Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc.

HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc.' and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO' and Local 29, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO,' Party to the Contract Local 29, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO and Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., Party to the Contract. Cases I-CA-6153 and I-CB-1324 June 9, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULI OCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On February 26, 1969, Trial Examiner Josephine H. Klein issued her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent, Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. The General Counsel's brief was also in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 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 this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,6 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.' 'Hereinafter called Hunter. 'Hereinafter called ILG. 'Hereinafter called RWD. 'Hunter contends that the Trial Examiner committed prejudicial error by denying its motion to reopen the hearing to permit Hunter to defend against the unfair labor practice allegations against RWD. Hunter has resubmitted this motion to the Board . Specifically. Hunter argues that, since it is derivatively guilty of violating Sec. 8 (a)(2) and ( 1) of the Act by recognizing, and executing a collective-bargaining agreement with, RWD as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative if, at that time, RWD did not represent an uncoerced majority of Hunter's employees, it should have been permitted to present evidence to prove , contrary to the General Counsel's evidence, that RWD's majority was not coerced . We find no merit in Hunter's contention in the circumstances of this case , and hereby deny its motion . In the first place, as stated in the Trial Examiner's Decision, Hunter was afforded every opportunity to cross-examine the General Counsel 's witnesses and to subpoena RWD's representatives in charge of organizing Hunter 's employees. Secondly, and more important, even if Hunter could establish that RWD represented an uncoerced majority of Hunter's employees on September 29, 1967, when RWD first ORDER 449 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., North Adams, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the Respondent, Local 29, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete paragraphs l(b)(7) and l(b)(8) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and renumber paragraph l(b)(9) as I(b)(7). 2. Delete paragraph 2(b)(4) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and substitute the following new paragraph 2(b)(4): "Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C" to the Regional Director for posting at Hunter's plants." demanded, and Hunter denied , recognition, we would nevertheless order Hunter to withdraw such recognition now because of Hunter's own unlawful conduct both before and after it finally recognized RWD on October 27, 1967. It is well settled that the Board will order an employer to withhold recognition of a labor organization until it is certified by the Board if that labor organization's majority status was attained or retained by the employer's unlawful conduct. See, e g., Golden State Bottling Company, Inc. d/b/a Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Sacramento, 147 NLRB 410, enfd. in pertinent part 353 F. 2d 667 (C.A. 9) As fully described in the Trial Examiner 's Decision, Hunter committed numerous violations of Sec. 8(a)(2) and ( 1) of the Act after October 1 and before it finally extended recognition to RWD on October 27, as well as thereafter These violations by Hunter were clearly prompted by, and were part of, an effort to frustrate the rival organizing activities of the ILG which began in the first week of October In these circumstances, we cannot find that RWD retained an uncoerced majority on October 27 even assuming, arguendo that it had enjoyed such a majority on September 29 'Hunter has excepted to certain credibility resolutions made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Such a conclusion is not warranted here. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3). The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. 129 NLRB 757, in 3 at 758. 'In finding, as the Trial Examiner did, that Hunter violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act by Simone's assault on ILG organizer Gross, we do not adopt her discussion concerning the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings 'While we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents, Hunter and RWD, violated Sec 8(a)(1), (2), and (3), and Sec 8(bXI)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act, respectively, we do not agree that the special remedial provisions recommended by the Trial Examiner are appropriate Accordingly, we shall amend the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order by deleting therefrom the requirement that the Notices marked Appendixes B and C be read and mailed to the Respondents' employees and members, respectively. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION JOSEPHINE H. KLEIN, Trial Examiner : Pursuant to charges filed by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (ILG) against Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc. (Hunter) on November 17, 1967 (amended November 22, 1967, and January 4 and 12, 1968), and 176 NLRB No. 58 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD against Local 29, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (RWD) on November 21, 1967 (amended January 4 and 12, 1968 ), a consolidated complaint was issued on January 19, 1968 , against Hunter and RWD . The General Counsel provided additional details in response to Respondents' demands for bills of particulars. In other respects, the demands were denied by order on February 16, 1968. Upon proper notice , the consolidated complaint came on for hearing at North Adams, Massachusetts, on April 23, 1968 . All parties appeared through counsel. At the outset of the hearing , counsel for the General Counsel and for RWD submitted a settlement agreement for the Examiner's approval. When the Examiner reserved decision as to acceptance or approval of the settlement, RWD withdrew from further participation in the hearing. The hearing proceeded on April 23, 24, and 25. All parties waived oral argument and thereafter briefs were filed on behalf of the General Counsel , Hunter and ILG. On July 16, 1968, the Examiner issued an Order Disapproving Proposed Settlement and Reopening Record.' The General Counsel thereupon filed a request for special permission to appeal the order to the Board. On November 5, 1968 , the Board issued its order granting the General Counsel's request for permission to appeal and then denying the appeal. Thereupon the Examiner issued a notice of hearing for January 7, 1969, the date agreed upon by all counsel . On January 3, 1969, however, counsel for RWD advised the Examiner that Respondent Union did not desire to present any evidence , but would rest on the record as it then stood . Since the order of July 16, 1968 , had strictly limited the scope of the reopened hearing "to the presentation of a defense by RWD .. . and such rebuttal evidence as the General Counsel and the Charging Party may present," upon receipt of RWD's waiver of the right to present evidence the Examiner canceled the hearing scheduled for January 7, 1969. The case is now ripe for decision on the basis of the evidence and briefs heretofore filed.' On all the evidence, observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, consideration of the briefs, and the entire record , the Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS The complaint alleges and the Examiner finds that: A. Hunter, a New York corporation , with its principal office and place of business in Long Island City, New York, and plants in North Adams, Massachusetts, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of sleeping bags, tents, and related products . In the course of its business, Hunter purchases large quantities of materials and has them transported to its North Adams plants from points outside Massachusetts and sells products and has them transported from its North Adams plants to points outside Massachusetts. Hunter annually receives at its North Adams plants directly from points outside Massachusetts materials having a value in excess of 'The order of July 16. 1968, is attached hereto as Appendix A. 'Under date of January 6. 1969 . Hunter sent to the Examiner a "Motion . to sever; to expunge certain testimony; and, alternatively, to allow the introduction of certain evidence." As stated by the General Counsel in a written opposition to the motion, Hunter's recent motion was repetitive of motions previously made and denied by the order of July 16, 1968. The denial is hereby reaffirmed. $50,000 and annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 from its North Adams plants directly to points outside Massachusetts . Hunter is, and at all time herein material has been , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.3 B. RWD is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. C. ILG is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Hunter has for sometime had two plants in Long Island City, New York.' For several years its employees in Long Island City have been represented by RWD. Around October 1966, Hunter purchased a plant on State Road in North Adams , Massachusetts.' Hunter commenced operations at that plant in the fall of 1966. Thereafter, around September or October 1967, Hunter purchased a second plant in North Adams, on Union Street. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Joseph Martin, Hunter's vice president, Joel Pave, president of RWD, first talked to Martin concerning organization of Hunter's employees in North Adams in January or February 1967.' According to Martin , Pave "said wherever I [Martin ] went, he [Pave] went . . . we were like Siamese." Pave also said that "no one was going to take any work out of Long Island without him putting his blessings on it." Martin further testified that Pave - said the work belonged in Long Island City and was going to stay there, and if [Pave] had to, he would prevent [Hunter] from moving machines , work, or anything else up into North Adams or any other place. It was Pave's position that the collective-bargaining agreement then in existence between Hunter and RWD extended to the new operation in North Adams since it recognized RWD as the agent for "all of the Company's production and maintenance employees . Martin testified that initially he and his associate , a Mr. Weiss, "decided just to keep stalling, stall [Pave] to death." Their apparently successful "stalling " came to an end in August 1967, when Pave visited the North Adams plant and said "(h]e was ready to organize whether [Hunter ] liked it or not." Martin testified that, at least at the time involved, a substantial part of the work at the North Adams plants consisted, in effect, of "subcontracts" under government contracts held by the New York plants. According to Martin and Alfred P. Simone, Jr., Hunter's general manager in North Adams, the North Adams plants could not then operate economically without the government contract work transferred from New York. 'National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S .C. Sec. 151, et seq. 'It also has plants in Philadelphia and in Connecticut. These plants apparently are nonunion. 'The plant had previously been operated by Sports Industries, Inc., which performed work for Hunter under subcontracts. Sports Industries, however, was unable to operate economically and was close to bankruptcy when Hunter took it over . Alfred P. Simone, Jr., Hunter's present general manager in North Adams, had been a principal in Sports Industries. 'Hereafter, unless otherwise stated, all dates are in 1967. Before Hunter took it over from Sports Industries Pave had looked into the North Adams operation but apparently decided against any attempt at organization. HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 451 Sometime early in September Simone spoke to the employees of the State Road plant in groups of some 60 to 80 each . He told them there was a union in Hunter's New York plants and its representative had said that the union would prevent any work from coming to the North Adams plants unless Hunter allowed the union's representative to speak to the North Adams employees. Simone thus asked the employees to listen to the union representative when he arrived , even though Hunter did not want a union.' About a week later, Simone again called the employees together and told them that the union 's representative was coming that day and requested that the employees listen to him when he came . That afternoon Pave appeared, with another union representative , a woman identified only as "Connie." Successive groups of 40 to 60 employees were called together in an empty part of the plant. Simone introduced and identified Pave to each group and then withdrew. No Hunter representative or supervisor was present when Pave and Connie spoke to the employees. Although the Company presented no documentary proof, Martin testified that RWD had reimbursed the Company for the employees' time devoted to these meetings with Pave.' Martin's testimony in connection with this reimbursement was uncontradicted and is credited. However, it does not appear that the employees were informed of this reimbursement, so it must be assumed that they believed Hunter was footing the bill. At the North Adams meetings Pave told the employees that the union represented the employees at the New York plants and, accordingly , it represented the North Adams employees, whether they liked it or not. Shop stewards were also named - five whose names Pave presented and two nominated by the employees. Employee Belanger credibly testified as follows concerning that first meeting with Pave: [Pave] said he represented the union, and he had a slip of paper in his hand , and these were names that been given to him , people that would be Stewards . Then we nominated some people, and some of them refused, and some accepted . He said it was a closed shop and that if we didn't have a union there, they would stop the trucks from delivering any goods .... he said we would get a ten-cent raise in February, and we would get one in November. I think it was November and February. We were to get two raises .. .. . October. That was the date .... A ten-cent raise, .. . Employee Booth testified as follows concerning Pave's statements when he first spoke to the employees in September: He just introduced himself and said he represented the Wholesale Retail Union from New York. Q. (By Mr. Kelleher) And do you recall if Mr. Pave said anything else? 'Employee Phyllis Belanger credibly summarized Simone's statements to the employees as follows : "Well, he said that they had a union in their shop in New York, and that they said they would not let them bring any work to North Adams if they didn't let the union then come in to speak to us. He didn't want any work stoppage , and he would like to have us listen to them." Employee Agnes Booth testified that Simone said "[thhat a union wanted to come in, and he didn't want no part of it. It was only a short speech." 'Martin testified that it was standard practice at Hunter 's Long Island plants for union representatives to conduct meetings on company premises and company time and to reimburse the company for the employees' pay any time such a meeting went beyond 20 minutes. A. We talked about benefits that they have and raises. We talked about getting raises. Q. Do you recall if he said anything else about his Union? A. That it represented the one in New York. That's the one that's going to represent this plant. : s • s Q. Do you recall if, while you were present, Mr. Pave indicated why the Union from New York would represent the North Adams people also? A. Because it represented the mother plant in New York. Q. Is that what he said? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall if he said anything about joining his Union? A. You had to join in 30 days, or you were dismissed. Q. Is that what Mr. Pave said? A. Yes. Immediately after the employee meetings, a shop stewards' meeting was held at which Pave gave instructions as to the stewards' functions and duties. A few days later the shop stewards were given RWD authorization cards, which they distributed among the employees on working time and in clear view of supervisory personnel. While the witnesses did not state a specific date for this initial solicitation, other evidence establishes that it occurred on September 29. Employee June Rancourt testified that she joined RWD "the day they all sent around the cards, that the Stewards brought the cards around." Rancourt's card bears the date September 29. Employee Mildred Cole, who was one of the original shop stewards, credibly placed this solicitation as a few days after the meetings with Pave at the plant, which was probably around the middle of September and before the RWD meeting at the Eagles' Hall, which was held on October 3. Of the 319 RWD authorization cards in evidence, 127 are dated September 29, with only seven bearing an earlier date, the earliest being September 12. According to employee Cole's uncontradicted and credited testimony, at the October 3 meeting Pave again, told the employees that "the Union was in New York at the New York plant, and he called it a mother Union, and he said we had to accept it here whether we wanted it or not." Martin testified that late in September Pave telephoned, and, saying RWD had authorization cards from a majority of Hunter's North Adams employees, asked Martin to sit down with him and negotiate a contract. Other evidence fixes the date of this demand as September 29. Martin refused to bargain. In testifying, Martin did not say why he refused to bargain, nor did he indicate that he had given Pave any reason for his refusal. The RWD cards in evidence establish that on September 29, RWD held 134 cards. While there is no direct evidence of the size of the unit on September 29, it is undisputed that the appropriate unit consisted on 225 employees in the week ended October 7, and 244 the next week. The uncontradicted evidence further establishes that the North Adams operations had started about a year earlier on a much smaller scale and had grown consistently. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that on September 29 the unit was not more than 225 employees. Thus, the Examiner infers and finds that on September 29 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RWD held authorization cards executed by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. The General Counsel and Charging Party maintain that the ILG commenced organizational activity among Hunter's North Adams employees in August. However, the evidence establishes that such activity did not begin before October 1 . Stanley Gross, an organizer, was the only ILG representative who testified at the hearing. On direct examination , he said that the ILG campaign began in August . However, on cross-examination he testified as follows: Q. (By Mr. Fordham) Mr. Gross, when did you personally become involved in organizing this plant? A. I think it was October 1, 1967. Q. (By Mr. Fordham) Who was in charge of the organizational campaign for the ILG? A. John F. Albano [director]' for the - Q. What region? A. For the New England Organizing Area. Q. And so in that technical sense he is in charge of all organizing efforts in that area? A. Correct. Q. Who, subordinate to him , was really in charge? A. I was. Since Gross testified that his organizational activity among Hunter's employees began on October 1 and there was no evidence of any earlier activity by any other ILG representative, the Examiner discredits" Gross' initial statement that the campaign commenced in August and finds that it began on October 1. On the evening of October 3, RWD held a meeting at the Eagles' Hall in North Adams. Considerable dissension arose at that meeting , with ILG sympathizers injecting considerable doubt concerning the regularity of RWD's position. The next day, October 4, Martin held a meeting" of all employees . He said that he had heard about the discussion and dissension at the meeting the evening before and was disturbed about it . He said that he had never been in a "squeeze" between two unions and would not stand being placed in that position now; if such a "squeeze" developed, he would close the North Adams plant. In testifying at the hearing, he repeated this view, saying that it was "obvious" that he would be economically forced to close down if he were "squeezed" between rival unions. Continued questioning produced no further explanation or factual basis for Martin's "prediction" of the "obvious" result of interunion rivalry. At the October 4 meeting Martin told the employees that they did not have to join any union , notwithstanding anything to the contrary that might have been told them, presumably by RWD representatives . He also said that, while he did not want any union at the North Adams `The record is hereby corrected to add the word "director," which, though said by the witness , does not appear in the transcript John F. Albano is identified as "Dist Mgr. and Director of Organization" of ILG in the Board's affidavits of service of the formal documents "Gross generally impressed the Examiner as an unreliable witness For example, he testified that he thought ILG had made written request of Hunter for permission to hold meetings at the plant and that he thought he could produce a copy. However, ILG counsel there stated that no such letter of request had been sent, whereupon Gross agreed that he "would now recall there was no such request " "Martin insisted he did not conduct "meetings" with his employees or make "speeches" to him. He preferred the word "discussion" to "meeting" and "speech" In using the latter words, the Examiner disclaims any adverse connotation. plants, he much preferred RWD, as a decidedly "lesser evil" than ILG. He said that, having dealt with it in Long Island , he knew how RWD operated and he could manage to get along with it , while past experience had taught him that he could not deal with ILG.12 The Examiner credits the testimony by employees Belanger, Booth, Cole and June Rancourt that in the October 4 meeting Martin said that he would close the plants if ILG were to become the employees' representative. Indeed, Martin corroborated this testimony in major part. At the October 4 meeting, Martin also announced a no-solicitation and no -distribution rule. While the evidence is not clear or precise on all points, the Examiner finds that Martin prohibited distribution and solicitation on Company premises during working time." Martin and Pave agreed to go to arbitration. There is no direct evidence as to the date on which they agreed to arbitrate, the circumstances of the agreement, the date of the submission, or the date of the arbitral hearing. At the hearing, Martin professed that from the beginning he and his associate , a Mr. Weiss , had decided to "stall [Pave] to death." Martin's testimony also establishes that he rejected Pave's demand for recognition on September 29, and, in his words, "finally" agreed to arbitrate. Further, there is no suggestion that on October 4 he mentioned arbitration in his talk to the employees. The Examiner finds, therefore, that the agreement to arbitrate was reached after October 4, and thus after Hunter became aware that ILG had initiated an organizational campaign. Analysis of the record evidence further establishes that the matter was submitted to the arbitrator on October 23 or 24. This conclusion follows from the facts that in his decision the arbitrator recited that he had examined 209 authorization cards and the authorization cards in the present record contain 210 dated on or before October 23. The parties submitted to the arbitrator "the question of representation of the collective bargaining unit." The stipulation submitting to arbitration then provided that - the Arbitrator shall first determine whether such question of representation shall be decided on the basis of extension of the present Union agreement to the employees of the Employer employed at North Adams, Massachusetts; and that should the Arbitrator determine that such question of representation shall not be determined by extension of the present agreement, then the Arbitrator is hereby authorized to decide the question of whether or not the Union represents a majority of the employees [at North Adams] on the basis of a comparison of cards designating the Union as such representative as compared to payroll records or other employment records submitted by the Employer. On October 27 the arbitrator made his award. He first decided that the existing agreement between Hunter and RWD "does not extend to and apply to the North Adams factories." The decision then described the comparison of the signatures on the cards with employees' signatures appearing in Hunter's records . The award concluded: 2. A comparison of the cards designating the Union as collective bargaining representative with the official payroll records of the Employer, reveals that the Union represents 209 of the 261 employees in the Company's two factories in North Adams, Massachusetts. Me expressed the same opinion of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union "The complaint does not allege that the rule itself was invalid. HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 453 3. The Union is the majority representative of all production and maintenance employees excluding executives, supervisors, office and clerical employees, professional employees, watch men and guards, as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, of the Employer in its factories located in North Adams, Massachusetts. On October 27, the date of the arbitrator's award, Hunter recognized RWD. On November 4 Respondents, through Martin and Pave, executed a collective-bargaining agreement, containing inter alia union-shop and union dues checkoff provisions. In explanation of the apparent speed with which the agreement was signed, Martin testified: I tried to stall [Pave] even after the award, [10 ] but I couldn't. The mechanics had already been set up, we have a contract in Long Island City. Most of the meat of it had been taken, was taken from that, and the only thing left was the economics right after the award was signed. The only thing left open was the economic, moneys, holidays, everything else was in. * * * * .. If I may add, I still tried to stall it further. I didn't think we needed the union in North Adams. I didn't want one. Article 20 of the agreement, headed "Wage Scale," provides, in the future tense, for a 10-cent-per-hour wage increase effective October 1, and 10 cents per hour for piece workers effective October 23. The agreement, however, does not set forth any wage rates as such. The evidence clearly establishes that a general 10-cent raise, effective October 1, had been given before the union was recognized. The precise date on which that raise was announced and granted is not clearly shown. Further, the record does not show whether piece workers received the contractually provided raise of 10 cents effective October 23.13 ILG proceeded with its organizing campaign, apparently at first only through visits to the homes of employees. On or about November 8 the ILG held its first, and apparently only, meeting. This meeting was attended by about four or five employees specifically invited by the ILG representatives and those other employees whom they in turn invited. Madeline Serrano, RWD's chief shop steward, was seen sitting in an automobile apparently observing employees as they arrived at and entered the Phoenix Hotel, where the ILG meeting was held. Around the end of October, employee Cole, who had been named a shop steward at Pave's first meeting with the employees in September, resigned her position because, in her opinion, RWD was "crooked" and she "didn't want no part of it." However, she reconsidered and withdrew her resignation at the request of Simone, 'The record is hereby corrected to change the word "work" appearing therein to "award", which is the word actually used by the witness. "Pave had previously told the employees they would get (or at least the union would try to get them ) a 10-cent raise in October or November and an additional 10• or I5-cent increase in February 1968. The agreement provides for wage reopening on February 15, 1968, and reopening as to wages and working conditions on September 1, 1968, and 1969. who said that Martin "was very upset because there was Union trouble" and 'Jilt doesn't look very good" for a shop steward to resign after serving only about a month. Having resumed her position, Cole attended a meeting of shop stewards with Simone and Martin on November 14. Cole testified that at the meeting Martin said that employee Agnes Booth was going to be dismissed because she was passing out ILG cards. Martin, on the other hand, maintained that the reason for Booth' s dismissal was her having passed out any union cards, regardless of the identity of the union, on working time. Cole testified further that in a private conversation after the meeting Martin agreed to Cole's request that he reconsider and retain Booth if she signed an RWD card. Martin's testimony was that when Cole volunteered to have Booth sign an RWD card he replied, in effect, "Don't do me no favors"; all Martin wanted was a complete end to solicitation for any union on working time. Cole reported the events to Booth, who thereupon signed a card for RWD. Booth was not discharged. On all the evidence, together with careful observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the Examiner credits Cole's testimony and finds that the threatened discharge of Booth was based in substantial part on her support of ILG, rather than solely on her use of company time for the solicitation of union cards, and was averted by her joining RWD. Several employees credibly testified that throughout this period RWD shop stewards continued to solicit RWD cards in full view of supervisory personnel. And the evidence was contradicted that on at least one occasion there was a general solicitation of RWD checkoff authorizations during working time. Martin and Simone maintained that they strove valiantly, but in the main unsuccessfully, to put an end to all solicitation, for either union, on company time. According to them, whenever they complained to Pave about the RWD solicitation he countered by referring to the considerable solicitation that was being conducted on behalf of ILG. However, so far as the record shows, the only discipline or threat of discipline for prohibited solicitation was the Booth incident. Hunter produced no direct or specific evidence of any solicitation by ILG. On the contrary, Martin testified that he had not known that the ILG authorization cards were yellow until he learned that at the hearing. Since it was undisputed that the cards distributed in person by the ILG were yellow, i6 it is reasonable to assume that Simone and Martin would know that fact if there had been any substantial amount of overt solicitation by ILG.17 On November 13 Simone visited the Union Street plant. He entered angrily, turned off the power, and proceeded to berate the employees for the poor production resulting from union activity. He told them, in graphic terms, that the Company controlled their jobs; that if they were dissatisfied, they should leave; that the North Adams plants could be shut down on virtually no notice, with their work transferred to Hunter's other plants. Simone conceded the general accuracy of the employees' testimony on this matter. He testified that animosity between the RWD and ILG sympathizers had brought production to a virtual standstill. He turned off the power to dramatize to the employees that "Right now they have no jobs, they have no union , they have nothing, because if "ILG authorization cards distributed by mail were white "in view of Simone's testimony concerning the willingness of employees to "inform," and Martin's testimony that a shop steward had informed him of Booth's activity, Hunter presumably could have produced additional evidence of ILG solicitation had there been much 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I don't turn that power on every day, they've got nothing." While he testified that he could not specifically recall saying anything about closing the plant, he conceded that he "could have said it" because he "was mad enough to say anything at that moment." He acknowledged having said the work could be transferred to the Company's other plants in a matter of 20 or 30 minutes. He was "angry" and "in complete frustration" because the employees were not working yet "[n]ot one person came to [him] with a problem, not one, no problems." A few days later,10 Martin, accompanied by Simone, visited the Union Street plant and, according to all witnesses, including Martin himself, said to the employees substantially the same things he had said at the State Road plant on October 4. Employee Paula Bokowski testified that she asked Martin if there was a contract and if she could see it . According to her, Martin - said yes, there was a contract . "It's either in New York or brought up from New York, and there is no reason why you should see it. It's been signed . Take my word for it," or words to that effect. Although this meeting at the Union Street plant was held after the arbitrator's decision and subsequent recognition of RWD and execution of the North Adams collective-bargaining agreement , it does not appear that Martin or Simone (or anybody else) informed the employees of those events . On the contrary , Martin testified that at the Union Street meeting , in answer to questions, he specifically told the employees "you don't have to join the union , no one is going to lay you off." His failure to mention or acknowledge the union -security clause contained in the November 4 contract was highlighted when, on questioning by the Examiner , Martin testified as follows: Q. . . . You say you never told anybody that he'd be fired if he didn 't join the union , is that so? A. Absolutely, I wouldn't tell them that. Q. Not even after you signed a contract with the union? A. Not even after it was signed . As a matter of fact, I think I even violated that contract by not firing them or letting them go. Q. At the meeting in the middle of November, at the Union Street plant . . . . did you tell the employees then that they didn't have to join the union? A. I always repeated it, all the time. As a matter of fact, I tell them you don't have to, regardless of what they tell you. Employee Lucy Desmoreaux testified that early in October she was called into Simone's office and asked the identity of the ILG supporters." She was also asked if she had signed a union card , to which she replied in the negative. Around the middle of November Desmoreaux and Ed Kenyon, her superior, had an exchange of unpleasantries, whereupon she was sent to Simone 's office to see Simone and Martin . According to her, she was again asked the identity of the ILG supporters. On Simone's desk was a list of five employees ; Simone and Martin "wanted to know if there was more" ILG supporters. According to Simone and Martin, the list of ILG supporters had been provided by Pave on his own motion . They denied that they had asked Desmoreaux "Employee Bokowski dated this event as the day after the ILG meeting, which was held on November 8. Other evidence, however. establishes the correct date as on or about November 16. about additional ILG supporters, maintaining, instead, that Desmoreaux volunteered to supply the information to prevent her discharge, which had been requested by Kenyon. The Kenyon matter was resolved by mutual apologies between Kenyon and Desmoreaux and the latter's transfer to the Union Street plant. Martin testified that he transferred Desmoreaux rather than firing her because she was a good worker and he "didn't want a good employee that could become an agitator out in the street for any other activity." On all the evidence, the Examiner credits Desmoreaux's testimony concerning the two occasions on which she was questioned concerning the identity of the ILG adherents. On November 16, Gross and Joe Amadio, another ILG organizer, distributed leaflets near the State Road plant as employees were leaving at closing time . Simone, who was sitting in an automobile outside the plant, got out of the car and hit Amadio in the shoulder while grabbing the leaflets Amadio was holding. Gross approached Simone, who then said that the leaflet was "a lie" in quoting Simone as having told the employees that they "have no union." Simone remained at the site for a short while, during which he told passing employees not to take the proffered pamphlets. Employee Belanger saw the ILG pamphlets on Simone 's desk the next day, at which time Simone referred to his "trouble" with ILG. In view of this circumstantial corroboration and the absence of any contradiction by Simone or any other witness, the Examiner credits Gross' testimony concerning this event, even though he was unreliable in other portions of his testimony. On November 14, employee Belanger was laid off. When, on November 17, she asked why she had been chosen for layoff, Simone indicated that the selection was made on the basis of seniority. Belanger expressed the opinion that she was chosen because she refused to join RWD, whereupon, according to her, Simone asked her why she would not join. When she made a slightly veiled threat to call on ILG to secure for her the layoff slip she had not been given, Simone said, "Please don't do this. I've had trouble with the Union outside yesterday," and pointed to a stack of ILG handbills on his desk. That afternoon Belanger spoke to shop steward Sady Hurlburt,2° who said she was sure Belanger would be back at work forthwith if she signed a union card . 21 Belanger signed a card the next day, Saturday, November 18, and went back to work on Monday. Around November 14 the following notice appeared on the Company's bulletin boards: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23RD IS A PAID UNION HOLIDAY. ALL UNION MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A DAYS PAY PROVIDED THEY WORK THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY AFTER.... Simone testified that the wording of that notice was a mistake made by the typist, whom he had simply told to prepare a notice of the holiday with no specific instructions. Martin and Simone testified that the "Although the record does not disclose her answer , Desmoreaux testified that she replied that she did not know . The record is hereby corrected as follows: p. 117. I. 23 corrected to read "A. I said I didn't know." "Hurlburt had become a supervisor by the time of the hearing. "Belanger also testified that Hurlburt said she had called Belanger at Simone's request. Because of the hearsay nature of this testimony, the Examiner bases no finding on it, despite the absence of any specific objection. However, it may be noted that Simone did not deny that he had asked Hurlburt to call Belanger and Hurlburt, though a supervisor in Hunter's employ at the time of the hearing , was not called as a witness. HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 455 inadvertent error was discovered within a short time after the notice was posted and that it was soon taken down and replaced by a revised notice announcing the paid holiday for all employees. The typist who allegedly made the "inadvertent error" was not produced to testify; nor was her absence explained. Martin testified that "We always put up a holiday notice. . . like Christmas you have to work the day before and the day after. You have to explain what date because it's a Friday so you have to work Thursday and Monday." If the preparation and posting of such notices was so routine as to be delegable to a typist without specific instructions, it is difficult to imagine an explanation for her having "inadvertently" drafted the original notice carefully limiting the paid holiday to union members. The Examiner also finds significant Hunter's failure to retain a copy of the alleged corrected notice, particularly in view of the Company's painful awareness of the raging rivalry between RWD and ILG. A handbill distributed by ILG on or about November 21 reads in part: On Tuesday, November 14, 1967, a notice, put out by the Company, stated that only Union members would receive the Thanksgiving Holiday Pay. The I.L.G.W.U. then put out a leaflet informing you that everyone who is eligible for holiday pay must receive it. When the Company realized that a real Union was around, they changed their minds. In addition, employee Joanne Shook credibly testified that at the November 16 meeting at the Union Street plant, Martin "said we had to - - - belong to the Union in order to get paid for" Thanksgiving Day. On all the evidence, including observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the Examiner discredits Hunter's explanation and fords that the original notice was advertently and intentionally drafted to announce a paid Thanksgiving holiday only for RWD members. It was also around the middle of November that Hunter instituted a series of raffles for TV sets in an attempt to improve employees' attendance." Martin testified that the raffle plan was suggested by Pave in response to Martin 's complaint concerning absenteeism." According to employee Shook, at the Union Street meeting on November 16 Martin announced the TV raffle 'program as being open only to union members. Employee Cole, who, as previously noted , served as a shop steward for RWD, testified as follows concerning certain authorization cards she secured sometime in November: Those three people wouldn't sign a card until they offered to give a television, saying for anyone who belonged to the Union. That's why they signed, to be eligible for the television. There was also considerable credited testimony that on various occasions Pave and several of the shop stewards informed employees that raises, holiday pay and other benefits, including the TV raffles, would be granted only to RWD members. "Each week one name would be drawn from those of employees who had worked a full 40 hours the prior week . The winner would receive a black-and-white television set. Around Christmas, there would be a drawing for a color television act among employees who had worked 40 hours in each of the intervening weeks. "Martin also testified that he refused Pave's request that the raffles be conducted as a joint activity of RWD and Hunter. Martin 's testimony in this connection was: "[Pave ] wanted to make [it] a joint company and union effort, that he would split the bill down the middle , 80 percent us and 20 percent him, I don 't know how that's down the middle." On November 17 ILG filed its first charge against Hunter, alleging unfair labor practices on six dates between August 23 and November 16. On November 21, ILG filed a representation petition, which is still pending, and its first charge against Local 29 on November 21, alleging a violation on or about August 23. Amended charges were filed against both Hunter and Local 29 on various dates through January 12, 1968. On January 18, 1968, ILG demanded recognition as bargaining representative of Hunter's North Adams employees. This constituted the first communication between ILG and Hunter. With decreasing frequency, Simone met with RWD's shop stewards for an undisclosed period of time. 14 In addition, apparently for about 3 months, RWD dues were checked off. Other than these two matters, no effect appears to have been given to the recognition of RWD or to the collective-bargaining agreement. It does not appear that the employees were informed of the execution of the November 4 contract and copies of neither the New York nor the North Adams agreement have been made available to them. As previously noted, Hunter has ignored the union-security clause, apparently without comment or objection by RWD. In mid-November, Martin and Simone unequivocally informed the employees that the company was in complete and unfettered control, without even a nod to the provisions of the agreement, including the grievance provision." Since then Hunter has transferred work and machinery from North Adams to Long Island City, with a smaller amount being moved in the opposite direction. Martin also said that some nongovernment work is being transferred from North Adams to the Philadelphia plant because of the production difficulty caused by absenteeism in North Adams. At the hearing, in April 1968, Martin testified that the movement of machinery would continue "until we put the bulk of machinery back into Long Island City." It is anticipated that the State Road plant will be closed within the relatively near future and that within about a year the North Adams plant will operate economically on its own nongovernment work, without work transferred from New York. At no time has Hunter discussed the movement of work, machinery and some personnel between North Adams and Long Island with RWD. On the contrary, Martin testified that Hunter "can't afford to" discuss the matter with the union. He then volunteered that "When [Pave] calls, I deny half of it." Further, despite the ostensible recognition of RWD and the collective-bargaining agreement, Martin maintained that in February 1968, after ILG had demanded recognition, he invited ILG representatives to visit the plant to check their authorization cards against the "In the course of his testimony concerning the Booth incident in November, Martin said : "There was a meeting, this was a meeting of shop stewards, which either Mr. Simone either gathered up once a week or set up a tentative discussion once a week , then it was supposed to have been every two weeks, then once a month, of shop stewards with the complaints .. rather than every five minutes get involved in some kind of grievance, there were fantastic amounts of complaints ...." "For example, on cross-examination Simone testified as follows concerning his talk to the Union Street employees around November 13: Q. ... Did you tell the people that you could move them around from one machine to the other whenever you wanted? A. Yes, and I can. Q. And you told them that you had plants in New York and Philadelphia and you could send the work there? A. Yes, and if they hadn't gone back to work, I'd have done it...: . 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company's records. He testified that on April 23, 1968, in the hearing room, he again invited an ILG representative to come to the Company and "put their cards on the table" if ILG thought it represented a majority of the employees. Such invitations, of course, would be inconsistent with Hunter's recognition of RWD and its insistence "upon the validity of the Agreement,"" which purportedly does not expire until November 4, 1970. B. Discussion and Conclusions 1. Recognition and execution of agreement Although the complaint alleges numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), the major matter at issue is the status of the collective- bargaining agreement signed on November 4. Succinctly put, Hunter' s aim is to retain that agreement as a bar to any attempt by ILG (or any other union) to represent Hunter's employees.27 Hunter is in the paradoxical position of claiming the benefits of a contract which the union attempted to renounce and to which Hunter itself has not given even token enforcement except for checking of some union dues. Perhaps even more anomalous is the fact that Hunter can lay a colorable claim to the protection of the November 4 agreement only by establishing, in effect, that Hunter violated Section 8(a)(5). Its argument is that it was legally obligated to recognize and bargain with RWD on September 29, when RWD acquired representative status and made its demand. That being so, the argument proceeds, the subsequent recognition and execution of a contract were not only permissible but mandatory, even if belated :e The minor premise of Hunter's syllogism, namely that RWD was the authorized bargaining representative of the unit employees, will now be examined. At the outset, as stated in the order of July 16, 1968, the Examiner rejects Hunter's contention that the arbitrator's decision conclusively establishes RWD's status as the statutory representative of the unit employees. That decision clearly shows that the arbitrator was not empowered to and did not look into the circumstances under which the cards were solicited and signed; as prescribed by the stipulation of submission, he limited his investigation to comparison of the signatures on the cards with employees' signatures in Hunter's records. Further the arbitrator did not consider whether any of the cards "In opposition to approval of the settlement agreement of RWD and the General Counsel , Hunter's brief says- "[Hunter] is now bound by the Agreement with [RWD ] and it intends to continue to comply with Agreement . To approve withdrawal by one party to the Agreement prior to the conclusion of litigation and while the other party continues to insist upon the validity of the Agreement, is to make a shambles out of the collective- bargain mg process." "At the hearing , Hunter's counsel said on the record . "We are prepared to settle the 8(axl) charges 100 percent, but we feel it 's imperative in the best interests of the Company to fight to retain the contract that we have negotiated, to fight to defend against the 8(ax2) and 8(aX3) charges " "Hunter's brief states the argument as follows " . in September 1967, at the time of the request to bargain , Respondent was obligated in accordance with Board law to bargain with [RWD]. Indeed , once a neutral third party had reaffirmed this obligation, Respondent could not have demanded a secret-ballot election, nor contended that the ILG had entered the scene and created a question concerning representation For the General Counsel to now allege that recognition of. negotiation with, and subsequent execution of an agreement with this Union violates the Act and files in the face of Board precedent . Respondent was bound to do what it did, and to now allege otherwise is to make Board precedent meaningless to any employer that attempts to comply with the Act " were not to be counted because the signer had also executed an ILG card. Employee Desmoreaux, whose RWD card is dated October 13, testified that she also signed an ILG card.:9 Since the arbitrator thus did not pass on the crucial question presented in the instant proceeding, his conclusion is not binding, or even persuasive, here.30 Cf. Intalco-Aluminum Corp., 169 NLRB No. 136. The evidence reviewed above indisputably establishes, and the Examiner finds, that RWD never represented an uncoerced majority of the unit employees. All the cards were signed after Pave, RWD's president, had informed the employees that, whether they liked it or not, they were represented by RWD and covered by the contract then outstanding at the New York plants, which contract contained a "closed shop" provision requiring them to join the union within 30 days or lose their jobs. It would be difficult to imagine a more threatening and coercive representation made in course of soliciting union authorizations. It would be unthinkable to hold that union cards signed under such circumstances reliably reflected the employees' free choice. RWD's statements were made to all the employees and its coercive conduct was pervasive throughout the plant. Cf. Jan Power Inc.; Maintenance Service, 173 NLRB No. 120. The Examiner holds that RWD's representations to the employees in September were violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A). RWD membership and authorization cards signed on the basis of such statements cannot be relied upon to establish representative status. Acceptance of recognition and execution of a union-security agreement accordingly were violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). Since RWD did not represent an uncoerced majority of Hunter's employees at any time," Hunter's recognition of RWD and execution of a union security agreement were violative of Sections 8(a)(1), (2), and (3), regardless of the nature and quality of Hunter's own conduct. I.L.G.W.U. (Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.) v. N.L R.B., 366 U.S. 731. See also Department Store Food Corp. of Penna., 172 NLRB No. 129, (TXD), Allied Supermarkets, Inc, 169 NLRB No. 135, N.L.R.B. v. Williams, 396 F.2d 247 (C.A. 7). The legal underpinning of this holding is set out in the Examiner's order of July 16, 1968, attached hereto, and will not be repeated here. "In view of the fact that the ILG campaign did not begin until October 1, none of the cards establishing RWD's numerical majority on September 29 could be discounted for this reason "Hunter does not contend that the unit here involved is an accretion to that covered by the Long Island contract, and could not so argue consistently with its position that the arbitrator's award is binding Thus, it is unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel' s contention that the arbitrator's decision on the accretion issue is conclusive here . If necessary, the Examiner would hold that the arbitral decision was not conclusive on that question The Horn & Hardart Co., 173 NLRB No 164, Patterson-Sargent Div of Textron, 173 NLRB No. 203 Had RWD chosen to urge its "accretion " claim in defense to the present complaint the Examiner would hold, in agreement with the arbitrator , that Hunter's North Adams employees are not covered by the contract previously executed in New York Cf. International Paper Co, 171 NLRB No. 89; Sunset House, 167 NLRB No 132. "This conclusion renders academic the question of RWD's numerical majority and the subsidiary question whether the authorization cards placed in evidence by Hunter were sufficient to establish RWD's numerical strength. If the questions were still involved, the Examiner would hold that, since the burden of proof was on the General Counsel to establish the absence of an uncoerced majority, the introduction by Hunter of cards received by RWD in the course of the campaign and regular on their faces was sufficient to place on the General Counsel the burden of going forward with evidence to invalidate the cards This ruling finds additional support in the offer by Hunter's counsel to permit the inspection of Hunter's HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 457 Suffice it to say here that finding Hunter derivatively guilty of unfair labor practices is not equivalent to and does not entail ascribing to Hunter the conduct of RWD's representatives. As will be seen below, the complaint does not allege and the Examiner does not find that Hunter is responsible for any of the conduct of RWD's agents. Similarly, while there may be grounds for suspicion, the complaint does not allege and the Examiner does not find any "conspiracy" or "concert of action" between the Respondents. It is Hunter's own conduct in recognizing and contracting with RWD which constituted Hunter's unfair labor practices. The law places on employers an obligation to deal only with representatives freely chosen by the employees. Hunter proceeded at its own risk when it accepted the arbitrator's award without having empowered the arbitrator to Icok into the circumstances surrounding the execution of the cards.': At the hearing and in posthearing motions Hunter objected to the Examiner's consideration of evidence against RWD in deciding the complaint against Hunter. In the order of July 16, 1968, the Examiner rejected Hunter's position and set forth the reasons therefor. To supplement the discussion in that order, reference is here made to the Board's decision in Crown Discount Department Stores, 172 NLRB No. 89. In that case the respondent union objected to consideration of conversations between management and employees as evidence against the union. The Examiner overruled the objections and the Board affirmed all the Examiner's rulings. While the Examiner apparently based his ruling on a finding that the union and the employer were acting in concert, the Board did not accept that rationale, expressly saying: "We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding" that the "Respondents had some prior understanding about, or had prearranged, the Union's organizing campaign." Additional comments appear to be in order concerning Hunter's contention that, with RWD having waived its right to present evidence in its defense, Hunter should now be allowed to present a defense to the allegations against RWD because of Hunter's potential derivative liability. First, it may be noted that Hunter was afforded and availed itself of the opportunity to cross-examine all of the General Counsel's witnesses. At the hearing the Examiner made clear that Pave was subject to subpoena, but Hunter chose not to request a subpoena when the parties agreed that Hunter could introduce the RWD authorization cards without having Pave present to identify them. It cannot be denied, however, that Hunter reasonably came to the hearing not fully prepared to defend against the portions of the complaint alleging misconduct by RWD. Hunter quite reasonably left that defense to RWD. It is also true that, at least theoretically, Hunter might records by the General Counsel and to make available for testimony any employees as to the authenticity of whose cards the General Counsel had any doubt or question . In addition, it is unnecessary to decide whether the arbitrator's decision is conclusive as to RWD's numerical strength. It should be noted, however, that the employees here involved were not represented in the arbitral proceeding , which was held for the purpose of determining whom they chose to have as their collective-bargaining representative . Finally, it is not necessary to decide whether , as Hunter contends, an uncoerced majority on September 29 would warrant recognition a month later without regard to intervening events. Cf. Sound Contractors Assn., 162 NLRB No. 45. "The Examiner cannot resist speculating as to what Hunter's position and course of conduct would have been if ILG had not come on the scene and RWD had initiated a refusal-to-bargain proceeding under Section 8(ax5). conceivably have been able to secure evidence contradicting and refuting that of the General Counsel. It may be noted, however, that RWD was unsuccessful in its defense to the preliminary injunction action under Section 10(j). Kowal v. Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc, 286 F.Supp. 373 (D. Mass.). Early in the present hearing, Hunter moved that the record in the injunction trial be introduced as evidence in the present case. Hunter's motion for leave to defend RWD is only as an "alternative" to RWD's presenting its own defense. Hunter manifestly was willing to rely on RWD's defense if it presented one. And Hunter has not alleged, or even suggested that RWD's decision not to present evidence was improperly motivated. Absent an allegation and some showing of reasonable cause to believe that RWD's waiver of the right to present evidence was improperly motivated, it must be presumed that it was the result of the honest exercise of judgment by counsel. Since, as previously indicated, Hunter was leaving the defense of RWD to the judgment of RWD's counsel, there is no reason to permit further litigation by Hunter because it apparently now questions the judgment of RWD's counsel. More basically, however, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to place Hunter, the employer, in a position where, through litigation, it might foist upon the employees as their representative a reluctant union, which virtually admits it never attained majority status or deny the employees the right to choose a representative. Since execution of the collective-bargaining agreement was violative of the Act, Respondents also committed unfair labor practices in effectuating union dues checkoffs. Newport Window Cleaning Co., 170 NLRB No. 131, TXD. In addition to alleging the improper checkoff of RWD dues, the complaint alleges generally that Hunter violated the Act by "maintaining and administering a collective-bargaining agreement, containing union security provisions." Although the evidence heretofore summarized discloses that the collective-bargaining agreement, including the union security provision, was almost completely ignored by the parties, Hunter did "maintain" it as a potential contract bar should ILG at some time press its claim to representative status. Nonenforcement of the contract does not preclude an appropriate finding and remedial order. Crown Discount Department Stores, 172 NLRB No. 89. 2. Additional alleged violations by Hunter The General Counsel contends that Hunter unlawfully assisted RWD in September by letting Pave address the employees on working time, permitting a notice of the RWD meeting to be posted on Company premises, and allowing RWD shop stewards to solicit memberships on working time. The Examiner has hitherto found, contrary to the view of the General Counsel and the Charging Party, that the ILG campaign did not begin until October 1, after the events here under discussion. The evidence shows that, at least until ILG appeared on the scene, Hunter's major goal was to prevent any unionization by its North Adams employees. Hunter's accommodation to Pave's demands was reluctant, dictated by Pave's threats to prevent further transfers of work and equipment out of Long Island. Neither Martin nor Simone took any affirmative action to foster support for RWD. On the contrary, he made clear 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his personal opposition to having RWD or any other union at the North Adams plant. Under the circumstances, particularly the absence of organizational activity by any other union, the Examiner believes that Hunter's conduct through the end of September constituted permissible cooperation with RWD within the principles enunciated in Jolog Sportswear, Inc., 128 NLRB 886, 888-889, affd. sub nom. Kimbrell v. N.L.R.B. 290 F.2d 799 (C.A. 4). See also, e.g., Coamo Knitting Mills. Inc.. 150 NLRB 579, 581-582; Evans Supermarkets, Inc., 171 NLRB No. 193 (TXD); Mace Food Stores Inc., 167 NLRB No. 60 (TXD). Accordingly, the Examiner will recommend dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8(aX2) and (3) in September." Hunter's goal and conduct changed rapidly and radically when the ILG launched its campaign. Commencing on October 4, the morning after ILG supporters became vocal at the RWD meeting," Martin and Simone met with all the employees and made clear Hunter's strong preference for RWD over ILG or any other union . Thereafter they frequently repeated this theme. In its brief, Hunter concedes that, "Obviously, [Hunter] preferred [RWD] in order to keep the Government work flowing smoothly from Long Island City to North Adams and ultimately, in order to keep the North Adams plants from closing." Martin's expressions of preference went considerably further, including unqualified threats to close the North Adams plants and give the keys to ILG if it became the employees' bargaining agent . Whatever fears Martin may have had of interunion rivalry, Hunter was legally required to maintain strict neutrality as between the rivals. See N.L.R.B. v. Keller Ladders Southern, Inc., 405 F.2d 663 (C.A. 5); Hughes & Hatcher, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 393 F.2d 557 (C.A. 6). Hunter's fears of possible RWD reprisals or other adverse economic effects of organizational activity by ILG do not warrant restriction of the employees' statutorily protected freedom of choice. See Global Automotive Enterprises, 172 NLRB No. 69 (TXD). As stated above, the no-solicitation and no-distribution rule was orally announced at the October 4 meeting, which was called as a direct response to the commencement of ILG activity. On all the evidence, the Examiner finds, as alleged in the complaint, that the rule "Although Pave had previously stated his position to Martin that the New York contract automatically applied to the North Adams plant and had threatened Martin with preventing the transfer of work from Long Island City to North Adams, the Examiner believes that, on the present record, Martin cannot be charged with constructive knowledge that Pave would present such views to the employees with the appearance of indisputable fact or as threats. Pave's requesting an opportunity to speak to the employees would tend to indicate his abandonment of a claim to automatic recognition and his intention to attempt to organize the North Adams employees by conventional means. "Simone testified emphatically concerning his prompt knowledge of all union activity. He said: I have four hundred people or so working and 395 of them are informers ... Q. (By Mr. Kelleher) Did some of the informers inform you about ILG union activity? A. Yes, they told me there was going to be a meeting . Then they'd tell me they're going to tell me who's in the meeting . Then of course I get it the other way, too. Q. And in addition to telling you that there was going to be a meeting, did you sometimes hear on the day following that there had been a meeting the previous night? A. Yes, word for word anything that happened , which, by the way. I file in the wastebasket." was promulgated "under circumstances designed to convey the impression that such rule would be applied only to the activities of the I.L.G.W.U. and not to the activities of Respondent R.W.D.S.U." Further, the evidence establishes that the rule was discriminatorily enforced against ILG. Booth, for example, was singled out and threatened with discharge, not for violation of the rule as such, but specifically for solicitation on behalf of ILG. Cf. United States Railway Equipment Co., 172 NLRB No. 51, (TXD). This discriminatory application of the rule was violative of Section 8(a)(2) and (1). H & F Binch Co., 168 NLRB No. 128 (TXD); Spartan-Atlantic Dept. Stores, 169 NLRB No. 47 (TXD), enfd. sub nom. Spartans Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 406 F. 2d 1002 (C.A. 5). Similarly, the initial announcements that Thanksgiving Day pay, the TV raffles, general wage increases, and improved benefits would be limited to RWD members were violative of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) even though such benefits were thereafter granted to all employees. The threats to close the plants if the employees chose to be represented by the ILG also were violative of Section 8(a)(2) and (1). Newport Window Cleaning Co., 170 NLRB No. 131 (TXD); Tuscarora Plastics Co., 167 NLRB No. 154 (TXD); Crown Discount Department Stores, supra, 172 NLRB No. 89. Martin's statements in this connection could not qualify as mere "predictions" of "demonstrable 'economic consequences."' N.L.R.B. v. The Sinclair Co., 397 F.2d 157 (C.A. 1); Global Automotive Enterprises, supra, 172 NLRB No. 69 (TXD). And Simone's statements that dissatisfied employees could leave and work elsewhere was violative of Section 8(a)(l). Mel Croan Motors, Inc., 163 NLRB No. 77, enfd. in pertinent part 395 F.2d 154 (C.A. 5). The Examiner also finds that Hunter, through vice president Martin coercively interrogated employee Desmoreaux concerning employees' sympathies for ILG and concerning Desmoreaux's reasons for refusing to sign an RWD card in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2). See Crown Discount Department Stores, supra (TXD). Hunter also unlawfully created the impression of surveillance in conspicuously displaying a list of supposed ILG partisans. Further, Simone's undenied assault on an ILG organizer, his confiscation of ILG leaflets, and his conduct in telling employees not to take any ILG leaflets were violative of Section 8(a)(1). That a criminal charge against Simone because of this incident was dismissed is not decisive in the instant proceeding. The relevant provisions of local criminal law are not shown in the present record. Nor are details concerning the criminal proceeding set forth. It does appear, however, that the dismissal was based on the absence of proof of a battery, with the criminal complaint alleging assault and battery. Additionally, of course, the standard of proof is considerably more stringent in a criminal proceeding than in an unfair labor proceeding. Finally, conduct short of criminal assault directed against a union organizer in the presence of employees may well interfere with the employees' Section 7 rights. Related to Simone's assault on Gross, and clearly violative of Section 8(a)(1), was Simone's telling employees not to take the ILG pamphlets which were being distributed at the time. Marlene Industries Corp., 166 No. 58, enfd. in major part sub nom. Decaturville Sportswear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 406 F.2d 886 (C.A. 6). Hunter also violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) when Martin persuaded employee Cole not to resign as shop steward for RWD. The union activities of employees are no legitimate concern of the employer. Hydraulic HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 459 Accessories Co., 165 NLRB No. 130 (TXD); Lever Brothers Co., 163 NLRB No. 29. The complaint also alleges that the wage increase effective October l was violative of the Act because granted "under circumstances designed to instill in the minds of its employees the belief that the wage increase was attributable to the efforts of Respondent RWDSU and not to the rival ILGWU." The Examiner holds that the General Counsel has failed to prove this allegation. There is no evidence concerning the date on which or the circumstances under which the raise was announced. Although Pave had said in his September meeting that there would be a 10-cent raise in October , there was no evidence that Hunter was privy to this statement . Nor was this deficiency remedied by the inclusion of a provision for that increase in the collective-bargaining agreement later executed . So far as appears, the increase may well have been decided upon and even announced before ILG came into the picture . Even if, as seems likely, the increase was parallel to one provided in the New York agreement, it would not follow that Hunter gave RWD credit therefor in announcing it to the North Adams employees. And there was no affirmative evidence to that effect. 3. Additional alleged violations by RWD It has hitherto been found that Pave, RWD's president, threatened and coerced the unit employees by representing that they were covered by the union-security provision of the New York contract and thus had to join RWD within 30 days or lose their jobs. As already held, such conduct was in contravention of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The record further discloses that RWD shop stewards solicited both membership and checkoff cards by threats. For example, employees Gaylord , Shook, and Bokowski testified that shop steward Irene Stachura told them that they would be fired and/or would be deprived of raises and paid holidays if they did not join the union within 30 days. Shook attributed similar statements to chief shop steward Madeline Serrano . According to Bokowski, in answer to a specific question Serrano said she did not think the employees would be dismissed if they did not join the union within 30 days but that they would be denied raises and paid holidays unless they joined within 60 days. Employee Shook testified that she was told by shop steward Carol Barbo that employees would be denied raises and paid holidays if they did not sign dues-checkoff cards. Both Stachura and Serrano were quoted as having informed employees, in line with similar statements made by Pave and Martin , that there was an existing contract which had been voted on and signed in New York and then brought to North Adams. As outlined above , then shop steward (now supervisor) Hurlburt had employee Belanger sign an RWD card on the representation , which proved accurate, that Belanger would forthwith be recalled from her layoff status. And Cole, in her capacity as shop steward , had Booth sign an RWD card as a means of averting dismissal. Employee Booth testified that on December 7 all the shop stewards solicited dues checkoff cards while the employees were working . In soliciting Shook 's checkoff card, shop steward Cyrella Gertezen said she was required to wait at Shook 's machine until she received the executed card . Employee June Rancourt generally corroborated the solicitation of checkoff cards by all the shop stewards at the machines on one occasion, but she was less precise about the date than Booth was. The shop stewards' statements were clearly coercive and thus violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Crown Discount Department Stores, supra, 172 NLRB No. 89. The Union, of course, is responsible for the conduct of the stewards. See Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Morin Erection Co.), 168 NLRB No. 1 (TXD), fn. 4: "It is well established by the Board and the courts that a union is responsible under the Act for the unlawful conduct of a job steward acting within his general scope of authority." The General Counsel also maintains that RWD violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when Serrano sat in front of the Phoenix Hotel while employees were arriving to attend the ILG meeting on November 8. Gaylord also quoted Stachura as having said she knew what employees were trying to bring the ILG into the plant. The General Counsel, however, cites no authority for his contention that this "surveillance" by union representatives violates Section 8(b), nor has the Examiner's independent research adduced any such authority. In the absence of evidence that Serrano and Stactura, as union representatives, were acting at the request of or under agreement with Hunter and would inform Hunter of the identity of the employees supporting the ILG,36 it is the Examiner's opinion that Serrano's and Stachura's observational activities were not improper. Rival unions would have legitimate interest in the sources of each other's support. Absent a concert of action between RWD and Hunter, there is no apparent way that Serrano could use her knowledge to the detriment of the employees and no reason to suppose that employees would be "restrained" by the "spying" of fellow employees supporting a rival union. In short, independent "surveillance" by a union, without employer complicity, does not appear to be violative of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Since on or about October 4, 1967, Respondent Hunter has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) by discriminatorily promulgating and thereafter applying a no-solicitation and no-distribution rule against organizational activities on behalf of ILG while permitting such activity on behalf of Respondent RWD; by persuading an employee to retain her position as a union shop steward; by threatening employees with deprivation of wage increases, holiday pay and other benefits if they did not join RWD; interrogating an employee concerning employee activity on behalf of ILG and concerning her refusal to join RWD; and by recognizing RWD as collective-bargaining representative on October 27, 1967, when RWD did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. 2. Since on or about November 4, 1967, Respondent Hunter has committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) by signing and maintaining a collective bargaining agreement , containing a union security provision, with RWD, which did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate unit; and in checking off RWD dues when RWD did not represent an uncoerced majority of the unit employees and the employees had not given uncoerced authorization therefor. "Again, there may be reason to suspect that Serrano and Stachura would inform Hunter' s management, just as Pave had provided Hunter with a list of leading ILG supporters. However, such suspicion does not rise to the level of proof. 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Since on or about October 4, 1967, Respondent Hunter has committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) by threatening closure of Hunter's North Adams plants if the employees chose to be represented by ILG; by interrogating employees concerning employee activities on behalf of ILG; by keeping employees' union activities under surveillance and creating among the employees the impression of such surveillance; by telling employees not to accept ILG literature; and by physically assaulting an ILG representative in view of employees. 4. Since around the middle of September 1967 Respondent RWD has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1) (A) by threatening to prevent work from reaching the North Adams plants of Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., if the employees did not choose to be represented by RWD; by informing the employees that they were already represented by RWD and covered by a collective-bargaining agreement which required them to join RWD within 30 days or be discharged; by threatening employees with loss of wage increases, holiday pay and other benefits if they did not join RWD; and by promising reinstatement to a laid-off employee if she joined RWD. 5. Since on or about October 27, 1967, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1) (A) by accepting recognition by Respondent Hunter as collective-bargaining representative of Hunter's production and maintenance employees in North Adams, Massachusetts, on October 27, when RWD did not represent an uncoerced majority of such employees; and by executing a collective bargaining agreement with Hunter on November 4, 1967, and thereafter maintaining said agreement and receiving dues payments unlawfully deducted by Hunter pursuant to that agreement. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The record fails to establish that Respondents have engaged in any unfair labor practices other than those found above. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents engaged in widespread unfair labor practices for the ultimate purpose of preventing Hunter's North Adams employees from making a free choice of a collective bargaining agent, the Examiner will recommend broad cease-and-desist orders and affirmative provisions customary in cases like the present, in which employers recognize and execute collective bargaining agreements with unions which do not represent uncoerced majorities of the unit employees. The General Counsel and the Charging Party also contend that the orders should contain special remedial provisions adapted from such Board orders as J. P. Stevens & Co., 157 NLRB 869; idem., 163 NLRB No. 24; H. W. Elson Bottling Co., 155 NLRB 714, modified 379 F.2d 223 (C.A. 6); Scott's Inc., 159 NLRB 1795; Marlene Industries, 166 NLRB No. 58; and Garwin Corp., 169 NLRB No. 154. The Examiner agrees that to some extent special remedial provisions are appropriate in the present case. Because the record shows that Martin personally spoke to the employees with a conscious effort on his part to maintain a personal relationship with them and that he signed the collective-bargaining agreement, the Examiner believes that effectuation of the policies of the Act requires that Martin personally inform the employees of the requirements of the Act and of Hunter's intention to comply therewith. In addition, because of the separation of the plants here involved from Hunter's home office and the Long Island plants at which RWD has a collective- bargaining agreement, it is essential that the North Adams employees be assured that the top management of Respondent Company, not merely the North Adams management, acknowledge the requirements of the order. For these reasons, the Examiner will recommend that Martin be required to sign the notice on behalf of the Company and personally read the notice to the North Adams employees. For similar reasons, the Examiner will recommend that the RWD notice be signed by Joel Pave, president. Further, since Respondent Company first introduced Pave to the North Adams employees and told them of RWD's status as collective- bargaining representative at the Long Island plants and actively assisted RWD after ILG started its organizing campaign , it appears appropriate to require that Martin advise the North Adams employees that RWD has been subjected to requirements similar and complementary to Hunter's. Similarly, so that all employees, including those who for some reason may be unable to attend the meeting or meetings at the plants, may be fully informed, copies of both notices should be sent to each employee. The Examiner believes that the two notices should be sent together so as to provide a unified picture. Further, to require RWD to mail copies of its notice directly to the employees would entail RWD's being given a list of employees' names and addresses, which the Examiner believes should not be required at this time. The Examiner, however, recommends rejection of requests by the General Counsel and Charging Party for additional special remedies. Most of those requests would afford ILG considerable assistance in organizing Hunter's North Adams employees. It should be borne in mind that RWD had secured a numerical majority, though coerced, before the ILG campaign began . Although it was fully informed concerning RWD's and Hunter's conduct, ILG never asked Hunter for an opportunity to address the employees on Company premises, for access to Company bulletin boards, parking lots, etc., or for a list of names and addresses of employees. ILG's representation petition, filed on November 21, 1967, is still pending and its January 18, 1968, demand for recognition and bargaining presumably continues. On the facts in this case, it is the Examiner's opinion that great care should be taken to avoid remedying past advantage to RWD by now favoring ILG unduly. The Recommended Order will, to the greatest extent possible, eliminate inequality of opportunity between the unions and leave the employees free to make a choice based on conventional and lawful methods of campaigning. The Examiner sees no reason for requiring Hunter to post notices at locations other than North Adams. Nothing in the record suggests that RWD is not properly recognized at the Long Island plants or that the Philadelphia and Connecticut plants are in any manner involved in the present situation. To require posting of notices at these other plants would, in the Examiner's opinion, constitute gratuitous disparagement of RWD and advantage to ILG. HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 461 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is ordered that: 1. Respondent Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: a. Cease and desist from: (1) Encouraging membership in Local 29, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees at North Adams, Massachusetts, under threat of discharge or of any discrimination in regard to hire or tenure or any-term or condition or condition of employment, except to the extent authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (2) Recognizing the above-named RWD as the exclusive bargaining representative of its North Adams employees for collective-bargaining purposes unless and until the National Labor Relations Board shall certify it as such representative. (3) Maintaining or giving any force or effect to the collective-bargaining agreement executed with the above-named RWD on November 4, 1967, or to any modification, extension, renewal or supplement thereto, or to any union checkoff cards executed pursuant to said agreement; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees which has been established in performance of that agreement. (4) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by coercively interrogating employees concerning sympathies for and activities on behalf of said ILG or any other labor organization; threatening discharge, denial of wage increases, paid holidays or other benefits if the employees support ILG or any other labor organization; discriminatorily promulgating, maintaining or enforcing any rule against solicitation and/or distribution of written or printed material; maintaining surveillance of its employees' union activities or creating the impression of such surveillance. (5) Encouraging membership in Local 29, RWDSU, by any of the conduct specified in (4) above. (6) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right is affected by the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. b. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (1) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 29, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of any of its employees at North Adams, Massachusetts, for the purpose of dealing with Hunter concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment, unless and until the Board shall certify said labor organization as such representative of Hunter's employees in North Adams. (2) Jointly and severally with said Respondent Local 29, RWDSU, reimburse all present and former employees at Hunter's North Adams plants for all dues and other moneys, if any, paid by or withheld from them pursuant to the terms of the union-security provision of the collective-bargaining agreement executed on November 4, 1967, or pursuant to any union checkoff authorizations executed before the date of compliance with this Order, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. (3) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of reimbursement due under the terms of this Order. (4) Post at its North Adams, Massachusetts, plants copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."3' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being signed by Joseph Martin, Hunter's vice president, be posted by Hunter immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Hunter to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (5) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (4) above, as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the Respondent Union's notice marked "Appendix C." (6) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B" to the Regional Director for Region 1 for posting at the offices and meeting places of Respondent Union, in places where notices to members and employees are customarily posted. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by said Regional Director, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional Director after they have been signed by Joseph Martin as representative of the Respondent Employer for such posting. (7) Immediately upon receipt of signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C", mail a copy of said notice together with a signed copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix B" to each employee of Hunter's North Adams plants. (8) Within 1 week after receipt of signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C," hold a meeting or meetings of all production and maintenance employees at Respondent Hunter's North Adams, Massachusetts, plants, at which meeting or meetings Joseph Martin shall read the notices marked "Appendix B" and "Appendix C" in their entirety to the employees. (9) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days of this Decision, what steps Respondent Hunter has taken to comply herewith.}' 2. Respondent Local 29, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: "In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words, "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a. Cease and desist from: (1) Maintaining or giving any force or effect to the collective-bargaining agreement entered into on November 4, 1967, with Respondent Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., or to any modification, extension , renewal , or supplement thereto, or to any union checkoff cards executed pursuant to said agreement. (2) Acting or purporting to act as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent Hunter's employees at the North Adams plants for the purpose of dealing with Respondent Hunter concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment unless and until Respondent Union shall be certified by the Board as exclusive collective-bargaining representative of such employees. (3) Threatening Respondent Hunter's North Adams employees with having them discharged or with having wage increases, holiday pay or other benefits withheld in order to have them join Respondent Union. (4) In any other manner restraining or coercing Respondent Hunter's North Adams employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. b. Take the following affirmative action , which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (1) Jointly and severally with Respondent Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., reimburse all present and former employees at Hunter's plants in North Adams, Massachusetts, for all dues and other moneys, if any, paid by or withheld from them pursuant to the terms of the union-security provision of the collective-bargaining agreement executed on November 4, 1967, or pursuant to any union-checkoff authorizations executed before the date of compliance with this Order, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. (2) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall after being duly signed by Joel Pave, Respondent Union's president, be posted by Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in coi$spicuous places, where notices to members are customarily posted . Reasonable' steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials. (3) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (2) above, as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent Hunter's notice marked "Appendix B." (4) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C" to the Regional Director for posting at Hunter's plants and for mailing by Hunter to employees as provided herein. (5) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days of the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith." IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not specifically found herein. "See fn . 36, supra "See fn . 37, supra APPENDIX A ORDER OF JULY 16, 1968, AS CORRECTED" ORDER DISAPPROVING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND REOPENING RECORD This consolidated complaint was heard at North Adams, Massachusetts, on April 23 through 25, 1968. Immediately after the record was opened , counsel for the General Counsel and for Respondent Local 29, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (RWD), submitted for the Trial Examiner's approval a proposed settlement of the complaint as directed against said union . The Charging Party, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (ILG), and Respondent employer, Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc. (Hunter), objected to the proposed settlement and urged the Trial Examiner not to approve it. Following considerable discussion , both on the record and off the record, the Trial Examiner reserved decision . Thereupon counsel for RWD, after consulting his superior by telephone, announced that RWD was withdrawing from the hearing and would not participate further. Counsel left the hearing (and the city) and did not return at any time during the hearing.' Briefly summarized , the complaint alleges that (1) Hunter unlawfully interfered with its North Adams employees in their free choice of a collective- bargaining agent in violation of Section 8(a)(l), improperly gave support and assistance to RWD in contravention of Section 8(a)(2), and discriminated in favor of RWD and against ILG in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Acts' and (2) RWD unlawfully restrained and interfered with the employees by coercing them to join RWD and causing Hunter to discriminate among employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2). The major issues revolve around whether Hunter acted improperly in recognizing RWD as the bargaining representative of its North Adams production and maintenance employees on October 27, 1967,' and whether the Respondents acted improperly on November 4, by executing a collective-bargaining agreement containing union-security and dues-checkoff provisions. 1. INTERIM FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS All issues, factual and legal, have been fully litigated except the specific allegations against RWD (pars. 10, 14, and 15 of the consolidated complaint ). The General Counsel presented evidence in support of these allegations, but, as heretofore set forth, RWD did not participate in the hearing and thus presented no defense . Hunter introduced into evidence union authorization cards received by RWD but presented no other evidence bearing on a defense of Local 29's conduct. As a preliminary to the present interlocutory order, it is essential that the Examiner announce certain findings and conclusions already reached on the basis of careful observation of the witnesses and full consideration of the 'Errata attached hereto. [Omitted from publication.) 'No brief, memorandum, or other communication has since been received from RWD. 'National Labor Relations Act , as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S .C. Secs. 151, el seq. 1. 'Unless otherwise stated , all dates herein are in 1967. HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 463 entire record and the briefs and written statements received since the hearing . Full analysis of the evidence and reasons for the findings and conclusions here announced (together with findings and conclusions on issues not necessary for the present order) will be set forth in the Trial Examiner's final Decision. In addition to finding that the Board has jurisdiction, the Examiner here states the following findings and conclusions: 1. The arbitrator's award of October 27 is not binding or conclusive as to RWD's representative status: 2. By September 29 RWD held authorization cards executed by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit; 3. On or about September 29 or 30, RWD demanded recognition and requested bargaining and Hunter rejected the demand and request; 4. The ILG organizing campaign among Hunter's North Adams employees commenced on October 1, and Hunter first became aware of it on October 3 or 4; 5. Through October 3, Hunter did not unlawfully assist or support RWD in contravention of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. II. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A. The Terms The settlement agreement proposed by RWD and the General Counsel provides that RWD will post at its offices a notice saying that it will not represent or claim to represent Hunter's North Adams employees unless it is certified by the Board and will not seek to enforce the collective bargaining agreement made with Hunter on November 4, unless it is certified. So far as appears, RWD has not filed a representation petition and has not sought to intervene in the proceeding initiated by ILG's filing a representation petition on November 21. The notice to be posted pursuant to the proposed settlement further states that RWD will "upon request . . . jointly and severally with Hunter . . . reimburse any employee" for dues checked off, such request to be made either to the Board' s Regional Office or to RWD. The notice also states that "upon approval of this agreement, and subject to the request procedure . . . the Union will pay one-half . . . of the aforesaid monies immediately," the remainder to be paid by the Union only when it is informed by the Board's Regional Director that he has been unable to secure payment from Hunter. The proposed notice also expressly says that RWD will request Hunter to discontinue withholding union dues and RWD will not be liable for reimbursement of any dues that Hunter might check off after approval of the settlement agreement. The agreement contains the following non-admission clause: By the execution of this Agreement the Union does not admit that it violated Sections 8(b)(l)(A) or (2) or any other Section of the National Labor Relations Act. It further says: Approval of this Agreement by the Regional Director shall constitute withdrawal of the Complaint and Notice of Hearing heretofore issued in this case. It is not signed by the Regional Director, but, in submitting the settlement to the Examiner, counsel for the General Counsel said : "The agreement , I am authorized to state, has been approved by the Regional Director." However, under Section 101.9(d) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended, the withdrawal of the complaint cannot become effective until approved by the Trial Examiner, notwithstanding the Regional Director's approval. B. The Objections At the hearing, counsel for ILG objected to the unilateral' settlement by the General Counsel and RWD on the ground that the employees should not have the burden of requesting reimbursement of dues previously checked off. Intimately related to this objection by ILG is the provision in the notice for "joint and several" responsibility of RWD and Hunter, with initial payment by RWD of only one-half the total withheld, the remainder to be paid by RWD only if the Board's Regional Director is unable to obtain payment from Hunter. This second objectionable aspect of the reimbursement provision was raised in a letter dated May 3, 1968, by ILG counsel to the Examiner, with copies served on all parties. (Said letter is hereby incorporated into the record as Charging Party's Exhibit 2.) It is the Examiner's opinion that, if a settlement with RWD alone were to be approved, the burden should be placed on the Union to make full restitution, with the Union left to secure reimbursement from Hunter, if any is due. In other words, neither the employees nor the Board should have to assume any initial affirmative burden in securing full remedial action. Tender of all amounts withheld should be made to the Board's Regional Office. Those employees desiring to do so may, of course, refuse the tendered payments, whereupon such funds will be returned to RWD. At the hearing the ILG also objected to the provision of the proposed settlement which relieved RWD of any responsibility if Hunter should withhold any dues after RWD advised it to discontinue the checkoff. While this matter may be of little practical consequence, the Examiner believes that, since dues checkoff is essentially a joint activity of Hunter and RWD, the Union should not be given a blanket release of liability in the event of future improper withholding by Hunter s In his letter of May 3, 1968, ILG counsel also states: The proposed informal settlement is inconsistent with the recommendation of the National Labor Relations Board Field Manual, Sec. 10164.1, that formal settlement agreements providing for Board Order be employed after issuance of a complaint. The Field Manual, though not having the effect of law, is, of course, persuasive. In any event, the Board's official Statement of Procedure is very specific on this point. Section 101.9(b), as amended, says: After the issuance of a complaint, the agency favors a formal settlement agreement, which is subject to the approval of the Board in Washington, D. C. In such an agreement, the parties agree to issue an order requiring "'Unilateral" refers to the absence of agreement by the Charging Party. 'Toward the end of the hearing , Hunter stated its willingness to make reimbursement of its proper share of dues previously withheld and made a commitment not to withhold dues in the future "pending determination or termination" of the present proceeding . While the Examiner has no doubt that Hunter would abide by this commitment, no such agreement was made since the proposed settlement with RWD was not approved and, further, the General Counsel declined to entertain any offer by Hunter of a partial "settlement" of the allegations against it 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the respondent to take action appropriate to the terms of the settlement. Ordinarily the formal settlement agreement also contains the respondent's consent to the Board's application for entry of a decree by the appropriate circuit court of appeals enforcing the Board's order. Neither the General Counsel nor RWD has advanced any reason or justification in the present case for departing from the Board's announced policy of favoring formal settlements after complaints have been issued. Indeed, as ILG also suggests, the fact that the General Counsel has brought an injunction action under Section 10 (I) against both Respondents would seem to reflect a view of the gravity of their alleged misconduct calling for an enforceable order.' In its letter of May 3, 1968, and in a legal memorandum filed thereafter, the ILG observes that the posting called for by the settlement is to be made only in RWD's office. Since that office is located in New York and the employees here involved are in North Adams, Massachusetts, it is difficult to understand how the posting could have any salutary effect as a practical matter. Certainly such distant posting would not serve to inform the employees of their right to reimbursement of dues withheld or, perhaps more important, of RWD's commitment not to represent the employees or seek to enforce the collective-bargaining agreement. The provision for posting on Hunter's premises , "the employer willing," is of little help since Hunter apparently would not be "willing." In its brief, Hunter says that if it "was allowed to also post a notice in its New York Office it too may well have been willing to sign a comparable agreement." In view of Hunter's clearly expressed desire to retain the agreement as a future contract bar, it is not reasonable to assume that it would voluntarily publicize RWD's renunciation. The record contains evidence that RWD's president informed Hunter's North Adams employees, among other things, that, whether they liked it or not, they were represented by RWD and were covered by the collective bargaining agreement entered into by Hunter and RWD at the Company's two plants in Long Island City, New York. Although an arbitrator later rejected RWD's "accretion" contention, he decided, on the basis of a card check, that RWD was the authorized collective-bargaining agent of the North Adams employees. It is reasonable to assume that the employees were informed of this decision, on which Hunter seeks to rely as a defense in the present case. There is no basis for assuming that the employees would conclude on their own initiative that the arbitrator's award was not binding. Thus, it is especially important that the employees be carefully and fully advised of any disclaimer or renunciation by RWD to avoid a possibly widespread misbelief among them that they are enjoying the protection of union representation and are covered by a 3-year collective- bargain ing agreement.' 'On June 18. 1968 , after the present hearing, District Judge Julian granted a temporary injunction under Sec. 10(j) against Hunter and RWD. Kowa( v. Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., 68 LRRM 2529 (D.C. Mass.) That decision enjoins conduct of the type alleged in the present consolidated complaint "pending the final disposition of the matters herein involved pending before the Board." 'T'his need is accentuated by Hunter 's position. At the hearing Hunter's counsel made it clear that the Company is entirely "willing" to abide by RWD's present renunciation of bargaining status and of the collective- bargain ing agreement , provided Hunter can continue to litigate in an attempt to retain the agreement as a contract bar should the ILG press its claim of representative status. In its brief, Hunter says: . . . To approve withdrawal by one party to the Agreement prior to conclusion of litigation and while the other party continues to insist upon the validity of the Agreement, is to make a shambles out of the collective bargaining agreement ... The situation, however, is not unique or unprecedented. If a complaint had been filed against either Hunter or RWD alone, and the General Counsel established the allegations of the complaint, the contract would be set aside. Cf. National Licorice Co. v. N.L.R.B., 309 U.S. 350; Hughes & Hatcher, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 393 F 2d 557 (C.A. 6). The Board has recently recognized the authority of the Regional Director to settle a case against one of the contracting parties while proceeding to litigation against the other. International Assn. of Machinists, etc., Local 9, 171 NLRB No. 35, fn. 3. Nonetheless, the situation created by such action is fraught with problems. If the proposed settlement were to be accepted, RWD would be legally bound not to represent the employees and not to enforce the contract. The settlement would be equivalent to the union's disclaimer of representative status and abandonment of its contract, with the result that the agreement would not be a bar to another union's representation petition. On the other hand, if the employer's right to defend is not to be a mere ritualistic exercise devoid of substance, presumably the litigation could result in a determination that the union represented an uncoerced majority and accordingly that the recognition was proper and the contract is valid and effective. Thus, the Union would be prohibited by the settlement from representing the employees, yet potentially guilty of violating Section 8(b)(3) if it refused to bargain with the employer.' The problems here discussed lead the Examiner to believe that the purposes of the Act would not be effectuated by approval of a separate settlement with RWD without the joinder or concurrence of Hunter.' III. RWD S RIGHT TO DEFEND RWD withdrew from the hearing even though it was clearly advised that its proposed settlement had not been approved and, consequently, that the complaint was still outstanding and it was still a respondent . Since the union thus had a full opportunity to defend , it might be argued that the Examiner would be warranted in proceeding to decide the allegations of the complaint against it on the basis of the evidence now in the record , the General Counsel having presented evidence as to those allegations. On the other hand , it cannot be said that the union acted unreasonably in withdrawing from the hearing while its offer of settlement was still outstanding. The spirit, if not the literal language, of the Administrative Procedure Act indicates that RWD should now be provided an opportunity to defend . Section 4(c) of that Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 554(c)) reads: 'As a corollary, the employer would have a "valid" collective-bargaining agreement which presumably would preclude the employees ' choosing a representative other than the RWD , which, under the settlement, would be committed not to represent them. 'The Examiner is mindful of the fact that similar problems were potentially present in I.A.M., Local 9, supra, 171 NLRB No 35, in which the Regional Director approved a separate settlement with the employer setting aside a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement which, contrary to the Board , the courts have generally held to be valid. HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 465 The agency shall give all interested parties opportunity for - (1) the submission and consideration of facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment when time, the nature of the proceeding and the public interest permit; and (2) to the extent that the parties are unable so to determine a controversy by consent, hearing and decision on notice ... . At the time the present hearing commenced, RWD certainly had no reason to believe that the matter would not be amicable adjusted by consent, since agreement had been reached with the General Counsel and approved by the Regional Director. Additionally, since the General Counsel referred to the proposal as a "100% settlement," RWD might reasonably have anticipated that failure to defend would not subject it to any remedial action more onerous than that to which it had agreed. The Examiner thus concludes that, with the proposed settlement now rejected, RWD should be permitted to present a defense if it so desires. As part of its right to defend, RWD will be permitted to subpoena for cross-examination witnesses who have previously testified on behalf of the General Counsel concerning the conduct of RWD representatives. IV. HUNTER S MOTIONS Shortly after RWD counsel withdrew from the hearing, the General Counsel adduced evidence concerning conduct of RWD representatives. Such evidence was admitted over the objection of Hunter's counsel, the Examiner stating that counsel could later move to strike the evidence. On several occasions throughout the hearing similar evidence was received under the same ruling. In its brief, Hunter moves that all evidence against RWD involving conduct or transactions to which Hunter was not privy be expunged from the record. This motion must be denied under Bernhard-Altmann,10 which requires that Hunter be found derivatively guilty of violating Section 8(a)(2) of the Act if, as the General Counsel contends, RWD coerced employees into joining the Union or secured authorization cards by other improper means. Whether Hunter was a participant in or aware of any such improper conduct by RWD is irrelevant. Accordingly, Hunter's motion to strike evidence will be denied. In its brief Hunter next requests - that the Settlement Agreement not be approved, and that the case be reopened in order to allow [RWD] to present that portion of the defense that was unavailable to [Hunter] during the hearing. Hunter argued at the hearing (and repeats in its brief) that it was unprepared to present a defense of RWD's conduct because RWD and Hunter had "agreed to divide the preparation of the defense"" and was advised only the day before the hearing began that RWD would not participate. Since a finding that RWD did not represent an uncoerced majority of Hunter's North Adams employees would deprive Hunter of its collective-bargaining agreement, irrespective of its good faith or scienter, the Examiner believes that Hunter's request should be granted, even if RWD itself were not entitled to an opportunity to be heard at this time. Hunter's final motion appears in its brief as follows: Alternatively, the Trial Examiner should grant [Hunter's] motion and reopen this hearing in order to allow [Hunter] to defend against the alleged violations of Section 8(d) of the Act. It concludes its argument on this point as follows- . . . Such request is made only if the statements and acts attributable to alleged representatives of [RWD] are not physically expunged from this record, and only if [RWD] is not found to be the uncoerced majority representative at the material times referred to in the Consolidated Complaint. Since the Examiner has denied Hunter's motion to strike the evidence against RWD and is not prepared to find on the present record that RWD represented an uncoerced majority of Hunter's North Adams employees, Hunter's final request must be considered. What Hunter apparently seeks is an opportunity to defend RWD whether that union desires to defend itself or not. To grant such a request could conceivably lead to most anomalous results. For example, if RWD chose not to defend, but rather to admit the allegations of the complaint against it or to stand on the record heretofore made, an order would appropriately be entered prohibiting RWD from representing the employees and setting aside the collective-bargaining agreement made by it on behalf of those employees.': It would be tilting at windmills to permit Hunter to try to establish RWD's innocence since it would avail Hunter nothing as a finding against either of the Respondents requires abolition of the bilateral relationship between them. The ultimate consideration is the interests of the employees, the protection of whose rights is the raison d'etre of the Act. It would do them a disservice to permit an employer to attempt, in effect, to establish that the employees are represented by a union which is not willing or able to establish or defend its own representative status. The Supreme Court's decision in Bernhard-Altmann teaches that, in a situation like the present, the burden of any misconduct must be borne by the contracting parties and cannot be transferred to the employees. Accordingly, Hunter's request that it be permitted to defend against the allegations that RWD violated Section 8(b) of the Act will be denied. Hunter will, of course, be permitted to appear at any reopened hearing. The nature and extent of its participation will be determined in the light of specific situations as they may arise. V. THE LIMITED REOPENING A. The reopened hearing is to be strictly limited to the presentation of a defense by RWD (including cross-examination of witnesses who have heretofore testified against the union ) and such rebuttal evidence as the General Counsel and the Charging Party may present. No evidence will be received on any other issues. As to one issue, however, the Examiner invites such argument as the parties may desire to present. As stated at the outset of this order, the Examiner finds that by the " I.L.G,W U. (Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.) v. N.L.R. B., 366 U.S. 731. "Hunter and RWD apparently defended jointly in the District Court proceeding under Sec. 10(i). "The evidence heretofore presented by the General Counsel is sufficient to establish prima facie that RWD did not represent an uncoerced majority. 466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD end of September RWD held authorization cards executed by a majority of the unit employees. However, the evidence establishes that Hunter rejected the union's demand for recognition and request for bargaining at that time and did not grant recognition until October 27, the day the arbitrator made his award. Hunter argues, in effect, that the propriety of its recognizing and contracting with RWD should be judged solely in the light of the facts up to the date of the union's demand for recognition . The other parties have not addressed themselves to this issue . They are, therefore, hereby invited to file memoranda (or be prepared to present oral statements at the resumed hearing) on the questions : ( 1) whether the propriety of the recognition should be determined as of the date of the union 's demand or as of the date recognition was extended ; and (2) whether the ultimate decision herein would be affected by the date found to be appropriate. B. Section 101.9(d) of the Board's Statement of Procedure, as amended, reads in part: If the trial examiner decides to accept or reject the proposed settlement, any party aggrieved by such ruling may ask for leave to appeal to the Board as provided in Section 102.26. The Examiner believes that the General Counsel and RWD, being parties aggrieved by the rejection of the proposed settlement , should be granted a reasonable time within which to apply for leave to appeal to the Board. Accordingly, the Examiner will not at this time set a date for the resumption of hearing pursuant to the limited reopening herein provided . Instead, the Examiner will allow 10 days from the date of this order within which said parties may apply for such leave. Unless within the 10-day period so provided the Examiner receives either a notice by the General Counsel and/or RWD that such an application has been filed with the Board or a waiver by RWD of further hearing, she will proceed to issue an order setting the case for further hearing. If either the General Counsel or RWD applies for leave to appeal to the Board, the Examiner will defer further action until the Board has acted upon the application (or applications) so filed. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The settlement agreement proposed by the General Counsel and Respondent Local No. 29, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, is rejected; 2. The motion of Respondent Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., to strike and expunge certain evidence from the record is denied; 3. Respondent Hunter's motion that the record be reopened to permit Respondent Local 29, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, to defend is granted , the date and place of any further hearing to be prescribed by further order of the Trial Examiner; 4. Respondent Hunter's motion that it be permitted "to defend against the alleged violations of Section 8(b) of the Act" is denied. APPENDIX B Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this Notice and to keep the promises we make herein. The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees these rights: To organize themselves; To form , join or help unions; To bargain as a group through a representative they choose; To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; To refuse to do any or all of these things; WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. You are free to join the International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other union, and, by majority choice, to select any union to represent you in bargaining with us. WE WILL NOT threaten to fire you , or to hold back your pay raises, paid holidays, or any other benefits, or to close our North Adams, Massachusetts , plants in order to make you join Local 29, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, or to keep you from joining International Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT question you about any union activity or about who belongs to or supports the ILGWU or any other union. WE WILL NOT spy on the union activities of any employees. WE WILL NOT tell you not to accept leaflets given out by the ILGWU or any other union. WE WILL NOT interfere with the appointment or election of shop stewards or other officers or agents of Local 29, RWDSU, or otherwise interfere with the internal affairs of that or any other union. WE WILL NOT assault any union agents or organizers or otherwise physically impede their peaceful and lawful distribution of campaign leaflets or other union literature. WE WILL NOT permit Local 29, RWDSU, or any other union to violate any lawful rule we make against solicitation or distribution of material in the plant during working time. WE WILL NOT give any further effect to our contract of November 4, 1967, with Local 29, RWDSU, covering our North Adams employees; but this does not mean that we will necessarily change wage rates, holiday pay provisions, or any other terms and conditions of employment that may now be in effect. Together with Local 29 , RWDSU, WE WILL give you back all the money we took out of your pay for said union , with 6 percent interest on that money. WE WILL stop recognizing Local 29, RWDSU, as your collective-bargaining representative and dealing with its shop stewards and other agents as your representative, and WE WILL NOT again recognize Local 29, RWDSU , unless and until it is certified as your representative as a result of a National Labor Relations Board election. HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. (Employer) Dated By Joseph Martin , Vice President (Representative ) (Title) HUNTER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 467 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3353. APPENDIX C NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 29, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, AFL-CIO Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our members that: After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this Notice and to keep the promises we make herein. The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees these rights: To organize themselves; To form , join or help unions; To bargain as a group through a representative they choose; To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; To refuse to do any or all of these things; WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. You are free to join the International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO, or any other union, and, by majority choice , to select any union to represent you in bargaining with your employer. WE WILL NOT give any further effect to our contract of November 4, 1967, with Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., covering the employees at their North Adams, Massachusetts , plants. WE WILL NOT threaten to have Hunter's North Adams employees fired , or to have their pay raises, holiday pay or other benefits held back , or to cause Hunter to close its North Adams plants in order to make you join Local 29, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT act or claim to act as the collective-bargaining representative of Hunter's North Adams employees unless and until we have been certified as their representative as a result of a National Labor Relations Board election. Together with Hunter Outdoor Products, Inc., WE WILL give back to Hunter's North Adams employees all the money that was taken out of their pay for Local 29, RWDSU , dues, plus 6 percent interest on that money. LOCAL 29, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By Joel Pave, President (Representative) (Title) 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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3353.