him [Sinclair] what-where the company stood and what they meant by giving him three months to straighten theirselves [sic] out. He said, there is nothing I can tell you definitely, except I have things on my desk I want to bring out but I can't, because the union has got my hands tied. He said, could you tell this to the people and maybe they would understand, and he said, I can't, the union has my hands tied."5 On another occasion Quitmeyer was talking to Foreman Vickers when Vickers "said if the union does come in, it would probably put such an economic strain on the company that the company would have to pull up roots and move to Florida." One evening during this time Quitmeyer asked Vickers where employee Frank Huskey was. Vickers answered, "I don't know where he is, but last night he was at a union meeting." During this period Ventimiglia used to discuss the situa- tion several times a week with Jerry Springmeyer, admittedly a leadman but placed by Respondent on the list of those eligible to vote in the election. According to Springmeyer, Ventimiglia "started talking to me, after the representative was coming down and we had the meeting with the union and he knew what was going on and he asked me what- he said, `What was the main gripe of the'-what I thought was the main gripe with the guys, and I talked to him and I told him I thought it was wages and that and being-seniority being placed on different jobs and a lot ' Sinclair recalled Quitmeyer 's inquiry but testified that his own answer referred only to the 1-year delay between elections , which amounted almost to a non sequiturs in the light of the question asked. I credit Quitmeyer especially as Ventimiglia did not deny his similar conversation about the "plan" with McFadden 29 of guys didn't like where they were working and being changed around so much. But I told him I thought it was mostly wages." During these discussions Ventimiglia also told Springmeyer that "Prior to this getting the union in they had planned to work with the individuals more and have better benefits and better pay rates and things. He [Ventimiglia] said since he had been promoted to superin- tendent he had more of a free hand to work with the individuals No, he said they would work it out They wanted to possibly have three months and if they couldn't work out a solution with the employees within three months that we could bring in any union we wanted to without any objection." Ventimiglia added that Respondent could do nothing about improvements before the election because "their hands were tied because of the union, they just couldn't do anything " He also added, "If the union would get in there and if we go on strike the company possibly would fold up. He said they don't know if they could afford a strike, they couldn't charge their price demands to the prices they had to pay to the union scale and to the operators If they would strike each time they wanted a raise they probably couldn't afford to strike, they couldn't raise the price of their products." In addition Ventimiglia "would ask if I [Spnngmeyer] would talk to them [the employees] and see how they feel and what their outlook was " About a week or so before the election Ventimiglia asked employee Orville Ramsey how Ramsey thought the election would come out and inquired of Ramsey, "would you mind feeling the women employees out" about their reaction to the election Ramsey agreed to do so, discussed the Union with two women employees, and then reported back to Ventimiglia that the women were mostly interested in the good pension plan which the Union would have.' Ventimiglia inquired of employee Quitmeyer as to how Quitmeyer thought employee Frank Huskey might feel about the Union. Quitmeyer answered that he did not know as Huskey "never expressed his feelings." In addition there were numerous other inquiries of various employees by Respondent's officials as to how the employee or fellow employees felt about the election and how they thought that it would come out. As these may well have been just ordinary passing-the-time-of-day conversations without intent to coerce, or, if not, are at least redundant, I make no finding in regard to them. On the other hand, there can be no doubt but that in the above-found conversations Respondent officials were deliberately intending to create the impression that, in the event that the employees voted down union representa- tion at the election, Respondent had unspecified plans from which the employees would gain unnamed benefits in "3 months" or "a year";' that Respondent had plans to work "personally" with the employees but would not be able to carry such plans into effect if the Union won the election; that Respondent had union activities under surveillance; that employees should, and did, "feel out" and report the union sympathies of fellow employees; and that there ' This testimony was uncontroverted ' One employee even was commissioned to pass this information regarding benefits on to the other Respondent employees 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were even threats that the plant would be forced to close down or to move in the event that the Union won the election. These are such well-recognized instances of illegal interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as not to require any citation of authority. The campaign was so widespread as to prove it to have been intentionally planned and carried out and did not consist of merely inadvertent statements. Respondent's widespread campaign of oral interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) occur- ring between the filing of the petition for certification and the casting of ballots is sufficient to have interfered with the laboratory conditions the Board requires at election time in order to make sure that the employees are free to express their untrammeled desires at the ballot box. Accordingly, I will set aside the election of May 16, 1969, because of Respondent's having disturbed the necessary laboratory conditions by these violations. General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that on the authority of the Gissell case' the effect of the above-found violations upon the employees make the holding of a second election impossible and, therefore, that Respond- ent should be ordered to bargain with the Union on the basis of the card majority shown by the Union. I cannot agree. While widespread, the coercion here was all verbal with some of it verging on the implied or the relatively innocuous In my opinion, in the circumstances of this case the violations here would not make the holding of a fair second election impossible. I therefore will recommend the holding of a second election among Respondent's employees at a time when the Regional Director determines that the effects of the Respondent's violations have been dissipated. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 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 Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have also found that Respondent, by the commission of the unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, thereby engaged in objectionable conduct which interfered with the election held on May 16, 1969. I shall therefore recom- mend that said election be set aside and another be conducted at such time as may be appropriate. ' N.L.R.B v Gissell Packing Co, 395 U S 575 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the purview of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By the aforesaid unfair labor practices, Respondent has interfered with and illegally affected the results of the Board election held on May 16, 1969. 5. The aforesaid conduct constitutes conduct affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Sinclair & Rush, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their own and their fellow employees' union sympathies and activities. (b) Threatening to close or move the plant in the event its employees choose to have union representation for collec- tive bargaining. (c) Keeping the union activities of its employees under surveillance and importuning employees to do the same on its behalf. (d) Promising its employees additional economic and other benefits if they reject union representation in collective bargaining. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to loin or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.' Copies of said In the event no exceptions are filed as provided Section 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 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 (cont'd) SINCLAIR & RUSH, INC notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre- sentative, 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election conducted in the appropriate unit of Respondent's employees on May 16, 1969, be set aside, and that another election be directed at an appropriate time. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein." 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 " 10 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 " it This specifically includes the allegation as to wage increases allegedly granted by Respondent between April 11 and May 16 for the purpose of influencing the employees in the Board election In his brief General Counsel appears to have in effect withdrawn this allegation-even as the evidence required APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their sympathies and activities on behalf of Teamsters, 31 Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza- tion, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT keep the union activities of our employees under surveillance. WE WILL NOT imply to our employees that their union activities are under surveillance nor will we request any employee to keep such union activities under surveillance or report back on them to us. WE WILL NOT threaten to close down the plant or to move the plant in the event that our employees choose to have union representation in collective bar- gaining. WE WILL NOT promise or imply to our employees that they will receive benefits, economic or otherwise, in the event that they repudiate union representation in collective bargaining. SINCLAIR & RUSH, INC. (Employer) Dated By (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, 1040 Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.