International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.

ITT CANNON ELECTRIC ITT Cannon Electric, a Division of International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation and Com- munications Workers of America, AFL-CIO ITT Cannon Electric , a Division of International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation and Com- munications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-3 131 and 15-RC-3640 June 26, 1968 DECISION , ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On April 11 , 1968, Trial Examiner Laurence A. Knapp issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint, and recommended that such allegations be dismissed . The Trial Examiner found , in addition, that the Respondent's unlawful conduct had inter- ferred with a Board election held on June 14, 1967, and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision and a supporting brief and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, ITT Cannon Electric, Monroe, Louisiana , its officers , agents, successors, 425 and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con- ducted at the Respondent 's plant on June 14, 1967, - be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that a new elec- tion be held. [Direction of Second Election ' omitted from publication. ] ' We agree with the Trial Examiner that the election held on June 14, 1967, should be set aside Further , we find , contrary to the contention of the Respondent , that a new election should be directed The fact that the Respondent 's employee complement has been substantially increased fol- lowing the June 14 election is no justification for denying employees the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish the Charging Party to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining Accordingly , we shall direct that a new election be held ' 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 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 extraordina- ry circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are fled Excel- star Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236 TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LAURENCE A. KNAPP , Trial Examiner : Following their consolidation for purposes of hearing and decision , I heard these two cases at Monroe, Loui- siana, on February 7, 1968 ( all dates herein after refer to the year 1967 ). In the unfair labor practice case,' the questions presented are whether, after the Communications Workers (hereinafter called the "Union ") began efforts to organize and represent employees of Respondent ITT Cannon Electric ( hereinafter sometimes called " the Com- pany" ) at its Monroe plant, employees of the Com- pany were unlawfully interrogated and threatened by two of their supervisors . In the representation proceeding, the question presented is whether an election conducted by the Board on June 14, on petition of the Union , should be adjudged invalid and, hence , be set aside on the basis of alleged misconduct on the part of the Company (including certain of the conduct complained of in the unfair labor practice case ), as asserted by the Union.' As will be seen, I hold, on the basis of findings and conclusions hereinafter stated, that : ( 1) in the un- fair labor practice proceeding certain of the charges of statutory violation are sustained by a preponderance of the evidence ; and that ( 2) in the ' Following an original and an amended charge served , respectively, on, July 26 and August 21, 1967, the complaint in the unfair labor practice proceeding (Case 15-CA-3131) was served on October 9, 1967 ' At the election 10 votes were cast for the Union and 14 against, with I challenged ballot 172 NLRB No. 71 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representation proceeding Respondent engaged in conduct which rendered the election unfair and which requires setting the election aside.' I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the Company's answer ad- mits, and I find that the Company is engaged, at its Monroe plant, in the manufacture of electrical equipment and that during the 12 months preced- ing issuance of the complaint the Company shipped from this plant directly to points outside the State of Louisiana products having a value in excess of $50,000. I find and conclude that Respondent is en- gaged in commerce and in activities affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, the evidence establishes, and I find and conclude that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING AND ASSOCIATED CHARGES OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT A. The Charges of Interrogation About March 20 the Union held an initial or- ganizational meeting for employees of the Com- pany, then a relatively new enterprise in Monroe. The Union then sent the Company a letter requesting recognition as the employees' majority representative, a letter the Company received on what I find was March 27. A day or so later, I find, Company Supervisor Wiedeman approached the table-like assembly location where the production operations were performed (apparently entirely by female workers totaling about 25), and, according to the General Counsel's witnesses, then: (1) asked Mrs. Trichel what she knew about the union activi- ties then going on and whether she had been con- tacted in this connection; (2) asked Helen Warren if anyone had contacted her about the Union; (3) asked Ruth Pat Lenard if she had been contacted by union officials and whether she had attended the March 20 meeting; and (4) asked another group of four girls on the assembly "line" if they had been contacted by the Union. Further, according to the General Counsel's evidence, when Helen Warren told Wiedeman that she had not been contacted, he remarked: "Well, it's mighty funny, we know that there's union activities going on, and that there has been some cards signed"; when Ruth Lenard de- nied that she had been contacted or been to the union meeting , he stated "Well, I can't understand ' The motion of counsel for the Union to correct the transcript of record, dated March 19, 1968, is granted. ' In concluding this conversation with Lenard, she testified , Wiedeman said that " Mr McFarland [the plant superintendent] asked me to mosey around here and see if I could find out how many [union ] cards had been why we have got a letter from the CWA [the Union] and nobody knows anything about it and nobody has been contacted' ;4 and made a similar comment when he received no informative response from any of the group of four girls men- tioned above. Further, according to Trichel, Wiedeman visited her at a local hospital on May 12 (after the election proceeding had been instituted) where he urged her to "go along" with Respondent as "a new company" and give it "a chance"; told her that the Company had found out that "Pat" (apparently Ruth Pat Lenard) was the head of the Union; identified two other ladies who he said were "going all out to campaign against the union"; and then asked her if she had ever worked for a unionized company or had ever participated in union activities. Wiedeman was called as a witness by Respondent and on his direct examination admitted that he had questioned employees concerning their knowledge about or contacts with the Union. In response to leading questions put by Respondent's counsel, he stated that his questioning followed the Company's receipt of the Union's letter claiming majority representation, and explained his interrogations, in counsel's words, as "simply an effort to gain addi- tional information." But quite obviously, efforts by an employer during the course of a union organiza- tional campaign to ascertain from his employees in- formation concerning the extent of their involve- ment or that of other employees in such activities are, absent safeguarding assurances not given in this case, interrogation coercive in nature and ef- fect, fully within the ban of the statute. Ac- cordingly, I find that in the instances described above, Respondent, through Wiedeman's questionings , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In support of a further interrogation count in the complaint, Ruth Pat Lenard testified that about June 1 Gifford, a newly hired foreman and, like Wiedeman, concededly a supervisor, sat down next to her and, after stating that he understood that a union was trying to get in the plant, asked her if she had been to a union meeting or if anyone had con- tacted her and asked her to sign a union card; that he then paused and then stated she did not have to answer ; and that she told him she did not mind an- swering-that everybody knew she was for the Union. On his direct examination by counsel for Respondent, Gifford responded in the negative when asked whether he could "recall" having "in- terrogated employees ... concerning their union activities, sympathies, and beliefs" about May 25 as alleged in the General Counsel's complaint.5 A per- son's inability to recall whether he committed a certain act does not arise to the stature of a denial, signed " I credit this testimony , not denied by Wiedeman " While Lenard placed the date of this questioning as about June 1, it is clear that this is the incident given the May 25 date in the complaint. At the hearing , I granted a motion to conform the complaint to the proof in respect to such minor variances in dates ITT CANNON ELECTRIC for the inability to remember is as consistent with performance of the act in question as with its non- performance . Moreover, Gifford 's attention was not drawn to the specifics of Lenard 's testimony, a cir- cumstance which all the more suggests Gifford's in- ability directly to contradict Lenard 's testimony. In this posture of things , Gifford 's testimony cannot be said to create a conflict with that of Lenard, and the latter evidence is entitled , there being no other contradiction of it , to acceptance , particularly in the light of other violations on the part of Gifford soon to be dealt with , and in the light of the earlier and contemporaneous questionings of the same character engaged in by Supervisor Wiedeman. Ac- cordingly , I credit Lenard 's testimony and, in view of the nature of the questions and the surrounding circumstances then prevailing , including the pen- dency of the election proceeding , I find the inter- rogation was coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The Alleged Threats by Supervisor Gifford Gifford, a relatively young man, started work as a foreman over production employees on May 22, just some 3 weeks prior to the June 14 election. According to witnesses for the General Counsel, and in support of corresponding allegations of the complaint ( including two amendments thereto which the Examiner allowed at the hearing), Gif- ford engaged in the following acts in a period of about 5 days preceding the June 14 election: 1. On June 13, in a conversation with employee Mrs. Boutwell , which he had been at pains to ar- range the day before , he told Mrs . Boutwell that the Company would close its doors if the Union came in, which , he indicated , the Company could easily do because it did not have a large plant investment and only had a limited amount of assembly equip- ment and machines in the plant ;" and further told Mrs. Boutwell that if the Union were to come in the hospitalization and vacation benefits provided by the Company might not be as good as those then in effect.' 2. Either about a week or about 2 days before the election , Gifford first told a group of about six girls at their work stations that the employees were going to lose such benefits as vacations , insurance, and sick leave if the Union came in, because in that event such benefits would have to be negotiated (with the Union); and then , when challenged as to whether such benefits were going to be lost, he stated that he could not tell but "probably " the em- ployees would lose them.' 3. On June 1.3, the day before the election, and on several previous occasions not dated , Gifford ' The plant structure is owned by the city of Monroe and utilized by the Company under lease r Testimony of Mrs Boutwell 8 Testimony of Ruth Pat Lenard Testimony of Lenard 427 told employee Lenard that for the Company to shut down the plant would be like packing "a suitcase," since it did not have enough equipment in the plant "to fool with the union."9 Gifford 's testimony with respect to these various alleged incidents was most unimpressive . Called to the stand by Respondent he was subjected to a se- ries of leading questions by Respondent's counsel, the same procedure Respondent's counsel had fol- lowed with respect to the interrogation incident previously dealt with. Asked whether he could "re- call" making any threats of loss of benefits or plant closure to Boutwell , or any threats to Lenard, he replied in the negative. He then confirmed that he had been given a copy of the complaint for "review and study," whereupon Respondent's counsel summarized each of the items of misconduct at- tributed to Gifford in paragraph 8 of the complaint and asked him, as to each allegation , if it was true. To these questions he gave negative replies. Obvi- ously, generalized and conclusionary testimony of this character is not very persuasive . And his testimony under cross-examination by counsel for the Union casts doubt on his credibility . As one il- lustration , he first testified that he had learned about the union activity from "talk" among em- ployees (whom he could not identify ), but later ad- mitted that his knowledge actually was gained, not in this fashion , but from instructions he was given by a superior, a Mr. Roe, at the time he was hired. As another example of evasion and self-contradic- tion, after admitting that he discussed the Union with employees , he was asked what it was he told the employees about the Union . At first , he fenced with counsel for the Union in responding " You're kind of putting me on the spot , though , to just come out with something ." Pressed by counsel, he stated that the most important thing he told the em- ployees was "to be able to think for themselves"; then that , in talking to Boutwell on June 13, he ex- plained to her both "the union 's" and "the com- pany 's" side. Later, he contradicted himself; while implicitly admitting that he engaged in considerable communication with the various employees in the 2 weeks preceding the election , he denied that he was talking to them about the Union , asserting that "We'd laugh and talk " and that he was just ob- taining "family information." For reasons all too obvious , I reject Gifford's pur- ported denials and credit the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses that he uttered the above-described threats . Each of those threats was coercive and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10 Other threats assertedly made by Gifford call for a different disposition . Thus, according to Ruth Pat 10 Other threats attributed to White, a senior administrative official of Respondent, were not incorporated in the complaint as issued or by amendment at the hearing These incidents are , however , within the Union 's objections to the election in the representation proceeding and, in that connection , are considered below 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lenard, on an occasion some 4 or 5 days before the election, when Gifford and one of the two Negro girls "got into an argument ... because she was talking," Lenard overheard Gifford say that "the union discriminated against colored girls." Em- ployee Trichel testified that on the day before the election Gifford came to the assembly line where he talked for an hour to the two Negro girls, for the most part "in low tones" which, I infer, Trichel could not hear. However, Trichel testified, toward the end Gifford stood up and she heard him tell these two girls (following some critical comments about the Union): "If the union does come in," he said, "since we have [the] company has made a policy of hiring colored people," he said, "the union will discriminate against you all, and if they do come in," he said, "the benefits will have to start from scratch." In further questioning, the witness said the benefits Gifford referred to were "vacations with pay" promised by the Company. For the reasons indicated above, I credit this testimony over Gifford's previously described denials. In connection with these threats, there is relevant testimony given by H. E. White, then "Director of Personnel and Administrative Services" for the Company with headquarters in Los Angeles. White kept in close touch with developments at the Mon- roe plant springing from the Union's organizational effort. "During the election period" he made a number of trips to Monroe, on which occa- sions he spoke to individual employees, and on one of these trips he attended an "open house" which the Company held for the employees on June 3. He addressed the employees as a whole at a meeting called by the Company in the plant on June 13, and he spent the bulk of the remaining part of that day, and some time on the morning of the election (held at 10 a.m.), talking to employees at their stations on the assembly line. White testified that because of a report which had reached him from a source he could not positively identify, but possibly from a supervisor, he went to the two Negro girls on the afternoon of June 13 and, as he further testified, said to them: ... I understand that you have been told by somebody, and I told them I didn't know who, that if the union should get in, that you Negroes would be fired or discriminated against . And that further that you would lose vacation, your accrued vacation. And I don't know-I want you to know what the company position is. " Neither of the two Negro girls testified. 12 And see the reasoning of my colleague Peterson in an unreported TERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER " in Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., et al., Case l0-CA-5208 ( IR-240-63 ), issued May 17, 1963. And they said that-and I said that we do not discriminate, you are not going to lose any va- cation regardless of what happens at the elec- tion, and the only way, there was a third point, that you may have been told that if the Union gets in, you cannot be fired. And I want you to understand specifically that the only way you would get fired with ITT Cannon, union or no union, is for non-per- formance of work .... Then I asked them did they have any ques- tions, did they understand this. And they both nodded, it was not a two-way conver- sation; I don't think they said anything. All they said was "Yes, sir"; and that kind of thing, "we understand." And that was all. White's testimony is undisputed and I credit it." If Gifford's statements stood alone, his threat of loss of paid vacations if the Union should "come in," i.e., if it should win the election, would plainly represent a threatened reprisal by the Company in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. And (although I have not had the benefit of any briefing on this important subject by the General Counsel) the same would seem to be true of his threat of ra- cial discrimination, albeit at the Union's initiative, if it won the election. For the employees per- missibly could draw from such a statement by an employer representative an implication that the Company would acquiesce in some such move or demand by the Union in its dealings with the Com- pany if the Union were elected the employees' bar- gaining representative. Thus, a statement of this kind places, or can place, Negro employees in fear of jeopardizing their jobs in the event of their sup- port of a union seeking election as the employees' bargaining representative. Such a threat is as destructive of the self-organization rights guaran- teed to employees by Section 7 of the Act as any other form of threat to their employment security based on their exercise of those statutory rights, and hence comes within the proscriptions of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Boyce Machinery Cor- poration, 141 NLRB 756, 762-763.12 But Gifford's various statements to the Negro girls do not stand alone or unrelieved. On the con- trary, they were followed in time, as I find, by White's pointed talk to the two girls on these sub- jects and his effective disavowal of the substance of what Gifford had said and his adequate assurances that there would be no company action either in On the other hand, whether ( if it stood alone ) Gifford's statement of June 9 or 10 would violate the Act under the reasoning of Boyce Machinery would depend on a determination whether, in all the surrounding circum- stances, his statement that the Union discriminated against Negroes should be interpreted as referable to the outcome of the election even though it contained no such explicit point of reference. ITT CANNON ELECTRIC 429 the form of loss of vacations or of racial discrimina- tion, whatever the election's outcome. In the cir- cumstances, the coercive effect of Gifford's state- ments should be regarded as having been overcome and these charges should, therefore, be dismissed. III. THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING That Respondent engaged in conduct prejudi- cially affecting the result of the election, as con- tended by the Union in its objections, is clear. Within the determinative time period (the period between the filing of the representation petition and the date of any election), Supervisors Wiedeman and Gifford engaged in coercive inter- rogation of employees, and Gifford made the vari- ous unlawful threats of reduction and loss of benefits, and of reprisal by plant closure, previously found. All of this misconduct on the Company's part is encompassed in those objections of the Union which were set down for hearing in this proceeding. The Union's Objection 2 further alleges that company representatives made the threat that when the election was over those employees who voted for the election would be discharged. In line with this objection, while under cross-examination by Respondent's counsel, employee Trichel volun- teered that on the morning of election day, but prior to conduct of the election, Mr. White stated (to whom is not indicated) that "the ones who voted union were going out the door" when the Company found them out; and, while under ex- amination by counsel for the Union, employee Lenard testified that, on the day preceding the elec- tion and in response to a question put to him by employee Aline Lanham as to what would happen when the election was over, White stated "Well, I imagine when the company finds out who's in- volved in all this, they will go out the door." 13 White denied having made any such statements, which, while they theoretically might have been, were not charged as unfair labor practices by the General Counsel in the complaint case before me. On this record, I am not prepared to credit the employee testimony over that of White. Such outright threats of discharge are rather inconsistent with the general pattern of White's conduct as revealed in the evidence before me. Moreover, Miss Trichel's testimony, as I have remarked, was not brought out on her direct examination either by counsel for the General Counsel or for the Union, but was volunteered toward the end of her cross-ex- amination by counsel for Respondent; and Lanham, to whom White is said to have made one such state- ment, did not testify. Furthermore, Mrs. Lenard, who testified to the statement White allegedly made to Mrs. Lanham, when asked whether she could have been mistaken, responded with the less than categorical answers: "I don't think so. I don't be- lieve I could have misunderstood that." All in all, I think it more likely than not that White did not make the explicit and virulent threats attributed to him, and that the General Counsel's witnesses should not be regarded as having accurately over- heard whatever he may have been saying to third persons on these occasions. Accordingly, I credit White's testimony and find that the statements at- tributed to him are not sustained by a preponder- ance of the proof. 14 Accordingly, I find that so much of the Union's election objections before me as encompass Wiede- man's interrogation of Mrs. Trichel on May 12, Gif- ford's interrogation of Mrs. Lenard on or about June 1, and the various threats I have found Gifford made as listed under paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of sec- tion II, B, above, are sustained by the evidence. This conduct amply sufficed to intimidate the em- ployees and affect the outcome of the election to the prejudice of the Union. Accordingly, the elec- tion held on June 14 should be set aside.'5 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE By coercive interrogations of its employees con- cerning their union sympathies or activities, and by coercive threats of plant closure and loss or reduc- tion of employment benefits, all as found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices af- fecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. Respondent has not engaged in the other unfair labor practices charged herein. Aline Lanham did not testify "The Union , in relation to its election Objection 5 (that the company "created a pervasive atmosphere of fear and economic reprisals among its employees") relies on White 's circulation, among the employees on the morning of the election, of a newspaper account of a strike called by some local of the Union against some contractor in the Shreveport , Louisiana, area ( Resp . Exh 2 ) But there is nothing in this article ( which merely sets forth certain statements made to the newspaper by the union and the em- ployer involved, including an employer statement that nonreturning strikers might be replaced ) that can be considered other than the legitimate election propoganda of an employer 's At the hearing , counsel for Respondent Company moved to dismiss the representation proceeding In this connection, counsel stated that toward the end of 1967, the Company had, by moving microelectronic production to the Monroe plant from California, made a distinct change in the nature of the production operations there, and that whereas the em- ployment force at the time of the June 1967 election consisted only of some 25 employees, of whom only 7 remained employed at the time of the hearing, on the hearing date the work force totaled some 135-140 em- ployees and , to meet employment requisitions already issued, was due to expand soon to about 250 employees The Examiner denied the motion in view of the necessity that he determine whether the June election should be set aside . Of course, if the Board agrees that the election should beset aside , Respondent is at liberty to assert in subsequent proceedings in the representation case the facts represented for such relevance as they may have on the question of a second election or otherwise 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY The order which I recommend the Board issue requires the Company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and, as affirmative re- lief, to post appropriate notices. In the representation case, my proposed order calls for setting aside the prior election. What further order should be entered by the Board in that case, whether with respect to a further elec- tion or otherwise, is for the Board to determine. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Board issue the following: ORDER Respondent, ITT Cannon Electric, a Division of International Telephone and Telegraph Corpora- tion, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating its employees con- cerning their union activities or sympathies; (b) Threatening to close its plant, or to effect a reduction or loss of employee benefits, in the event its employees should select a union as their bargain- ing representative or otherwise because of their union activities or sympathies; (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Communications Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 2. Take the following affirmative steps designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Monroe, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""' Co- pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 15 , after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order - what steps have been taken to comply herewith.17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the complaint as to which no violations have been found are hereby dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con- ducted in Case 15-RC-3640 be, and it is hereby, set aside. 'T In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 15 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith - APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT unlawfully question you con- cerning your union activities or sympathies. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant or to take away or reduce any of your employ- ment benefits, including paid vacations, because of the way you vote in any union elec- tion or otherwise because of your union activi- ties or sympathies. . WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to join, vote for, or assist Communications Work- ers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutaual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. ITT CANNON ELECTRIC, A DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,'or covered by any other material. ITT CANNON ELECTRIC 431 If employees have any question concerning this Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 notice or compliance with its provisions, they may Loyola Avenue, New Orleans , Louisiana 70113, communicate directly with the Board's Regional Telephone 527-6391.