Riviana Foods, Inc.

122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Riviana Foods, Inc. and Rice Workers Local 300, Amalgamated Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-3668 and 15-RC-4213 December 10, 1970 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On August 5, 1970, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint 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 the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to them . The Trial Examiner also found merit in certain of the Union's objections to the election in Case 15-RC-4213, and recommended that the election be set aside and a new election conducted . Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. 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 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 exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, ' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner , as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner as herein modified, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Riviana Foods, Inc., Abbeville, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below. It is further ordered that the election conducted herein on September 24 and 25, 1969, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of second election2 omitted from publication.] i Although the Trial Examiner in his Decision, sec. II, C, first para., notes that Leon Derveloy, the Respondent's plant manager , held meetings with groups of employees in the plant on company time , that at one of these meetings employee Joe Stelly was present and Derveloy displayed a union card and commented to Stelly that he (Stelly ) had signed one of these cards, and that at another of these meetings, which employee Rosa Mae Stelly attended , Derveloy again displayed a union card and remarked to the group of employees that signing the card "will get you into trouble," he nevertheless failed to make any findings that Derveloy's conduct was violative of the Act We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to so find Derveloy 's comment to Joe Stelly at the meeting attended by him constituted coercive interrogation and created the impression of surveillance , and his remark to the group of employees that signing a union card "will get you into trouble " constituted an unlawful threat Accordingly, we find that the Respondent , through the aforesaid conduct by Derveloy , violated Section 8(ax1) of the Act In view of our adoption of the Section 8(a)(1) violations found by the Trial Examiner, the additional violations found above, and the Trial Examiner's recommendation to set aside the election in Case l5-RC-4213 and to conduct a new election , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner's findings with respect to a speech delivered on July 11, 1969, to assembled employees by Franklin Godchaux III, a Respondent executive and major stockholder, and also the display of six posters by Leon Derveloy , and alleged statements by him in connection with the posters, at meetings with groups of employees . Even were we to find such conduct unlawful , as urged by the General Counsel , such findings, if made, would merely be cumulative and would not materially add to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and Remedy , which we have adopted 2 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N LR B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility hst, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 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 EUGENE F. FREY, Trial Examiner: The issues in this consolidated case, which was tried before me at Abbeville, Louisiana, on February 25 and 26, 1970, are (1) whether or not Respondent, Riviana Foods, Inc., at various times in July through September 24, 1969, questioned employees about their membership in and activities for the above- named Union, threatened them with discharge and other reprisals for their union activities, and gave them the impression of surveillance of their union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, el seq. (herein called the Act), ' and (2) whether certain instances of the above conduct by officials of Respondent, as well as speeches made and other written propaganda issued by them, amounted to threats and coercion of employees which created an atmosphere of fear before a Board -conducted i These issues arose on a complaint issued January 21, 1970, by General Counsel of the Board through its Regional Director for Region 15 (after Board investigation of a charge filed by the Union on October 9, 1969), as 187 NLRB No. 14 RIVIANA FOODS, INC election and made a free choice at the election impossible, requiring that it be set aside.2 At close of the trial, I reserved decision on Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the merits in Case 15-CA-3668; that motion is now denied in part and granted in part on the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth below. At close of trial all parties waived oral argument, but General Counsel and Respondent have filed written briefs which have been carefully considered in preparation of this Decision. On the entire record in the case and from my observation of all witnesses and their demeanor on the stand, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND STATUS OF THE UNION Respondent is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Louisiana. It operates a plant in Abbeville, Louisiana, the only one involved herein, where it processes, packages, and ships rice. In the year 1969 Respondent had a direct inflow of goods and materials to the Abbeville plant valued in excess of $50,000, and in the same period it had a direct outflow of goods and products from that plant valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is, and at all material times herein, has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act The above-named Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. If. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Union's Campaign In June 1969, the Union began a campaign to organize workers at the Abbeville plant, holding a meeting for workers on July 7, which was well publicized by letters sent July 5 to workers including at least two supervisors, which those officials brought to the attention of Respondent when received. On July 13 the Union formed an organizing committee of six plant workers which included Otis J. Stelly (herein called Joe Stelly), and formally notified Respondent on July 17 of the formation of the committee and its composition. Thereafter some committee members and Working Foreman Raymond Stelly, a cousin of Joe, actively and openly solicited employees in the plant to sign union authorization cards. On July 18, the Union filed its petition for election in Case 15-RC-4213, and from July 20 amended at the trial, and answer of Respondent admitting jurisdiction but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices All parties participated fully in the trial through counsel 2 The issues in the representation case anse on objections filed by the Union on September 30, 1969, to conduct affecting the results of the election, which had been held on September 24 and 25, 1969, and was lost by the Union The Regional Director issued his decision on the objections on January 16, 1970, overruling some but directing a hearing before a Trial Examiner on objections l(b), 6, 7, and 8, and by order of February 6, 1970, consolidated the representation case with Case 15-CA-3668 for trial 3 Vallot was known to both as a local farmer who was also a local official for a Federal agency 4 1 find this discussion from credited testimony of Sicily, as 123 onward up to the election, the Union sent a series of letters and propaganda leaflets to workers, several of which were signed by Raymond Stelly and other committee members. In the same period Respondent actively campaigned against the Union by distributing propaganda literature to workers, and having officials deliver formal speeches to workers and conduct a series of informal discussions with groups of employees, as noted hereafter. The main thrust of its arguments was that it did not want the Union in its mill, hoped it would not get in, and that its advent would not benefit the workers for various reasons. The specific and general impact and effect of these speeches and discussions on workers before the election comprise some of the issues involved in both cases. B. Alleged Coercion and Discrimination The following officials and supervisory personnel at Abbeville, all admitted supervisors within the meaning of the Act, were involved in the events found hereafter: Plant Manager Leon Derveloy, Packaging Superintendent Floyd Broussard, Shipping Superintendent Larry Jones, Working Foreman Ferdinand Stelly, Maurice M. Mortenson, assistant to the senior vice president in charge of industrial relations, and Franklin Godchaux, III, a company executive and major stockholder. On an unidentified date late in July, Derveloy had a private talk with Joe Stelly in Broussard's office in the plant. Derveloy showed Joe a union card, and asked if he signed it. Joe said he did. Derveloy commented that he not only signed up for the Union but for "Peter Vallot's gang," and asked why he did it.3 Joe replied that he did not sign up with that "gang" but only joined the Union for better security, life insurance, and pay. He asked Derveloy if he could support a family on less than $70 a week. Derveloy admitted he could not, and then said that if Joe was looking for more money, "you can get yourself ajob elsewhere."4 On a date in July, after employee Earl Ursin returned to work from a stay in a hospital, Derveloy called him into his office and asked if Ursin had attended a meeting of workers on July 11 at which Franklin Godchaux had made a speech. Ursin said he had not, as he had just been discharged from the hospital. Derveloy then asked what he thought about the Union, and Ursin replied that it was not bad, for he had been in a union once before, that some were good and some were bad. Derveloy said he wanted Ursin to know that the Company and he were against the Union, and hoped it did not get into the mill.5 In the week of September 15 Derveloy and Mortenson conducted a series of about 15 group meetings with employees in Derveloy's office in the plant. The employees corroborated in part by admissions of Derveloy, whose denial of only certain parts of the discussion, in light of his other active attempts to influence workers against the Union as found below, lead me to discredit his denials of the interrogation 5 1 find this conversation from credible testimony of Ursm, who was no longer working for Respondent when he testified I do not credit categorical denials of the interrogation by Derveloy because he did not deny the whole conversation , only saying he could not recall such a discussion His plain statement of opposition to the Union as stated by Ursin is consistent with Respondent's admitted campaign against the Union, as shown by admission of Derveloy , Broussard, Mortenson, and speeches of Godchaux noted hereafter 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were sent in groups of 10 to 14 by their supervisors who checked off their names as they went to the office. When Superintendent Floyd Broussard told Rosa Mae Stelly to go to Derveloy's office she asked if she had to punch out before going to the meeting, and that she did not want to, he told her not to punch out because then she could not punch back in, that the meeting was on company time, so that she did not have to punch out 6 On an unidentified date in the first or second week of September, Joe Stelly called Broussard aside in the plant warehouse to ask whether Broussard could rehire his son- in-law, John Deal, a high school student who had quit his job about a week or 10 days before. Broussard replied that he could not hire him then , as he was filled up. He then told Stelly that he favored the mill in the coming election, that it would be better for the workers to do the same as they could probably get "better help from the mill ." He then reminded Stelly that he had helped out Stelly a lot in the past by hiring members of his family, and would be glad to do so in the future, but if the Union should win the election, he did not know if he could rehire Deal, as he did not know if the Union would permit it . Stelly replied "that is all right." In the week of September 8 or 15 , Broussard talked to about 40-50 workers individually at the request of Derveloy to explain the reasons why Respondent did not favor a union in the plant. He told each that Respondent was against the Union, did not feel that the Union would be good for the workers or the Company , that the workers would get better help from the Company than the Union, and that if they voted for the Union , they would only "hurt themselves" because the Union would get their money. After he talked thus to Claude Pellissier, Broussard said he wanted to know how the workers felt, and asked him if he was for the Union or the Company. Pellissier replied he was for the Company. Broussard said that was fine. When he called in Raymond Stelly, Broussard told him at the outset the reasons for the discussion, and said he knew Raymond favored the Union, not the Company, because he had seen his signature on a union letter to the workers , but would tell him the company position, anyway, at the request of Derveloy. He said he understood that Stelly was going to union meetings , and Stelly admitted he was. Broussard asked what he thought about the Union, what it guaranteed . Stelly said he thought it was a "good deal" for the workers, it would get them better pay raises . Broussard said the Company could not afford to pay 12 cents an hour more than the present rate . He said the Union could promise the workers nothing but a strike, and asked where Stelly would get money to support his family if the Union called a strike. Stelly said he would do his best to get money, and if the strike lasted too long , he would get another job. Broussard recalled that a union had tried to 6 I find this conversation from a composite of credited testimony of Rosa Mae Sicily and Broussard I do not credit testimony of Stelly to the effect that Broussard threatened her with immediate discharge if she did not attend the meeting because his explanation that she need not punch out to go to the meeting appears reasonable and was not denied by Stelly, and her testimony is generally less impressive on other events for reasons noted hereafter. 7 1 find the above facts from credited and mutually corroborative testimony of Rosa Mae Stelly, Joe Stelly, Raymond Stelly , Pellissier, and organize the plant 20 years ago, but failed and called a strike and most of the workers who went on strike were replaced. When he stated the company position to Rosa Mae Stelly, and asked if she had any questions, she asked if everyone must vote in the election , and he replied "No, you are not forced to vote, but you should vote, and if you are for the Union , you should vote for the Union." 7 Late on Friday, September 19, Broussard came to the machine of Rosa Mae Stelly and said he had heard she did not want to vote. She replied "You heard right." He said "if you do not vote you are against the company" and "you can consider yourself unemployed after the election ." Early on Monday, September 22, Broussard called her to his office and accused her of deliberately staying in the ladies' room on Friday for 20 minutes while other workers attended a meeting in Derveloy's office. They had an argument about it during which Broussard called in the foremen who had reported this to him . During the discussion, Broussard explained he had to call her in then because talk to employees was prohibited in the 24 hours before the election . He again mentioned her reluctance to vote and said she did not have to vote but should. She replied "Don't push me, let me make up my own mind." He repeated that she did not have to vote but should , that "if Melody and Ray Stelly are the only ones who vote, the Union will win," and that "everybody has to vote." She repeated "leave me alone, get off my back, let me make up my own mind, what is the Statue of Liberty standing there for?" She also reminded him that he had said she would not have a job after the election , and asked "why don't you fire me now?" He replied "I can't, that is a lie, I do not have the right to fire you." He then said "You will vote," and she repeated "Don't push me, if you push me to vote and I cannot make up my own mind , I will mark my ballot both `yes' and `no.' " Later that day Mrs . Stelly met Mortenson at her machine where he asked if she had any more questions after her group meeting (where she had asked about company benefits). She said she had just talked to Broussard and did not like the way he talked to her, as he had said she "had" to vote . Mortenson replied that Broussard should not have said this, as the Company could not order anyone to vote, but it would like to have everyone vote, and hoped a majority of workers would do so, so that it would be a "good" election. He said he would talk to Broussard about his remarks and have him apologize if he said improper things . She repeated she would not vote, and Mortenson said he hoped that she would, and vote for the Company .8 On an unidentified date a week or more before the election, employee Leroy Jones told his supervisor, Shipping Superintendent Larry Jones , that "the time is getting close," obviously referring to the approaching election . Larry said, yes, and asked Leroy what he thought Broussard Testimony of any of these witnesses at vanance therewith is not credited. a The above events are found from credited testimony of Rosa Mae Stelly and Mortenson , as corroborated in part by testimony of Broussard. Testimony of the latter at vanance therewith is not credited, in light of his admitted talks with workers to try to influence them against the Union, and his failure to give his version of the full discussion with Mrs Stelly where he denied certain portions of her testimony. RIVIANA FOODS, INC. about it. Leroy hesitated, so Larry said he could feel free to talk. Leroy then replied, "some say it is good, some say not." Several days later, Larry asked Leroy if he had signed a union card. Leroy said, no. Larry said all those who did sign would have to pay over $70 (to the Union), and once they signed they could do nothing about it.9 On the night of September 23, Foreman Ferdinand Stelly, Jr., a cousin of Joe Stelly and known in the plant as "COP," visited the home of Joe and Rosa Mae Stelly with his mother, and stayed about 3 hours. At first COP returned a TV table to the Stellys which he had borrowed years before, and they had coffee and watched TV for a while. Later Rosa Mae mentioned the election and asked COP "what are we going to do about it." He indicated he could not vote, it was up to the workers, but he thought it would be better if they voted "for the mill" because it was better than the Union. He asked the Stellys what they thought about it, and whether they were "for the mill," indicating that Derveloy and Broussard had asked him to come to their home to find out what they thought about it, and how they would vote. Rosa Mae replied "I will tell you the same thing I told Floyd Broussard, I wish you all would leave me alone." COP said "we are dust concerned, I just wanted to find out how you were." She said she was for the Company, but wanted to be left alone. Joe commented that about 60 percent of the packaging department workers favored the Union,, Rosa Mae agreed, and added that two workers named Dionne were once for the Company but switched when Broussard would not transfer their son-in-law. COP asked her if she signed a union card, and she said she did not, but that out of 11 women in her shift in packaging, only 4 did riot sign cards, the rest were for the Union. Joe added that he, had signed one, but "how could she sign it when she tore it up and threw it away after Mitchell (the union agent) gave it to her?" 10 Rosa Mae told COP to tell Derveloy and Broussard to "keep Murphy Swire off my back," that Swire had asked her three times to sign a petition against the Union, and she refused and threatened to strike him when he bothered her with it. Joe then told her "Mae, you talk too much," which she denied. COP told both he knew "how you stand" and wished he had known it earlier that day to tell Broussard when the latter said he did not know what was going on in the packaging department, that he could not find "how you were." On the morning of September 24, Rosa Mae Stelly called Broussard to her machine as he passed by and accused him of sending COP to her home the night before, and said she had not told COP anything other than what she had told Broussard before. He denied sending COP to her home. She 9 Although Larry categorically denied both discussions , claiming it was useless to talk to Leroy because he knew the latter was a good friend of a union committee member, I still credit the testimony of Leroy stating the above facts, for Larry admitted he was against the Union and actively talked against it in discussions with workers , and in light of Respondent's aggressive antiunion campaign I consider it more likely than not that Larry both questioned Leroy about his union activities and views and talked against the Union, as found above 10 Rosa Mae had signed a union card on July 13, but did not date it, and when the union agent brought it to her on the 20th to fill in the date, she took it from him and tore it up and did not attend union meetings after that 125 told him to "stop lying to us, you know that it is probably 30 to 1." He admitted there was talk about that , and said he had heard she was the "strongest one for the mill."" I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct in the course of the above events: 1. Derveloy's interrogation of Joe Stelly in July about signing a union card, and the reason therefor, and after learning that he joined for better security and pay, his suggestion that he get a job elsewhere if he wanted more money. The latter remark amounted to a thinly veiled threat that Respondent was no longer interested in his employment if he joined the Union to change his pay or working conditions . The coercion in the remark is all the more inferable ( 1) because it came from the top plant official to an employee of 23 years' service whose appointment to the union organizing committee was specifically made known to Respondent by the Union's letter of July 14, and was well known otherwise throughout the plant, and (2) when Joe rather apologized to Derveloy about his position on the committee in a talk later in July, stating he hoped Derveloy was not "hurt" by it and did not feel badly toward Joe, Derveloy replied that he could do as he pleased and Respondent would not interfere with his union activities as long as it did not affect plant operation, but that "if you are looking for forgiveness, I am not in a position to give It to you." 12 2. Derveloy's private interrogation of Ursin in July about his union sentiments. 3. Broussard's interrogation of Pellissier and Raymond Stelly in September about their union sentiments and attendance at union meetings , and his statement to Stelly that he understood the latter attended union meetings, which was calculated to give Stelly the impression that his union activities were under surveillance by Respondent. 4. Broussard's remark to Rosa Mae Stelly on September 19 that he heard she did not want to vote , which gave the impression of surveillance of her activities, and his direct and coercive threat of unemployment after the election if she did not vote, thus indicating she was against the Company. The coercion inherent in this remark is not dissipated by his belated admission to her on September 22 that he should not have said that, and had no right to discharge her. 5. Larry Jones' interrogation of Leroy Jones in September just before the election about his union sentiments and whether he signed a union card. 6. Interrogation by Ferdinand Stelly of Rosa Mae and Joe Stelly on September 23 about their attitude toward the 11 The facts above are found from credited testimony of the three Stellys and Broussard , which is mutually corroborative to some extent I do not credit other testimony of any of these witnesses which conflicts with these findings In particular I do not credit testimony of Rosa Mae Stelly that in their September 24 talk Broussard asked her how Mr and Mrs. Lloyd DeMarcy would vote. Broussard categorically denied this question and her alleged reply, explaining that he already knew from earlier remarks of DeMarcy himself that the latter would vote against the Union, and since this circumstantial explanation appears plausible and was not denied by the DeMarcys, I credit Broussard's denial in this instance IZ This conversation is found from credited testimony of Joe and Derveloy 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union, whether they would vote for or against it, and whether Rosa Mae Stelly signed a union card.13 7. Broussard's comment to Rosa Mae Stelly on September 24 that he heard she was the "strongest one for the mill," which indicated Respondent was maintaining some sort of surveillance on workers' sentiments pro or con the Union right up to the last minute before the election. C. The Group Meetings The meetings of Derveloy and Mortenson with groups of employees were held in Derveloy's office in the plant on company time, and varied from 45 minutes to 1- 1/2 hours in length, depending on the number of questions asked by workers and discussion thereon. In each meeting the procedure and discussion was substantially the same: Derveloy introduced Mortenson and stated that their purpose was to discuss the company side of the union issue, to tell them the truth about unions because the Union had been telling them lies, and that employees were free to ask questions at any time. Mortenson then passed among the employees and explained union contracts involving other mills of Respondent and other employers, to show misrepresentations made by the Union about wages in such plants. He explained at length the difficulties employees in them had experienced in canceling their memberships in those unions after signing union authorization cards. On the latter point, both officials displayed two forms of union authorization cards which had been distributed by the Union in the campaign, and Mortenson told them signing of the cards made the signer a "potential" member of the Union, and it was like "giving a blank check to the Union," for it advised the Company to deduct union dues and any other sums the Union asked for from the worker's paycheck. Mortenson distributed a letter from a union agent directing Respondent to deduct a special assessment for a strike fund from employee pay at the Memphis plant. Some workers asked how they could get their cards back, and both officials explained that workers could not withdraw from the Union except in a limited 10-day period near the anniversary date of their cards, so that they must know that date before they could withdraw; Mortenson displayed letters from workers in a Houston, Texas, mill, and a union letter involving an Austin, Texas, mill, to show the difficulties of withdrawal from the Union. In displaying the union cards at the meeting attended by Joe Stelly, Derveloy commented to Joe that he had signed one of them, and Joe replied that he signed the short one, not the longer one . In the meeting attended by Rosa Mae Stelly, Derveloy held one of the cards, said this was what they had signed, and that signing it "will get you in trouble," that the union people were not interested in the workers, but only wanted their money; Mortenson then followed with his explanation of the effect of the card as a "blank check" and the difficulties workers had run into in trying to get their signed cards back and withdraw from a union. At the request of various employees, both officials explained the 13 In appraising conflicting testimony of COP, Rosa Mae and Joe as to the reason and purpose of COP's visit, I credit the latter Stellys and find that, whatever social contacts they had had elsewhere in recent months, COP suddenly used the return of a TV table he had on loan for about 5 years as the excuse for a lengthy visit in which he deliberately probed for terms "closed shop" and "union shop" and other aspects of union operation. Derveloy then said that workers had reported the union agents had told them that Respondent would have no problems in reopening any of its closed plants quickly, and that he had some pictures to show them which would refute those statements and show that other plants had been closed only for economic reasons. He then displayed six large posters, each with one or more photos of a rice null of Respondent in another city, with photos in three instances showing the null in operation and then after shutdown with partial dismantling and demolition. Each poster stated in large black block lettering, "This was the Riviana Rice Mill (and packaging plant, in some instances) at (name of city and state). It closed down in (date)." In showing each poster, Derveloy quickly read off the printing on the poster and then made a further explanation about the mill, as follows: Carlisle, Arkansas: This plant closed because of uneco- nonuc operation and in order to achieve some centraliza- tion of function. It had a union. Rayne, Louisiana: In showing this poster with one photo of the null in operation and four showing it in various stages of disrepair or demolition after shutdown, Derveloy said that it closed for economic reasons when its operations were moved to Abbeville. The photos showed its deteriora- tion and that it could not be reopened in a hurry, and then only at great cost. It did not have a union when it shut down. Eunice, Louisiana: This mill closed due to high cost of operation, after merger of Respondent with another company. It had grown from a small plant to its size shown on one photo, but was greatly outmoded in 1965 and was being torn down. The other four photos showed that it could not be rebuilt to modern standards except at great cost, particularly the installation of a whole new dryer unit. When shut down, the mill did not have a union. Crowley, Louisiana: The poster showed that Crowley had been known as the "Rice Capital of America" before 1957. Derveloy pointed out from one photo how extensive the plant was, but the picture after shutdown showed only a dryer still standing in which Respondent only stored rice. It was shut down for uneconomic operation, and could not be modernized except at great expense. A union had won an election there in 1954, but at the time of shutdown in 1957 that union did not have a contract covering the plant. El Campo, Texas: This had been a rice and bulk wheat processing plant, but Respondent stopped the latter operation when the Federal Government withdrew from nulling of bulk wheat, and it was not economic to run a rice milling operation there alone, so the whole plant was closed about 2 years after the merger. When it closed there was a union at the plant. Lake Charles, Louisiana: Derveloy emphasized the poster wording that at one time this was the largest rice mill, and only "double mill," in the world. He noted there was no photo showing it had been torn down, but said most of its buildings were empty, as Respondent only ran a drying the intent of the married Stellys about the Union, in a last-minute effort to find out how they would vote, for the benefit of management ; and this is consistent with Broussard's admitted attempts to learn the union sentiments of other workers RIVIANA FOODS, INC. operation there, for all other machinery had been taken to the Abbeville, Memphis, Rayne, and Houston plants when operations were expanded at those locations. The union at Abbeville had secured five or six elections at Lake Charles in 7 years but was defeated each time. When the mill closed in 1965 there was no union in the plant. In discussing these plants, Derveloy referred to the operating Memphis plant saying a majority of workers there had voted for the Union, but that in other plants a majority voted against it, and pointed out that if workers did not want a union, they could stop it only by going to the polls and voting their convictions; if they did not do so, a minority of workers could vote the Union in. He also mentioned the Swift company plant in Jackson, Mississippi, where the employer had told workers it must be shut down because of economic factors including high operating costs; in response the union workers had voted to take a pay cut to keep that plant open and advised the employer accordingly, but the union had refused to agree to pay cuts, insisting on existing contract rates. Mortenson showed the employees newspaper clippings which outlined these facts. Derveloy also told the workers that the nce industry in general had been in bad financial condition for some years and was getting worse, so that more mills were closing down each year. He said Crowley, the former nce capital of the world, once had 32 mills, but only 4 were still running, and that recently Respondent had heard 3 more were closing down. Referring to Abbeville, Derveloy told the workers Respondent would make every effort to keep it running, although it was becoming harder all the time to make a profit at plants which were outmoded, and that where a mill had no profit it had to be closed, and it was always hard to reopen it. He also said that if a union came into Abbeville and its wage demands caused wages to go up until they were so exorbitant that Respondent could not operate at a profit, then the mill would have to be closed down. The facts as to these meetings are found from a composite of credible testimony of Derveloy, Mortenson, Leroy Jones, Otis J. Stelly, and Rosa Mae Stelly. I do not credit conflicting testimony of Jones and both Stellys tending to show that Derveloy told workers in the meetings they attended in effect that certain of the six mills had been shut down deliberately by Respondent "because of the Union." The specific testimony of these witnesses about the meeting was limited mainly to placing this single statement in Derveloy's mouth, and their recollection of only these words was significantly quite alike, whereas they had very little recollection of the context of the alleged coercive remark, particularly the details of Derveloy's explanation 14 General Counsel admits that the form of Derveloy's statements are not as important as the context in which they were made, in determining their effect 15 N L R B v Automotive Controls Corporation, 406 F.2d 221, 223, 224 (C.A 10, 1969); NLRB v Brownwood Mfg Co, 363 F 2d 136,138 (C A 5, 1966), Texas Industries, Inc v N LR B, 336 F 2d 128, 131 (C A 5) General Counsel tries to counter the legitimate aspects of Derveloy's remarks about mill shutdowns by pointing to a direct promise in a letter of September 22, 1969, from Respondent to all employees to "raise your pay and improve your benefits whenever and wherever possible," and Derveloy's admissions that the Abbeville plant had been giving normal raises to workers in recent years, with the last one shortly before the election These facts do not render Derveloy's statement of facts about 127 of the posters and circumstances of the shutdown of the mills. In light of his clear and impressive testimony detailing what he said to workers on the subject, I am convinced that these three witnesses, obviously prounion, did not recall or were not telling all the facts, but only giving their general conclusions as to the general nature of his remarks. Thus, I must conclude that the remarks of Derveloy, as found above, were well calculated to emphasize to the employees no more than that in all cases economic reasons prevailing at those plants, or in the industry, were the only reasons for the mill shutdowns; his added references to the existence or nonexistence of a union at any plant at time of shutdown were clearly parenthetical remarks, and not directly or indirectly indicative of any connection between the union's one-time presence at the plant and its shutdown; in fact, his clear comment that no union existed at Rayne, Eunice, Crowley, and Lake Charles at time of shutdown would be more likely to indicate that unionization was not a factor, than otherwise. Other circumstances militate against a coercive effect of the posters and his remarks about them.14 The display and discussion of the posters took up no more than 10 minutes, or less than a third, of each meeting, according to Derveloy, Mortenson, and Jones. Only 3 workers out of nearly 200 who heard the talks were produced to testify to the alleged coercive remarks, and their testimony was very limited as noted above. Further, any coercive implications which might be drawn from the posters or any of Derveloy's remarks on the subject are weakened by his last remarks emphasizing that Abbeville would be kept running if at all possible and would never be shut down unless that action was forced upon Respondent by economic condi- tions which might include exorbitant and unprofitable wage costs forced on it by a union. It is well settled that an employer does not violate the Act by predicting, even in blunt and impressive terms, that plant shutdowns may be one of the dire economic actions forced upon an employer as a direct consequence of union actions at his plant which may create bad economic conditions beyond his control.15 General Counsel also argues that the poster depicting the Lake Charles plant and its shutdown was coercive in that it plainly warned employees "Don't let it happen to you." Since Derveloy told workers of repeated unsuccessful union efforts to organize this plant over 7 years, and said the plant had shut down after the employees, apparently unionized, had resisted Respondent's attempt to improve plant efficiency and profits by automation, over 7 years, it can be argued that the workers might well infer that the repeated union efforts to organize the plant, might have been a factor in the final shutdown, even though the mill had no other plants and the reasons for their shutdown untrue or indicative of bad faith or coercion, for they only show that Abbeville fortunately was still operating at a profit and Respondent was continuing to pass on the benefits thereof to its employees, and that it hoped to be able to continue to do so, which is consistent with Derveloy's repeated assurance that, despite the economic misfortunes which had visited other plants, Respondent intended to make every effort to continue to operate Abbeville, even in face of exorbitant union demands The sincerity of Derveloy's remarks on this subject and the lack of coercion inherent in them during the campaign and up to the very election itself becomes more apparent from the Union's letter of September 21 to employees which emphasized the point that "No plant has been closed by Riviana because of a Union " 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union when closed. Derveloy testified that the warning sentence was put in because employees at Lake Charles had resisted efforts at automation designed to put the plant on an efficient and paying basis, so that Respondent continued to lose money there and had to close it, but this explanation does not make the vague warning coercive, because there is no proof in the record that he gave this explanation to the Abbeville employees at the time. Hence, the warning words, considered in the entire context of his remarks, at most could only have been calculated to advise employees not to take any actions which might prevent Abbeville from continuing to operate profitably and which might force a shutdown, which is far from a threat, direct or implied, that Respondent would deliberately shut it down if the Union organized it. is In light of the above circumstances, I do not consider the decisions in Ideal Baking Company of Tennessee, Inc., 143 NLRB 546, 548, or Jackson Packing Company, 170 NLRB No. 155, apposite on the facts or controlling, for in the first case a poster with similar warning words clearly indicated employees' loss of work might come directly from a strike with violence after a plant was unionized, and in the second a single poster depicting a plant before and after shutdown stated clearly that the latter picture showed it "when the union got in," which is far different from the posters and accompanying remarks here. In sum, even considering the posters and explanation of them in light of Respondent's admitted aggressive antiun- ion campaign, and other unfair labor practices found herein, I do not consider that the posters as such were intended or even reasonably calculated to warn employees, or instill in them a fear, that if the Union came into the plant it would be shut down by deliberate action of Respondent and they would lose their jobs. I therefore grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraphs 9 and 10 of the amended complaint insofar as it relates to these meetings, and will recommend dismissal of the complaint to that extent. Specific Speeches by Respondent On July 11, Franklin Godchaux, III, made a speech to employees in the plant in which he explained the antiunion position of Respondent, reciting its experiences with unions in other plants, discounting the broad promises the Union made to induce employees to join it, and explaining some of the financial costs and other consequences of membership in a union, including the possibilities of strikes and the financial losses which employees could incur during a strike. In this connection, he referred to a broad union campaign about 20 years ago to organize all rice mills in South Louisiana, which resulted in strikes during which many strikers at the Abbeville plant were replaced and thus lost theirjobs; he said the Union did not give up until it had left "a bad mark on employees, this plant and the 16 I do not consider Derveloy's credibility on this issue affected by his statement that the warning words had nothing to do with the union issue, for it is clear that the whole poster and his explanation of it and the others was designed to impress on the workers that the only thing which might force Respondent to close Abbeville were bad economic conditions, whether caused by the employees, the Union, or other forces or conditions beyond its control community." He also referred to publicized violence in connection with more recent strikes in other local plants. In contrast, he referred to the many benefits workers at Abbeville received, including yearly pay raises and steady employment, in periods when other mills laid off workers during strikes in the rice industry and Gulf ports. General Counsel contends that the reference to strikes 20 years ago when some employees lost their jobs was a coercive threat that employees at Abbeville would suffer the same fate if they joined the Union. I do not consider this reference reasonably calculated to instill such a fear in the employees in light of his detailed reference to the continued operations at Abbeville during strikes at other mills and in other industries, and Derveloy's later assurances at group meetings that Respondent would try to continue the Abbeville operation as long as economically possible. At most, the reference to the general strike of years ago was a legitimate statement of the possibility of a strike as one consequence of union attempts to organize a plant. I therefore grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraph 10 of the original complaint. Godchaux also referred to the repeated unsuccessful attempts by the Union to organize the Lake Charles plant of Respondent "before it closed," saying the Union had made the same "big promises" to employees there that it was now making at Abbeville, and expressed the view that the good judgment of Abbeville employees would prevent the Union from getting into Abbeville. General Counsel argues that Godchaux thus expressly or by implication told the workers that Lake Charles plant was closed by Respondent because of the union activities there. I do not agree. His remarks on this were short, taking up only one paragraph in a 7-page speech, and do not contain any wording which would serve to emphasize or even imply that the Lake Charles shutdown was deliberate because of the continued union activities. Even if such implication could reasonably be drawn from his brief remarks about Lake Charles or the strikes of 20 years ago, the effect thereof was certainly dissipated by Derveloy's remarks in the group talks shortly before the election, where he emphasized that Lake Charles had been shut down solely for economic reasons at a time when there was no union or union activity at that plant, and also by his emphatic assurances that Respondent would make every effort to continue operation of the Abbeville plant if economically possible, regardless of union activity.17 I therefore grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraph 10(b) of the amended complaint dealing with this point. On August 11 Derveloy delivered a written speech to all employees assembled in the plant for that purpose. At the outset, he made it clear, as Godchaux had in his speech, that Respondent was "1000%" against a union in the plant and would use every legal means to keep it out. He then added "We are convinced that the union would not be good for you or the mill and that it could act to your serious 17 Any implication of coercion in Godchaux' remarks, or inference that they were likely to instill in employees a fear of loss of security , benefits or jobs if they chose the Union, is also negated by the Union 's blunt and emphatic assurance to employees in its September 21 letter that "The answer is No plant has been closed by Riviana because of a union ," which is the very point that Derveloy was trying to make about the future of the Abbeville plant. RIVIANA FOODS, INC. 129 harm. We do not want to see you and the mill involved in union trouble and we intend to fight to keep the union out in every legal way." He then explained the following consequences of voting the Union in: The workers would give up their right to speak and act for themselves about their jobs and their future, for the Union would control them and "call the shots" as far as their jobs and employment at the mill was concerned; hence, the workers must decide whether to turn "your job and future" over to paid union officials who had no real interest in them or Respondent, or continue the past "fine, personal relation- ship" with the Company. Their job and pay came from the Company, not the Union, "the union has never given you anything and never will, your job, your pay and your benefits always come from the company, no one else." While the Union could make big promises to the workers about what it would do for them, it could not guarantee them anything, "the only thing it can guarantee you is a strike and that you will have to pay a lot of money to the Union in dues plus assessments and fees." If the Union won the election, the Company would not have to carry out any promises of benefits made by the Union, or agree to its demands in bargaining or "sign a contract," because the law did not force the employer to agree to any union demands; after an election signing of a union contract was "not automatic." The only action a union could take if the Company did not agree to its demands would be to "call you out on strike to try to get the things the Union promised to get for you," so that the workers would be on the picket line, "you and your family would suffer and do without your pay," while the union organizers would still draw their pay, and their families would not suffer. He then detailed these consequences of a strike: no pay from any source or unemployment compensation while on strike; the strikers could lose their jobs and be replaced by the Company; this had happened to thousands of workers, and "the same thing could happen here if the Union got in." He then expressed the hope that the mill would never have union trouble or a strike and the trouble that went with it. Further on, Derveloy suggested that any employees who were unhappy and wanted to work under union conditions could go and work in a plant which was unionized, "they should not stay here and mess things up for everyone else," and added "I do not believe the majority of you want to be constantly worried about strikes, picket lines, and such union trouble." In written speeches given on September 22 and 23, Derveloy repeated the antiunion attitude of the Company in similar terms to those stated on August 11, including the views that ( 1) a union in the mill "could lead to serious trouble for you and the mill," (2) the Union could not guarantee anything but "a strike and trouble," (3) the Company would not agree to any union proposals or sign any contract which it did not consider in the best interest of the Company and all employees, and it would never yield to union pressure in the form of a strike, but would operate during any strike and replace striking employees, and (4) while Derveloy hoped this would never happen, "I want you to understand now that this is serious business, that we are not going to take it lightly, and that no union man is ever going to take over operation of this mill ." He referred to the troubles of the rice milling industry, with its history of shutdowns of mills including five of eight Riviana plants, and added "This plant will stay open and will continue to provide jobs for you only so long as it operates successfully. Union strikes and union troubles here could strangle the life out of this plant and we could end up with a mill that is closed down and a mill that provides no jobs and no earnings and no security for anyone." After disparaging the Union's motives in organizing the plant as purely selfish and financial, Derveloy assured workers that the Company would continue to operate and increase pay of workers as long as it could keep its cost of operation "in line," that the Union could not force it to do more, and that the "Union could create many more serious problems for you than you have ever faced before." He ended by explaining the voting procedure and the importance to workers of using their right to the secret ballot, with the hope that a majority would vote against the Union.18 To the extent that the three speeches detailed facts showing past and probable future consequences of the advent of a union in mills in the rice industry, it can be said that the remarks of both officials fall within the limits of free speech protected by Section 8(c) of the Act, for in this aspect they tend to predict the "dire consequences that will follow from a union victory." 19 However, the courts have also held that such statements retain their statutory privilege only if they predict "demonstrably probable consequences beyond (the employer's) control," and "if there is any implication that an employer may or may not take action solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities and known only to him, the statement is no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentations and coercion, and as such without the protection of the First Amendment." N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618, 619 ; N.L.R.B. v. Dow Chemical Company [Dowell Division], 420 F.2d 480 (C.A. 5). When judged by these criteria, in the light of Respondent's other unfair labor practices found herein, I must conclude that the speeches of Derveloy (but not the Godchaux speech) fall outside the protection of Section 8(c). At the outset, his remark early in the August I 1 speech that Respondent was "convinced" that the Union "could act to your serious harm" and in the later speeches that "it could lead to serious trouble for you and the mill," and his repeated statements in various forms that advent of the Union would lead to, or "guarantee," "strikes and union trouble," and that "this is serious business, that we are not going to take it lightly," and other similar remarks, bring the speeches within the interdiction of Board rulings in Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 162 NLRB 1275, and Block- Southland Sportswear, Inc., 170 NLRB No. 101, because (1) it was followed by enumeration of a series of probable and dire consequences of a union in the plant which would end up in a strike causing loss of pay and even loss of employment to striking employees, the same thing that 18 The speeches of Godchaux and Derveloy are stipulated in evidence in full but I have paraphrased only the important parts and phrases which are pertinent under the issues raised and adverted to by arguments of counsel 19 Texas Industries, Inc. v N LR B, 336 F.2d 128 (C A 5) 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD happened to many other workers in the rice industry including other mills of Respondent, (2) he finished with a blunt suggestion, tantamount to a threat, that the few workers at Abbeville who wanted to work under union Conditions should go elsewhere, and that the majority would not want the "constant worry about strikes, picket lines, and such union trouble." These consequences of unionization were thus a clear delineation of the type of "serious harm" which would probably come to employees with a union in the plant, giving those words a greater impact on employees and thus enhancing their probable coercive effect. The impact was heightened by the earlier unfair labor practices found above, some of which were tantamount to threats of loss of employment for workers who favored the Union. I find by these remarks of Derveloy on August I I Respondent coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, when Derveloy made it clear in the three speeches that, in the event of unionization of the plant, the Company would not accede to the Union's promises, did not have to accept its demands or sign a contract involving such demands, and that in that event the Union could only "guarantee" the workers with a strike and the ensuing serious consequences outlined above, he was in effect telling the workers that the Company would at the least bargain in such a way that an impasse would be reached which would force the Union to resort to its final economic weapon, a strike. In the second and third speeches he emphasized this probable adamant attitude in bargaining by telling them plainly "we are not going to let any union come in here and walk all over us or push us around or tell us what to do, As long as the doors of this mill stay open, we are going to run it, not the Union." This is but another way of saying Respondent would probably turn down any union demands which it did not unilaterally "consider to the best interest of this company and ill its employees' and also any contract it did not unilaterally consider "in the best interest of all," thus preserving for itself the unilateral final decision on what was best for all, which indicates the very opposite of open-minded and bona fide bargaining.20 It could only be clear to the employees from such remarks that if they voted the Union in, an impasse in bargaining followed by a strike was inevitable, largely through deliberate action of Respondent. Hence, these remarks amounted to a threat that if the Union won, a series of actions in which Respondent would play a deliberate part would probably result in loss of pay and employment for employees, particularly those who went on strike at union orders. In the second speech he emphasized the probable loss to workers by the blunt and chilling statement "Union strikes and union trouble here could strangle the life out of this plant and we could end up with a mill that is closed down and a mill that provides no jobs and no warnings and no security 20 This approach is somewhat like that of the employer condemned by the Board in General Electric Company, 150 NLRB 192 , enfd 418 F.2d 736 (C.A. 2). If such approach is bad-faith bargauung which violates the Act, indications to employees that an employer will use it if compelled to bargain with a union of their choice and thereby make a strike inevitable, is hardly less coercive or violative of the Act. $1 In various aspects of wording, sequence of remarks, and repetition of pertinent thoughts and ideas, the speeches here are much like those found violative of the Act in Wausau Steel Corporation, 160 NLRB 635; Louisburg for anyone." The coercive impact of these remarks is made more evident by Derveloy's complete failure to indicate that a bargaining impasse with no contract, a strike and its impact on workers, and a shutdown of the mill, in that inevitable order, might be avoided by fair bargaining by both sides, with flexible attitudes on proposals and possible concessions by the Union which might avoid an impasse and the horrible consequences he outlined. I must therefore conclude that Derveloy's remarks, in their phrasing, logical development of the probable actions of the parties, particularly Respondent, and statement of the dire consequences to workers, were well calculated to instill in them a fear that choice of the Union would make strikes with loss of pay and jobs inevitable, and hammer home in their minds the conclusion that it would be futile to choose the Union as bargaining agent because it would bring them personally nothing but "serious harm," and "create many more serious problems for you than have ever faced you before" (stated in second speech). The coercive impact of these remarks was particularly strong when made by the top plant official in the last 2 days before the election, and I do not think the harmful effect was lessened in any way by the last-minute though emphatic reply of the Union that "no plant has been closed by Riviana because of a union," for this could not reasonably overcome the total thrust of Derveloy's repeated warning that , regardless of its present profitable operating status, Abbeville was almost certain to have a strike and close down if the Union came in. I therefore find that by the totality of the above remarks, Respondent further interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their free choice of bargaining agent, a right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.21 THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION Objection 1(b) to the election deals with interrogation of employees. As I have found above that Respondent engaged in coercive interrogation of workers about their union activities and sentiments at various times in the campaign up to the election, this objection should be sustained. Objections 6 and 8 should be sustained to the extent that they are based on the following conduct: (a) Derveloy's coercive suggestions in individual and general talks to employees that if they were not satisfied with plant conditions or wanted more money, they should get jobs in union plants. (b) Derveloy's coercive warnings in two speeches that if the Union came into the plant the sequence of events involved in bargaining, including probable company refusal of union demands which made a strike called by the Union inevitable, involving loss of pay and probably loss of jobs for strikers, all of which demonstrated to employees Sportswear Co, 173 NLRB No. 101; Crystal Lake Broom Works, 159 NLRB 429; Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association, 163 NLRB 777, and Crown Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc, 160 NLRB 746. 1 have also considered other aspects of Respondent's conduct shown in the record and cited by General Counsel as probative of other portions of the amended complaint, but I make no findings thereon for, even if such conduct were found violative of the Act, the effect would merely be cumulative without materially changing or enlarging the nature and scope of the remedy recommended hereafter. RIVIANA FOODS, INC. the futility of choosing the Union as their bargaining agent.22 (c) Derveloy's repeated charge in speeches that choice of the Union would lead to "serious harm" to employees, with a "guarantee" of strikes and "union trouble ," and resulting personal loss to employees. Objection 7 is based on the talks of Derveloy and Mortenson with groups of employees found above, particularly the display of posters showing closed mills of Respondent and other employers, which plants had been involved at some time in union organizing campaigns, some successful and others not. I have found that the posters, and Derveloy's explanations of the reasons for shutdown of the mills, were not violative of the Act, even in light of Respondent's other unfair labor practices . However, it has been long settled that conduct which may fall short of coercion violative of Section 8(a)(l) may still have an effect on employees to an extent which renders it improbable that they can exercise a free choice as to a bargaining representative in a Board election .23 On this point, General Counsel makes the argument (actually and perhaps improperly on the issue whether the election should be set aside, the Union having filed no brief in the representation case) that the group talks were part of a pattern of coercion of employees en masse, started by the Godchaux speech and culminating in the two Derveloy talks on September 22 and 23 , which violated the Act and also made a free election impossible . Giving due weight to Respondent's aggressive antiunion campaign and its other coercive conduct therein, I still conclude that Derveloy 's detailed references in the group talks to closed mills and the reasons for their shutdown in context of other remarks were not sufficient to create a fear in employees ' minds that union activity or organization at such mills was the main cause, or even a cause, of employers' action in shutting down the mills. I bear in mind that these campaigns are adversary proceedings , with both sides speaking bluntly and often in rough terms, and the utterances of both sides ought not to receive a narrow or strained construction , because it is desirable to have stimulating debate with a free flow of information so that employees get all the facts and can make an informed choice as to whether a union would improve or worsen their present position . An employer's exposition of harsh and perhaps unpleasant and depressing economic facts but without intimation of threat of employer reprisal should not readily be considered destructive of the atmosphere of relative purity in which Board elections should occur.24 I therefore find that Objection 7 has no merit and recommend that it be overruled. Having found that Objections 1(b), 6, and 8 should be sustained, I will recommend that the election of September 24 and 25, 1969, be set aside. 22 See Serv-Au, Inc, 183 NLRB No 32 23 General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124, 126, Excelsior Underwear, Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, 1240; Mallory Plastics Company, 158 NLRB 954, 956 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 131 1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act to the extent found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(axl) of the Act. 2. Except as found above, Respondent has not violated the Act in other respects as alleged in the complaint as amended. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain limited unfair labor practices violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act to the extent found above, I will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from such conduct and like or related conduct, and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the consolidated cases, I recommend issuance of an order that Respondent Riviana Foods, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) In a coercive manner interrogating employees about their membership in the above-named Union, or reasons therefor, their union activities or sentiments, or how they would vote in a Board election. (b) Giving employees the impression that their union activities are under surveillance by their employer. (c) Threatening employees in any way with loss of employment or other reprisal if they joined the Union, or failed to attend antiunion talks by company officials, or failed to vote in a Board election against the Union. (d) Stating to employees in speeches or otherwise that it was convinced that a union in the mill would not be good for employees but would act to their senous harm. (e) Warning and threatening employees in effect that if a union came into the mill, employer bargaining with such union would result in an impasse and no contract, a strike called by the Union would be inevitable, and employees on strike would lose pay and their jobs through replacement by new workers, and indicating directly or indirectly that for such reasons it would be futile for employees to choose the Union as their bargaining agent. (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: 24 Southwire Co v N. LR.B., 383 F.2d 235, 241 (C.A 5); Union Carbide Corp. v N L R B, 310 F 2d 844 (C.A 6); Capita/ Electric Power Assn., 171 NLRB No. 42; Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 62. 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Post at its plant in Abbeville, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 25 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, shall , after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith 26 Insofar as the amended complaint in Case 15-CA-3668 alleges violations of the Act not specifically found above, it is hereby dismissed. I recommend that the election held on September 24 and 25, 1969, in Case 15-RC-1213 be set aside and a new election held at an appropriate time. 25 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 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 . 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." ss 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 therewith." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government AFTER A TRIAL AT WHICH ALL SIDES HAD THE CHANCE TO GIVE EVIDENCE, IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT WE, RIVIANA FOODS, INC., VIO- LATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND WE HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO POST THIS NOTICE. The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as an employee, these rights: To engage in self-organization To form,join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representative of your own choosing To act together with other employees to bargain collectively or for other mutual aid or protection; and If you wish, not to do any of these things. ACCORDINGLY, WE GIVE YOU THESE ASSUR- ANCES: We will not question you in a coercive manner about your membership in Rice Workers Local 300, Amalga- mated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other union, or why you joined it, or about your union activities or sentiments, or ask you how you intend to vote in a Board election. We will not make statements to you about your union membership or activities which would give you the impression that we are keeping your union activities under surveillance. WE WILL NOT make statements to you in speeches or otherwise which indicate in a coercive manner to you that we are convinced that a union in the Abbeville plant would not be good for you but would act to your serious harm. We will not make threats or give warnings to you, in effect, that if a union came into the Abbeville plant our bargaining with that union would result in an impasse and no contract, a strike called by the union would be inevitable, and employees on strike would lose pay and their jobs through replacement by new workers, and for such reasons it would be futile for you to choose Rice Workers Local 300, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other union , as your bargaining agent. We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed to you by Section 7 of the Act. WE ASSURE ALL OF YOU THAT YOU ARE FREE TO JOIN OR NOT TO JOIN RICE WORKERS LOCAL 300, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER UNION, AS YOU SEE FIT IN YOUR OWN JUDGMENT, WITHOUT ANY INTERFER- ENCE FROM US IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. Dated By RIVIANA FOODS, 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, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361.