Volt Technical Corp.

832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Volt Technical Corp. and Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 277 Volt Technical Corp. and Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 277, Petitioner. Cases 16-CA-3245 and 16-RC-4828 hereby orders that the Respondent, Volt Technical Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. [Direction of Second Election3 Omitted from Publication.] June 19, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On March 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis 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. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed . In addition, the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's unlawful conduct had interfered with the Board election held on March 7, 1968 and recommended that the election be set aside, and the representation case be remanded to the Regional Director. Thereafter, the Respondent 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings," conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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, and 'The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. It is the Board's established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility findings unless, as is not the can here, a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We find no basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in this case. 'In the absence of exceptions the Board adopts, pro forma, the Trial Examiner's findings that certain statements made by the Respondent's supervisors were not coercive or were protected by Sec. 8(c) of the Act. ,in order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U .S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 16 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WELLINGTON A. GILLIS, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge, an amended charge, and a second amended charge , filed on March 11, April 22, and May 16, 1968, respectively, by Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No . 277, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union or the Petitioner, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board , issued a complaint on May 31 , 1968, against Volt Technical Corp., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent or the Employer, alleging violations of Sections 8(a)(l) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (61 Stat. 136), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Respondent thereafter filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. In Case 16-RC-4828, based upon a representation petition filed by the Petitioner on January 30, 1968, and pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election approved by the Regional Director on February 19, 1968, an election was held on March 7, 1968, among certain employees employed at its Fort Worth store.' Thereafter on March It, 1968 the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of election. Subsequently, on May 31 , 1968, the Regional Director, after having conducted an investigation of the objections, issued a report on objections. Simultaneous with the issuance of this report on objections, the Regional Director issued his order consolidating cases, directing hearing on objections, complaint and notice of hearing in which it was ordered that Case 16-CA-3245 and Case 16-RC-4828 be consolidated for the purpose of hearing , ruling and decision by a Trial Examiner. Pursuant to this notice, a hearing on the complaint in Case 16-CA-3245 as amended at the hearing and on the representation matters alluded to above in Case 'The Tally of Ballots issued by the Regional Director for Region 16 reveals that the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the votes cast in the unit comprised of all office, technical and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Fort Worth operation, including part-time employees working 10 hours weekly or more, excluding all other employees including guards, confidential secretaries, secretary to Engineering Services Manager, professionals and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended. 176 NLRB No. 106 VOLT TECHNICAL CORP. 833 16-RC-4828, was held in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 9 and 10, 1968, at which all parties were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, and to make oral argument. Subsequent to the close of hearing timely briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent.' Upon the entire record in this case, and based upon my observation of the witnesses, and their demeanor on the witness stand, and upon substantial, reliable evidence "considered along with the consistency and inherent probability of testimony" (Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 496), I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The Business of the Respondent The Respondent, is a Delaware corporation, maintaining its principal office and place of business at Fort Worth, Texas, where it is engaged in designing, publishing and distributing technical maintenance and instructions manuals. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of complaint, the Respondent transferred and delivered to its Fort Worth plant materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported to said plant directly from suppliers located in states other that the State of Texas. During this same period, the Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed from its plant products and services valued in excess of $500,000 of which amount, products and services valued in excess of $50,000 had a substantial impact on the National defense. The parties admit, and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties admit, and I find, that Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 277 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND CONDUCT AFFECTING RESULTS OF ELECTION A. The Issues 1. Whether the Respondent, through various supervisory personnel, on certain dates during February and March 1968, engaged in interrogation, and threats within the proscription of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Whether during the election on March 7, 1968,3 supervisors were present and interfered with the voting, requiring that the election be set aside. B. The Facts 1. Alleged 8(aXl) violations Following the filing of the representation petition on January 30, and during the Union's campaign to organize 'In additon to his brief, counsel for the General Counsel moved to correct the transcript at p. 10, 1. 14, by substituting "paragraph 7(a)" for "paragraph 8(a)" Having received no objections, all parties having been served, the motion is hereby granted. 'Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein refer to the year 1968. the Respondent's employees, the Respondent through several of its supervisors engaged -in a number of discussions with employees, individually and in groups. On February 2, during working hours, Lucien Bernier and Wally Kutteles, branch manager and production manager, respectively, called the typists and proofreaders, some 10 or 12 employees, into Kutteles' office. There, in the presence of supervisors Jeanette Methvin and a Mrs. Waddell, Kutteles announced that they had been called in to hear the Company's views of the Union. Bernier commenced by stating that he did not want to know anyone's convictions concerning the Union because it was possible there would be layoffs later on and he would not want it said that anyone who had voted for the Union was laid off. During the discussion, part of which evolved around questions of the employees, and which lasted about 20 minutes, Bernier stated that if the employees organized a union at Volt the raises it obtained for them would not be any larger than the raises they could get immediately, that the raises procured by the Union, if any, would be paid for by having to go on strike. At this point employee Marianne Remmers rose and volunteered that this Union did not go out on strikes, to which Bernier replied that the Company did not have to sign a contract and the Union would have no choice, that it would have to strike. Bernier followed by stating that he knew that the employees at Volt were all family people and that they could not afford to lose several weeks' wages. When Remmers ventured that in such case the Company would lose money too, Bernier told the employees that the Company would not lose anything by forcing the Union to go on strike. At some point, Kutteles told the employees that there would be a union representative in the building, that he could be a non-employee who worked for the Union who would walk around, watch their work, and stare at them, the same as a supervisor. Kutteles also let the employees know, citing an example from his prior experience, that under a union, if an employee worked past the quitting time, however briefly, he could be fined for it, that such fine would result from an infraction of the union rules. Bernier further stated to the employees that the Company could not afford to pay union wages because it had been operating at a loss, and that the employees would likely lose by making a union contract, indicating that, with union problems, the Company could not meet its customers' demands, resulting in a loss of production and loss of wages in the long run. When questioned on the above, which is taken from the credited testimony of Remmers and employee Patricia Ann Smith, Bernier explained that, with respect to the strike discussion, he told the employees that "we had seen the gains that people have realized through their union being wasted through the long strikes." Bernier denied that he threatened to provoke a strike if the employees went union, but indicated that because of the flexible nature of the Company's service, the presence of a union would handicap this flexibility, resulting in a loss of customer appeal.4 On February 5, while returning from the restroom through Supervisor Richard McKee's office, former 'Kutteles was not questioned with respect to the discussions held, but did testify that the meeting, like another subsequent meeting, occurred by chance at the instigation of "somebody" who wanted to ask some questions about the Union, testimony which I do not credit. To the extent that Bernier's testimony conflicts with that of Remmers and Smith, I do not credit it. 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee Edna Ratto met Bernier, who said he had been looking for her. Bernier said he would like to ask her something, and, placing his arm around her, said "this is strictly between you and I. I would like to know if you have heard anyone say or talk in any way about the Union and how they felt about it." When, contrary to the fact, Ratto replied in the negative , Bernier again indicated that this would be strictly between them , and asked her what her personal opinion was as to the Union coming in. At this, Ratio replied, "well, you may fire me for this but I'm for it," explaining, in answer to Bernier's query, that Volt does subcontracting work for General Dynamics, and that Volt employees do the same kind of work and get paid less . Bernier then stated to Ratio, "well, if you're not satisfied with your work and your pay why don't you go to G.D. (General Dynamics) and go to work," at which Ratto turned and left.' On February 12, Kutteles called all the production department girls, numbering 12 to 14, into his office and talked with them about the Union . He based most of what he said upon his experience as a supervisor in dealing with unionism at his former employment in New York, letting the employees know that the same "would" happen to them . Thus, Kutteles commenced by banging on his desk and asking the employees if they really believed the Union would help them . Kutteles then stated that the employees had no way of knowing whether the Company would sign a union contract, "and, if so, we might not make as much money as we were making at the time, and that there could be a layoff." He went on by telling the employees that he knew the tactics of the Union and if the Union came in "he would be a much harder person on us," that they would work a steady 8-hour day and there would be no laughing or talking except for breaks and lunch. Kutteles continued by saying that the Union had the right to make the employees work 24 hours a day, whether they liked it or not, that new hires would be Union employees, that the union steward would be an outside employee, and that there would be no personal contact with him (Kutteles), that the employees would have to go to the union steward.' According to employee Aretta Young, Kutteles further told the employees on this occasion that if the Union came in there would be a raise in wages and the Company would have to cut back on employees to stay within its budget, and that the employees would no longer have a choice of overtime, that the Union would make employees work overtime whether they wanted to or not. Employee Linda Funnell, corroborating generally the testimony of Parris and Young, added that Kutteles stated that when work slacked off employees would be laid off.' Kutteles, when questioned as to this meeting, admitted some of the statements attributed to him and denied others, but in almost all instances , Kutteles testified that his statements were based upon his union experiences in New York, that they were in answer to specific questions of employees. Kutteles generally ended his statements by referring the employees to the Union for the correct answers. Apart from certain denials by Kutteles, however, 'The facts as to the above incident are based upon the credited testimony of Ratio, who impressed me as a truthful witness. Bernier, when questioned briefly about the matter testified that he did not know Edna Ratio and did not remember the incident. 'The above quoted portions are taken from the testimony of employee Carole Parris. 'Ueda the current company policy, during slack periods , employees are temporarily given work in other departments. an important difference between Kutteles' testimony and that of the employees testifying to this meeting , is that all three girls testified that the employees were called in to his office on this occasion, whereas Kutteles testified that this meeting occurred "purely by accident" when one employee and then another wanted to ask him a question, and that he had a lot of people in his office "I guess by word of mouth or something ." I do not believe Kutteles' version of how this meeting originated, which, under the circumstances , weighs heavily against crediting his testimony as to that which followed, particularly where it is contradicted by other testimony . Accordingly , I do not credit Kutteles' denials of statements attributed to him by Parris, Funnell, and Young, all of whom testified in a truthful manner. On February 20, while seated and talking with supervisor Mike Cook, concerning some work , Carole Parris looked up to find Manager Bernier standing next to her. Bernier, noticing a union button on Parris' sweater, pulled the sweater cut slightly and asked her what this was. When Parris replied that it was her union button, Bernier looked at Cook and said, "you are going to have to talk to this girl." Cook answered, saying that Parris was not in his department , upon which, Bernier left.' Employee Edna Ratio testified that about 2 weeks before the election, which would place it around February 22, while working in the photo lab, day-shift Supervisor Margaret Thomas, known to the employees as Bata, noticed her union button and asked her what it was. When Ratio retorted that it was her union pin, Thomas said, "well, so long. It's been good to know you," and walked away. Thomas, with respect to this, testified that she did not remember ever saying this. About a week later, February 29, according to the testimony of employee Patricia Ann Smith , Thomas, in the course of a general conversation at the coffee machine, told Smith that "she would hate to see these people leave and lose their jobs on this union business, because these were the people who really needed their jobs ." Thomas testified that she barely knew Smith , that she was sure that she did not say anything like that to her, and that she did not remember talking with her.' According to the testimony of employee Marianne Remmers, while on a morning coffeebreak on February 27 with Imogene Burns, Marjorie Rhoades, Minnie Bull, and supervisor Jeanette Methvin, and during a discussion about the Union, Methvin stated that "if the Union were to come in the Company would have to close its doors because they could not afford union wages and were operating at a loss . . . in the event they did not close their doors they would have to subcontract a lot of their work and we would lose our overtime that we have now, and there was a possibility of our layoff during slack periods." Further, in reference to the existing practice of keeping employees on during temporary slack periods, Methvin told the girls that "if the Union came in they wouldn't be able to keep us the way they do now." Methvin, when questioned on this, initially denied stating to Remmers or any other employee that the plant would close down if the Union came in . On cross-examination she testified that she did have such a conversation with 'Supervisor Cook did not testify and Bernier, acknowledging that this incident took place, did not deny making the statement to Cook. 'With respect to the above two incidents , I credit the testimony of Ratio and Patricia Smith over that of Thomas, only, however , because I feel that they had a better recollection of what occurred during the period in question. VOLT TECHNICAL CORP. Remmers with other people present . On redirect, Methvin testified that, in reply to a question from someone else, she stated that the plant would not- close down if the Union were successful. Methvin , on the witness stand, did not impress me with her candor, while Remmers did. I credit Remmers' version of the incident." Harry Carroll, a former night-shift supervisor employed by the Respondent, testified that one night approximately a week before the election, which would place it about February 29, reproduction manager Richard McKee stayed over and talked with each of the employees in his department. According to Carroll, he overheard one such conversation between McKee and employee James Lenear, a female employee, wherein McKee informed her that the Company was opposed to the Union, that if it came in employees would be reduced to possibly 26 hours a week, that employees no longer would be able to come to him with a grievance but would have to go through a union steward, that they would only receive raises of 5 cents an hour every 3 months which would have to be approved by the Union. McKee further stated to Lenear that he felt that Mr. Shaw (Respondent's president) would not buy any new machinery nor would care to expand the business, and would, instead, subcontract a large amount of work resulting in the elimination of a lot of jobs, and that he did not know what the final answer would be if the Union came in. McKee, on direct examination , denied each and every statement attributed to him by Carroll, but testified on cross-examination that, on this particular occasion, pursuant to Bernier's indirect request, he remained at the plant late for the purpose of "encouraging the night people to vote in the union election." Thus, he talked with eight or a dozen employees individually at their work stations until perhaps midnight. As to his conversation with Lenear, McKee testified that it lasted 2 or 3 minutes, during which he informed her of the date and time of the election and asked her if she would please vote. McKee continued by telling her that "it was her privilege to vote as well as anyone else and the more people that voted the more accurate - well, how did I state that? Well, the response would be more for the majority rather than a minority. We wanted all of the people that would vote."" At 3:55 p.m. on March 6, just 24 hours before the scheduled election, according to employee Carole Parris, Hank Smith, Respondent's director of writing, approached Parris at her work station and told her he wanted to ask her some questions. Thereupon, he asked her whether she had ever belonged to a union , and upon receiving an affirmative reply, whether the union ever helped her. Upon receiving another "yes" answer, Smith said he had belonged to two and they did not help him. Smith then asked Parris how she was going to vote in the election, "yes or no?" Parris, contrary to the fact, answered that she did not know, prompting Smith to state that "you know that Volt does not want the union." At this point, personnel manager Cauthon walked up, told Smith that he had only a few minutes to say what he wanted to say, and walked away. Whereupon, Smith "Neither Rhoades nor Bull testified in this proceeding. "For reasons not reflected in the record , Lenear was not called upon to testify in this proceeding . In view of the Respondent's open opposition to the Union, it does not ring quite true that McKee would merely ask the individual employees to "please vote" without suggesting how they vote. On the other hand, I found Carroll, it former supervisor with no apparent axe to grind, an unbiased witness whose demeanor while testifying was most impressive . I credit Carroll's testimony on this matter. 835 terminated the conversation with Parris by asking her ,,will you please do me one favor and vote 'no."' Cauthon, upon being questioned on this matter, testified that he did not hear any of the conversation between Smith and Parris some 6 feet away, and that his purpose in addressing Smith was to make sure that there was no union discussion with employees within the 24-hour Board rule. Smith testified that his conversation with Parris on this occasion was the same as it was with each of the other employees in his department , namely that of asking her to vote against the union . Smith denied asking her or any of the others how she was going to vote in the election. I credit the testimony of Parris. Conclusions (1) As to the February 2 meeting in Kutteles' office, I find (a) that Bernier's statement that raises obtained for employees by the Union could not be any larger than raises the employees could get immediately constitutes a promise of benefit in the event the Union were voted out and, as such, is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; (b) that Bernier's statements that any raises procured by the Union would be paid for by employees having to go on strike, that he knew that Volt employees could not afford to lose several weeks' wages, coupled with his further admonition that the Company did not have to sign a contract, thus compelling the Union to strike, that the Company would not lose anything by forcing the Union to go on strike, all add up to a threat to force a strike before granting wage increases if the Union were voted in, thus, constituting restraint and coercion within the proscription of Section 8(a)(l); and (c) the remainder of Bernier's and Kutteles' remarks either constitute a prediction of possible economic consequences and of increased costs' 2 or are otherwise protected under Section 8(c) of the Act. (2) I find Bernier's "confidential" inquiry of Ratto on February 5 concerning how she felt about the Union and how other employees felt about the Union constitutes unlawful interrogation, violative of Section 8(a)(1). (3) With respect to the February 12 employee meeting in Kutteles' office, I find (a) that Kutteles' statement that he would be a harder person on the employees if the Union came in is a threat of more onerous working conditions and, as such, constitutes restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l); (b) that Kutteles' statement to the effect that if the Union came in, during slack periods employees would be laid off (rather than temporarily transferred to other departments) constitutes a threat of layoff violative of Section 8(a)(l); and (c) that the remainder of Kutteles' comments are merely predictions of possible economic consequences of selecting the Union or are otherwise protected under Section 8(c). (4) I find, under the circumstances , nothing coercive in Bernier's remark to Cook on February 20 concerning Parris' union button. (5) I find Thomas' February 2 remark to Ratto in reference to her union affiliation , "well, so long. Its been good to know you," to constitute a veiled threat of discharge. Similarly, Thomas' sentiment expressed to Patricia Smith on February 29 to the effect that she would hate to see employees lose their jobs on this union business, also constitutes, I find, a veiled threat of loss of employment for those who support the Union. "See T M. Duche Nut Co., Inc, 174 NLRB No. 72. 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (6) I find Supervisor Methvin' s statement to employees on February 27 while on coffeebreak pertaining to the Company having to close its doors because it could not afford union wages and was operating at a loss, as well as the remainder of her remarks , constitute merely a prediction of possible economic consequences of increased costs to the Company , and, as such , not violative of Section 8(a)(1). (7) I find McKee's remarks made to Lenear on February 29 constitute for the most part an expression of opinion and, as such, protected under Section 8(c). (8) Finally, with respect to Supervisor Hank Smith's questioning of Parris on March 6, I find (a) his inquiry as to how she was going to vote in the election to constitute unlawful interrogation under Section 8 (aX1), and (b) the remainder of his remarks to be noncoercive. 2. Conduct allegedly affecting results of the election I find and conclude that the above conduct , all of which occurred subsequent to the filing of the representation petition in Case No. 16-RC-4828 on January 30, and prior to the election on March 7, and which is alleged as objectionable conduct affecting the results of the election, tended to interfere with the freedom of choice of the Employer's employees in their selection of a bargaining representative. In addition to this conduct , the Petitioning Union, in further support of its position in this regard , asserts that "during the election, supervisors interfered with voting and were present at the polls, thus denying employees in the unit a free choice in voting." The record discloses that the election herein was held between 4 and 5 p.m. on March 7, and that some 120 employees cast their ballots. The voting booth was located in a private room at the north end of the Respondent's plant. The line of voters waiting to cast their ballots, at times containing as many as 50 employees, ran from the door of the voting room west along a wall and then south . This entire open area houses the Writing Department and contains a number of rows of desks used by some 40 to 50 Writing Department employees under the supervision of Henry Smith, commonly known as Hank Smith , Respondent's director of writing. During this period, while the voting was in progress and the line so extended , writing department employees continued to work at their desks . It is with Smith's alleged conduct during this period , and his alone, that the Petitioner's election objections is concerned. General Counsel witness, Harry Carroll , former night shift supervisor for the Respondent between November 1967 and April 1968, and self-employed as an exporter at the time of the hearing, testified that, from his office some 100 feet away from the voting line, at approximately 5-minute intervals during the election hour he looked out his office door, and each time observed Smith going from person to person in the line, which varied from 15 to 50 employees, "talking to people, slapping them on the back and shaking hands with them." Carroll testified that he heard nothing of what may have been said and that Smith did not engage in an extended discussion with anyone. Corroborative generally of Carroll is the testimony of former employee Edna Ratto who testified that, upon clocking in about 4:20 p .m., she went to the end of the voting line, which, at the time, had about 50 employees in it. While waiting in line to vote, which took approximately 10 to 15 minutes, Ratto saw Smith "walking up and down the line from about the middle of the line to the end shaking hands with people and patting them on the back and speaking to them and talking to them ." When Smith passed her he said "hello, Edna, how are you?" Ratto did not respond . Ratio testified that, although she heard nothing of what was said , Smith talked to employees the whole time she was in line, walking back and forth continuously, and was still talking with them when she left. Smith's version of this matter is that other than those employees who were engaged in voting from time to time, Smith's whole department continued to work during the entire voting time , and that "a couple of times" during this voting period he found it necessary to leave his desk, which was west of the voting line, and go to that portion of his department which was east of the line. Accordingly, on one occasion, when the line was long, he had to go through the line and return through the line . On one later occasion, when the line was shorter, Smith skirted the end of the line, thus finding it unnecessary to go through it. Smith testified that he had no conversation with any people in the voting line, that the one time that he went through the line he "probably said 'excuse me', or something to that effect." Smith did not recall speaking to Ratto as she had testified. It is obvious that a determination as to what actually occurred during this period must be predicated upon a resolution of the credibility conflict. In this regard, while the record reflects the existence of some question as to whether Carroll was in a position all of the time to observe the whole of the voting line, I find that he was able, and in fact did, view a portion of the line most of the voting hour . Further , there is no question but that Ratto was in such a position during the 10 to 15 minute period that she stood in the line waiting to vote. Both Carroll and Ratto are former employees of the Respondent, the former a supervisor , neither of whom so far as the record reveals left the Respondent's employ other than voluntarily . Their testimony is mutually corroborative, and, as noted heretofore, I was impressed with the demeanor of both witnesses while testifying. Smith had previously taken an active part in opposing the Union , making the rounds, talking to all of his employees (more than one-third of the Respondent's total employee complement), as well as others, expressly asking each one to vote against the Union . Smith , also, I have found, engaged in unlawful interrogation the day before the election . Smith's uncorroborated denial of the accusations of Carroll and Ratto with respect to his "voting line conduct," as well as his own assertion, also uncorroborated, that he penetrated the election line separating his desk from the rest of his people only once during the period, are subject to some question. Accordingly, I find that Smith did in fact engage in conversational and handshaking activity substantially as testified to by Carroll and Ratto. Having made this determination, the facts bring the case squarely within the rationale of the Board 's recent decision in Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB No. 46. There the Board, for the first time , enunciated a clear standard against which to measure conduct involving conversations between parties to an election and employees preparing to vote. For sound reasons therein set forth, the Board held with respect to such parties, "that the sustained conversation with prospective voters waiting to cast their ballots, regardless of the content of the remarks exchanged, constitutes conduct which , in itself, necessitates a second election ." Thus, it is readily apparent that Smith's conduct herein is the identical VOLT TECHNICAL CORP. conduct at which the Board's Milchem rule is directed. I find that, by this conduct, as well as the preelection unfair labor practice conduct, the Respondent interfered with its employees' free choice in the election," and shall recommend that the election of March 7, 1968, be set aside. IV. THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE OF RESPONDENT S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN CONDUCT AFFECTING ELECTION 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 the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been further found that the Employer has engaged in certain conduct affecting the results of an election , it is recommended that the election conducted on March 7, 1968, be set aside and that a new election be conducted by the Regional Director at an appropriate time. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Volt Technical Corp. is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 277, 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 the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, as above found, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. Other than as above found, the Respondent has not engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 5. By engaging in threatening and coercive conduct, as above found, the Employer unlawfully interfered with the freedom of choice of its employees in their selection of a bargaining representative on March 7, 1968. 6. The aforesaid conduct constituting unfair labor practices and conduct illegally affecting the results of a Board conducted election is conduct affecting 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 Volt Technical Corp., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: "Nor does the fact, as intimated by the Respondent in its brief, that the space facilities used herein for holding the election may have been less than ideal, alter this conclusion or warrant a different finding. 837 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their Union sentiments and how they are going to vote in an election. (b) Offering its employees economic benefits in order to influence their sentiments with respect to union activity. (c) Threatening its employees with more onerous working conditions in the event they chose the Union. (d) Threatening its employees with discharge, layoff, and loss of employment for supporting the Union. (e) Threatening to force the Union to strike before granting wage increase if the Union were voted in. (f) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join , or assist any 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 or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its place of business in Fort Worth , Texas, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." " Copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall, upon being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it, as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein be dismissed insofar as it alleges any unlawful conduct other than that as above found. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election held on March 7, 1968, in Case 16-RC-4828, be set aside, and that said case be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 16 of the Board to conduct a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the employees' free choice of a bargaining representative. "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 the 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 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that: 838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union sentiments and how they are going to vote in an election. WE WILL NOT offer our employees economic benefits in order to influence their sentiments with respect to union activity. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with more onerous working conditions in the event they chose the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge, layoff, and loss of employment for supporting the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten to force the Union to strike before granting wage increases if the Union is voted in. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 277, 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 become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 277, or any other labor organization. Dated By VOLT TECHNICAL CORP. (Employer) (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, 8A24 Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2941.