Valley Die Cast Corp.

498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Valley Die Cast Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-6601 June 10, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On February 24, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it related thereto . Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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 made by the Trial Examiner 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent's no-solicitation rule did not interfere with the employees' right to self-organization and to his recommendation that the allegation in the complaint to this effect be dismissed . The complaint alleges that the Respondent maintained and enforced a rule prohibiting union solicitation at any time on company premises, and more specifically enforced said rule by its agent Kazar Kazarian , on or about January 20, 1968. The record reveals that the rule, which is contained in a company booklet , on its face prohibits solicitation on company property for membership in clubs or organizations, but does not specifically refer to labor organizations . The Trial Examiner found that the rule , at worst, is ambiguous, and looked to the evidence as to its enforcement. Although two employees testified to being unlawfully restricted in their solicitation for the Union by their supervisor , the Trial Examiner found "overwhelming" evidence of unrestricted employee solicitation during nonworking time on the Respondent's premises, and concluded that the rule did not interfere with the employees' rights to self-organization . We disagree. The rule as written contains a blanket prohibition against solicitation for membership in clubs or organizations on company property. This clearly can be read to include labor organizations . The rule is, therefore, overly broad and unlawful on its face . The record does not support the Trial Examiner's conclusion that solicitation for the Union on company premises during nonworking time was of such magnitude that it may reasonably be inferred that the employees understood that the rule did not apply to solicitations for labor organizations. We, therefore, find that the maintenance of the no-solicitation rule is patently unlawful and amounts to a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Mallory Capacitor Company, 162 NLRB 1404, enfd. in pertinent part 389 F.2d 704 (C.A. 6). However, since the Trial Examiner failed to resolve the conflicting testimony bearing upon the two alleged instances of enforcement of the rule, we shall dismiss the complaint in that respect.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein , and orders that the Respondent, Valley Die Cast Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Add the following as subparagraph 1(c) and reletter the following subparagraph , accordingly: (c) Maintaining a rule prohibiting its employees from engaging in union solicitation on company property during -nonworking time. 2. Add the following as subparagraph 2(a) and reletter the following subparagraphs , accordingly: "(a) Forthwith rescind its existing rule against solicitation as published in its employee booklet to the extent that it prohibits employees from soliciting membership in union organizations on its premises during nonworking time." 3. Add the following as the third indented paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision: WE WILL NOT maintain a rule prohibiting our employees from engaging in union solicitation on company property during nonworking time. 'In the absence of other exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the remainder of the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations as to violations of Sec. 8(a)(1). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT COHN , Trial Examiner : This case, heard at 176 NLRB No. 68 VALLEY DIE CAST CORP. Detroit, Michigan, on December 3 and 4, 1968,' pursuant to a charge filed February 23 (subsequently amended March 6 and April 17 ), and a complaint issued July 31, presents the question whether Valley Die Cast Corporation (herein the Respondent or Company ), by its agents and supervisors , violated Section 8(axl) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), through acts of interference and restraint of employees' Section 7 rights hereinafter detailed.' Upon the entire record, and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after full consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent subsequent to the hearing,3 I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all times material, a Michigan corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business at Detroit, Michigan . Respondent maintains several plants in Detroit , but the plant located at 1791 Bellevue is the only one involved in this proceeding. Engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of zinc die cast automotive hardware and related products, Respondent concedes that during the year ending December 31, 1967, it sold and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly from its Michigan plants to points located outside of Michigan . During the same period , Respondent further concedes that it caused to be purchased and transported to its Michigan plants goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from points located outside the State of Michigan. Based upon the foregoing facts, I find, as Respondent admits, that it is now, and has been at all times material, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section (2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer of Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) (herein the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 'All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1968, unless otherwise specified. 'A proceeding against International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), docketed as Case 7-CB-1724, was originally consolidated for hearing with the instant proceeding . However, at the hearing herein , counsel for the General Counsel announced that that case had been settled through the execution by all parties of a settlement agreement approved by the Regional Director for Region 7 of the Board . Accordingly, I granted the General Counsel's motion to sever that proceeding from Case 7-CA-6601 and return it to the Region for the purpose of policing compliance with said settlement agreement. 'Also subsequent to the hearing , counsel for the General Counsel served on the Trial Examiner (with copies served on the other parties) a motion to correct transcript of proceedings in certain respects. Having received no objections from any party, and said proposed corrections being in accord with my recollection of the testimony , the motion is hereby granted. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 499 A. Background and Statement of the Issues The Union commenced an organizational campaign among the Respondent's approximately 450 production and maintenance employees in January. The first union meeting was held at the Union's "Solidarity House" on East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit on Sunday afternoon, January 21. At that meeting, which was attended by a group of approximately 21 employees of the Respondent, Union Representative Frank Donley advised the employees of the asserted advantages of union representation , instructed them respecting their legal rights to organize and the proper methods of doing so, and distributed authorization cards to be signed by the employees present and their fellow workers . He also instructed them respecting the signing of a sheet which was purportedly to contain names of those employees who wished to comprise an organizational committee, a copy of which sheet was to be sent immediately to the Company. Organizational efforts and solicitation of employees commenced in earnest at the plant during the following week. It is the contention of the General Counsel and the Charging Union that some of the acts and conduct of Respondent's agents and supervisors during this organizational period overstepped the bounds of legitimate conduct, and therefore interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. Alleged Violative Conduct By Foreman Kurt Skiba Kurt Skiba was a foreman (an admitted supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act) in the Respondent's toolroom during January, at which time Ricky Venable was an employee. The latter testified as to a conversation he had with Skiba in the toolroom about 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 23, at which several other employees were present.' Skiba recounted some past labor relations history between the Company and the Union which related primarily to a time when the employees went out on strike and the Company employed "strong-arm" men in connection with the dispute, and "there was quite a bit of trouble." He also advised the employees that if the Union were to come into the plant overtime would probably be eliminated and working conditions generally would not be as good. In a conversation in the toolroom around 3 :30 p.m. on January 29 involving Skiba, Venable, and Vickers, Skiba, referring again to the previous labor disturbance at the Company, stated that the Union had secured some of the employees' jobs back, but that the Company had, in reinstating one rather obese employee, transferred him to the die cast department next to the "hot pot" (a furnace which generates heat up to 780 degrees), and that the 'The issues herein are almost totally of a factual nature and almost all involve credibility resolutions. This always-difficult chore of a factfinder is not rendered less so in the instant case . I will only observe that in making such resolutions I have carefully considered, as previously noted, the demeanor of the witnesses, "along with the consistency and inherent probability of testumony " ( Universal Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.D., 340 U.S. 474, 496), in the light of the apparent interest of such witness in the outcome of the proceeding. 'These were, according to Venable, employees Thomas Vickers and Paul Daroczy and employee named Zeke. 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fellow almost died of the heat. Accordingly, Skiba advised that even if employees were able to return to work following a labor dispute, they really would not want to because such jobs would be less desirable.' The foregoing statements of Skiba clearly constitute threats of economic reprisal for engaging in activities on behalf of the Union, and constitute interference with, restraint, and coercion of employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). C. Alleged Violative Conduct by Foreman Julius Piscopo Pauline Pharms was an employee of the Company in January, working in the paint department under Foreman Julius Piscopo (an admitted supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act). Prior to January 31, she had been ill in the hospital and had returned to work on that date after an absence of approximately 2 weeks. She testified that about 9:30 or 10 that morning, Piscopo approached her and asked if she knew anything about the Union trying to get in the plant and she replied in the affirmative. He then asked her if she was in favor of it, but she did not answer - simply "hunched her shoulder up." Piscopo, according to Pharms' testimony, proceeded to tell her that many of the other girls did not know what they were doing because if Mike (referring to Michael Polizzi, the president of the Company) had enough money he would give them a raise and that was the only reason they wanted a union. Piscopo continued that if Pharms signed a "paper for the Union" he would know that she was against him and the Company while he had thought that they had been good friends and that she would be with him. Pharms did not mention that any other employee was present during the conversation.' Piscopo acknowledged having a conversation with Pharms that day but averred that he approached her to ask where she had been, to which she replied that she had been sick in the hospital, and said, "I can prove it." When Piscopo asked "How?" she replied that several employees visited her (naming Martha Ruby as one), and that they had solicited her to sign a union card and had given her some union buttons and pencils. Piscopo further testified that employee Donna Combs, an inspector, was working alongside and said something about the Union, and that there was an ensuing discussion between Combs and Pharms in which the latter stated that she was confused. According to Piscopo, he advised Pharms that the best thing for her to do was to talk the matter over with her 'The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testunony of Venable who impressed me as an honest and forthright witness . Skiba's apparent difficulty with the English language did not , in my judgment, totally account for his reluctance and evasiveness on the witness stand, and I do not credit his denial that he discussed union activities with Venable. Moreover, such denial was somewhat contradicted by the Respondent's witness, Paul Daroczy (the only other employee named as a participant who was called as a witness ), who testified that he was present in a conversation in which it was discussed that the Company would "tighten up" with overtime if the Union came in However , after a leading question by Respondent's counsel, Daroczy observed that the statement was made not by Skiba, but by the other employees The veracity of this testimony is rendered somewhat unlikely by the fact that the other participants in the conversation wer. employees who had evidenced an interest in the Union by attending the meeting the previous Sunday. In view of these , as well as demeanor considerations, I do not credit such testimony 'Pharms said that Piscopo noted that she was the only Negro in that department and that did not make any difference to him , but not to let the other girls talk her "into anything that was wrong because she would be without a job." parents and they would decide "what is right and what is best for you." The testimony of Donna Combs is at some variance from that of either Piscopo or Pharms. Combs recalled a conversation on the day that Pharms returned from sick leave, stating that it was in the morning and that she was helping another employee, Florence Wolanski, when Piscopo walked up and "started talking about work." According to Combs' testimony, the next thing she knew Piscopo was talking to Pharms and she (Combs) "just could hear off and on . . . [and] . . all I heard, I heard him tell her he didn't care what she did. Make up her own mind. But think it over before she does anything. And even talk it over with her mother." Combs was not certain that they were discussing the Union but she thought they were because Pharms had told her earlier that some employees had come to the hospital and she had signed a card. The complaint alleges that on or about January 31 Piscopo coercively interrogated employees concerning their activities for and on behalf of the Union, and that he created the impression that Respondent was engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activities. Taking Pharms' testimony at its face value, I find nothing therein to indicate that Piscopo imparted to Pharms the knowledge or awareness that he or the Company knew who had signed union cards, who had attended union meetings, or who was active on behalf 'of the Union, or that the Respondent or its agents had engaged in conduct of a furtive nature in order to ascertain this information.' As I interpret Pharms' testimony, Piscopo indicated that he would know her union proclivities only if and when she signed a "paper for the union." 'Accordingly, I shall therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed to that extent. Also, I am inclined to agree with Respondent that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proving that the alleged interrogation in this incident (if it occurred) was coercive. Pharms conceded that she considered Piscopo a good friend and a good boss, and that she was "not fearful of talking to him." Piscopo had similar feelings about Pharms. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to credit Piscopo's testimony (over Pharms' denial) that she did volunteer the information concerning the signing of the union card in the hospital. It is therefore unlikely that he would have asked her if she was in favor of the Union. Even so, I am inclined to agree with Respondent that, in this context, the interrogation should not be considered coercive. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be d ism issed. D. Alleged Violative Conduct by Kazar Kazarian The complaint alleges, in essence, that at all times material the Respondent has maintained and enforced an illegal no-solicitation rule (a rule prohibiting union solicitation at any time (on company premises)) which was specifically enforced by its agent, Kazar Kazarian, on or about January 20.' In support of this allegation, General Counsel offered the testimony of Reba Davidson, an employee of the Company at that time. She testified, in 'Cf. Hendrix Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. N L.R B., 321 F.2d 100' (C.A. 5), fn. 7, enfg. 139 NLRB 397; Rosen Sanitary Wiping Cloth Co.. Inc., 154 NLRB 1185, 1188. 'Respondent's answer admits that Kazarian is a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. VALLEY DIE CAST CORP. substance, that on January 25 while she and some other employees were waiting at the timeclock to punch out, she had a piece of paper or slip in her hand which she intended to utilize to sign up a fellow employee for the Union. She stated that Kazarian told her "not to get signatures while I was inside the plant." On the other hand, Kazarian testified that at no time during this period did he have occasion to advise Davidson as to any rule respecting limitations upon passing out authorization cards. Barbara Jones, who was named by Davidson to be one of the employees standing nearby during the conversation with Kazarian, likewise denied recollection of Kazarian's advising any employees that they were not to distribute cards on company premises. Employee Lynn Harris testified that on Monday, January 22, at the plant during lunch hour, he was engaged in securing signatures for the Union when Kazarian came in and asked him to put the slip away and "wait until I got outside of the company premises." Harris stated that no one else was present at the time and that he complied with Kazarian's directions. Kazarian testified that he did not remember talking to Harris about collecting names on a petition on the company premises. Since about 1964, the Company has distributed to all newly hired employees a booklet containing, inter alia, the following language alleged to be violative of the Act: SOLICITATIONS Your company and the employees cooperate in many worthwhile charitable causes, but obviously cannot lend support to every fund raising enterprise that is launched in the plant. The sale of tickets, the circulation of petitions, and so forth are regarded by many employees as a nuisance. Thus, solicitation for membership in clubs or organizations, collections, donations, raffles, and ticket selling, as well as the sale of merchandise, cannot be permitted on Company property without written permission from the Personnel Director. * PERSONAL CONDUCT The following is a list of offenses which cannot be tolerated. Employees guilty of these or similar actions, for which there is just and reasonable disciplinary cause, will be warned and repetition of the offense or a combination of offenses will result in discharge. * * * * 22. Distributing or circulating literature, petitions, written or printed matter of any description on Company premises, without permission of Management. [G.C. Exh. 2, pp. 4-7.] It is by now well established that a rule which prohibits employees from soliciting union membership on nonworking time on the employer's premises is presumptively invalid . Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd . 289 F.2d 117 (C.A. 5). The Respondent has not overcome this presumption by showing that any special circumstances existed which justified the need for the rule . Rather the Respondent contends that the rule was never intended to be applicable to a labor organization as evidenced by the language of 501 the rule itself and also by the fact that it was promulgated sometime in 1964, some 3 years prior to the Union's organizational campaign involved herein. Moreover, the Respondent argues that it never enforced the rule during the present campaign. I am in agreement with the Respondent's contention that the General Counsel has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent maintained and enforced the aforesaid no-solicitation rule in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'° Thus, as Respondent argues, there is nothing on the face of the rule which refers specifically to solicitation respecting membership in labor organizations. In these circumstances the rule, at worst, is ambiguous and evidence was submitted respecting its enforcement. Taking the evidence submitted by General Counsel at best, there was presented only the testimony of two employee witnesses (out of a unit of some 450) who testified that one foreman in a single department unlawfully restricted their solicitation. On the other hand, the record herein is replete with testimony from witnesses for both General Counsel and the Respondent who testified that solicitation on behalf of the Union took place repeatedly on the company premises during nonwork time without interference from Respondent's supervisors." In the light of this overwhelming evidence of employee solicitation during nonworking hours on the Company's premises, I cannot conclude that the rule interfered with the employees' right to self-organization, and will recommend that the allegation in the complaint to this effect be dismissed.12 Reba Davidson testified to another conversation with Kazarian which occurred around the timeclock several days following the incident on January 25, hereinabove referred to. Employees Alice Bell and Barbara Jones were also present on this occasion. According to Davidson, Kazarian said the employees were cutting their throats by trying to get the Union in because the Company could not afford to pay more money and that since their department had the least seniority they would be the first ones to go if the Union came in. Kazarian recalled the incident, stating that it was common knowledge among the employees in that department that it would be terminated at the end of the model year because of the change which the automobile companies were making in the 1969 model. According to Kazarian, Alice Bell then brought up the issue of job security with him and asked whether their jobs would be secure if the Union got in. Kazarian replied that whether the Union got in or not there would be no jobs available and they would be laid off. Barbara Jones, called as the witness by Respondent, testified that she understood that the plant was going to be closed," and asked Kazarian about it in the presence of Davidson and Bell. According to Jones, Kazarian said there was a possibility of that, and that if it happened the employees would probably be transferred. Jones' testimony does not reflect that the word "union" was mentioned.14 "There cannot, of course, be a finding of violation respecting the promulgation of the rule since such promulgation occurred outside the limitations prescribed by Sec. 10(b) of the Act. "I refer specifically to the testimony of Davidson, Barksdale, Shorter, and Lobaldo. Indeed, even Lynn Harris conceded on cross-examination that the majority of the 75 to 175 signatures he solicited were during nonworking time on the company premises "See R. G. Barry Corporation, 162 NLRB 1472, and cases cited therein at fn. 4 "In the context of the discussion, Jones doubtless meant to say "department" rather than "plant " "Bell was not called as a witness nor was it shown that she was 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After a careful consideration o(' all factors , including demeanor considerations, I credit Davidson's version of the conversation , and find that Kazarian's statement on this occasion constituted a threat of economic loss should the employees support the union campaign . As such, it, of course, violated Section 8(axl) of the Act, as alleged. General Counsel offered the testimony of former company employee Carl Lobaldo who testified, in substance, that while he was an employee of Respondent on January 22, Kazarian asked him what the employees talked about at the union meeting on January 21 . Lobaldo replied by asking Kazarian whether he had ever belonged to a union, to which the latter said yes . Lobaldo rejoined that Kazarian ought to know what they talked about, and walked away. Respondent's counsel noted an objection on the record to this testimony since it was not specifically alleged in the complaint (the complaint alleges unlawful interrogation by Kazarian on March 2). The Trial Examiner noted that the Board has, in the past, been rather liberal in accomodating proof to allegation when the only variance is one of time , and the supervisor involved is called to testify as to other events." Kazarian did not testify respecting this incident . I credit Lobaldo, and find the interrogation to be coercive within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.' E. Alleged Violative Conduct Respecting Robert Arnold On January 26, employee Barbara Barksdale had a conversation in the plant with her foreman, Robert Arnold, in the presence of employees Joyce Shorter, Jesse Jackson, and Pat Saunders . A company employee named Brown was operating a hi-lo machine in the area and had some green cards in his pocket." Barksdale questioned Arnold about the green cards in Brown's pocket to which the latter replied , "That's Brown's campaign ... if he gets in here the wages are going to be cut from $1.95 to $1.60." At the time of the conversation , Barksdale was receiving $1.70 per hour. The testimony of Joyce Shorter and Jesse Jackson, called as witnesses by the General Counsel, corroborated in essential respects the testimony of Barksdale." Arnold, called as a witness by the Respondent, testified that he was a foreman in the paint department at the time and knew the employees Barksdale, Shorter, and Jackson, as well as Brown . However, he generally denies being approached by any of these employees and asked to identify cards in the pocket of another employee . Indeed, he denied 'recollection of any incident in which he discussed union activities with either of the three named employees. I do not credit his denial, and accordingly find, as alleged in the complaint , that on this occasion his statement threatening a cut in pay if the employees selected the Union to represent them constituted restraint and coercion of employee rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." unavailable to testify "See e.g., Southwestern of Dallas Optical Company and Tru-Optics, Inc., 153 NLRB 33, 38. "N.L.R.B. v. Camco. Inc. 340 F.2d 803 (C.A. 5, 1965). "The union authorization cards utilized in the campaign were colored green. "Neither Saunders nor Brown were called as witnesses by either party to the proceeding, although their absences were not explained on the record. "Respondent, in its brief, argued that the statement of Arnold even as made does not constitute coercion since it was provoked by Barksdale's F. Alleged Violative Conduct Attributed to Jim Creagh Employee Lynn Harris testified that during the afternoon of March 2 while he was at work in the air-conditioner assembly department, he had a conversation with Jim Creagh, the Respondent's production control manager, an admitted supervisor and agent. No one else was present. Creagh asked Harris why he wanted a union, the latter replied that he did not especially want one for himself although he would enjoy the fringe benefits such as vacation and paid holidays, but he thought that the female employees actually needed the Union. Creagh appeared rather surprised and asked Harris "with the kind of money you're making, you want a union?" Harris replied in the affirmative, and apparently the discussion became rather hostile since it was at that point that Foreman Kazarian approached the two and advised Creagh to leave. Harris acknowledged that much of the discussion related to the financial conditions of the Company, how much profit was made and the disposition of such profit as respects executive pay, amount reinvested in new machinery, etc. Creagh, testifying on behalf of the Respondent, stated that he was walking through the department on this occasion when he saw Harris sitting on a bench with his feet hanging over, drinking a cup of coffee. He noted to Harris that "if the Union was in there, he wouldn't be sitting on his butt all morning long." Harris retorted that "he didn't see why he couldn't set around because the company made five and a half million dollars the previous year. ." The discussion then went along the line previously noted, i.e., discussion as to the extent of the Company's profits and the disposition of it. Creagh denied questioning Harris as to why he wanted a union or otherwise as to his union activities. I credit Creagh's version of the conversation and accordingly find that the allegations of the complaint as respects Creagh have not been sustained and will recommend that the complaint be dismissed to that extent. 20 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and question. In support of this contention , Respondent cites Colecraft Manufacturing Co Y. N.L.R.B.. 385 F. 2d 998, 1003 (C.A. 2, 1967), where the court stated: When employees intend to provoke expressions of anti-union views from their supervisors, we cannot believe that any anti-union views they express have the same deterent or coercive effect as they do when unprovoked. It suffices to say that there is nothing in the record that persuades me that Barksdale intended by her inquiry to provoke any such antiunion expression from Arnold. He could certainly have responded to her inquiry without threatening a cut in wages should the union campaign be successful. See also Jerome T. Kane d/b/a Kane Bag Supply Co., 173 NLRB No. 180 at fn. 5. 141 am not entirely convinced that even if Harris' version is credited, the interrogation was coercive within the meaning of Sec. 8(axl). However, I do not base my finding on that basis, but rather, as above noted, on credibility grounds. VALLEY DIE CAST CORP. 503 the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and post an appropriate notice. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Valley Die Cast Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, Valley Die Cast Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, or desires. (b) Threatening employees with loss of wages, loss of overtime, closure of departments, or other adverse working conditions should they join or engage in activities on behalf of a labor organization. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to join, form, or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, "in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, activities, or desires. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of wages, loss of overtime, closure of departments, or other adverse working conditions should they join or engage in activities on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce the employees in the exercise of their rights to join, form, or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. All our employees are free to join, form, or assist any labor organization, or refrain from doing so. Dated VALLEY DIE CAST CORPORATION (Employer) By (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 employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.