Equitable Equipment Co, Inc.

302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Equitable Equipment Co., Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards, Inc. and New Orleans Metal Trades Council and Crescent City Lodge 37, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and General Truckdrivers , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 270, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind. Cases 15-CA-3345 and 15-RC-3888 August 29, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF THIRD ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On May 13, 1969, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Laboi Relations Act, as amended, 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 merit in certain objections filed by the Union to the second election conducted on September 12 1968, in Case 15-RC-3888, and recommended that the election be set aside Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding 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 the proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner 2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor The Respondent excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established practice, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Drv Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) in agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent interfered with the exercise of the employees' tree choice in the second election held on September 12, 1968, we have relied only upon the Respondent's unlawful conduct committed after July 10, 1968, the date of the first election, which was also set aside Chairman McCulloch would not rely upon Supervisor Hughes' statement which was directed to other supervisors, but was overheard by employee Grego, nor would he find this statement violative of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below, and orders that the Respondent, Equitable Equipment Co., Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as so modified' Add the following as paragraph l(k) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. "(k) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act " IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second election held on September 12, 1968, in Case 15-RC-3888, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and said case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for Region 15 to conduct a new election [Direction of Third Election3 omitted from publication ] '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 Wvman-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 tiled by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Third 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 OE THE CASE MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner With all parties represented, this case was tried before me in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 14 and 15, 1969, pursuant to an amended complaint filed by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer thereto by Respondent, Equitable Equipment Co , inc and its Wholly Owned Subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards, Inc i Joined with the complaint are objections to an election conducted by the Board among Respondent's employees on September 12, 1968,2 which were lodged by the New Orleans Metal Trades Council, herein called the Council or the Union, and which the Regional Director for Region 15 consolidated for hearing by order dated November 29, 1968 At issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter In his supplemental decision on objections which issued on November 26, 1968, the Regional Director also referred for decision the question of whether the foregoing alleged acts of misconduct by Respondent The complaint, which issued on November 29, 1968, is based upon charges and amended charges which were filed and served on July 17, July 22, and September 11, 1968 'Case 15-RC-3888 178 NLRB No 50 EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO, INC which antedated the September 12 election, as well another objection to the election filed by the Union, so interfered with the employees' freedom of choice as to require the holding a third election ' All parties were afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally at the close of the hearing, and to file briefs Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have been duly considered Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs submitted to me, and upon my observation of the demeanor of each witness while testifying, I hereby make the following FINDINGS OI FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I THL BUSINI SS OE THE EMPLOYER Respondent, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, maintains its principal office and place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana, where it is and has been at all times material herein engaged in the manufacture of marine products at its New Orleans and Madisonville, Louisiana, facilities During the annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Louisiana, and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Louisiana facilities directly to points located outside that State The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act it THL LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III TIIL AL1 I Gf D UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES It is undisputed and I find that, pursuant to a petition filed on April 25, 1968,' in Case l5-RC-3888 by Crescent City Lodge 37, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, an election was held among Respondent's employees on July 10 General Truckdrivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No 270, IBT, and the Council intervened in that proceeding and appeared on the ballot The election tally showed that, of approximately 588 eligible voters, 31 cast votes for the Machinists, 7 voted for the Teamsters, and 40 cast their ballots for the Union, with 34 ballots under challenge it was stipulated and I find that, by agreement of all parties, this election was set aside and a second one was conducted on September 12. In this election, of ' in addition to urging as objections to the election certain acts of misconduct by Respondent which find their parallel in the allegations set forth in the complaint , the Union advanced the following additional conduct by Respondent in support of its plea that the results of the election should be overturned Supervisor John Sisson "was seated approximately twenty-five feet away from the voting line at the New Orleans facility and during the afternoon session , called out voters ' names as they stood in line, and made a thumbs-down motion with his hand," and Sisson was observed in the voting area talking to two men as they lined up to vote 303 approximately 644 eligible voters, 10 cast their ballots for the Machinists, 6 voted for the Teamsters, 170 selected the Union, and 356 voted against the participating labor organizations. In addition, there were 53 challenged and 3 void ballots Thereafter, on September 19, the Union filed objections to the second election In his complaint, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent, by and through its officers, supervisors, and agents, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act and thereby offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1). He further asserts this misconduct warrants setting aside the election run on September 12 For its part, Respondent denies the commission of any labor practices proscribed by the Act and urges that the election results should stand I turn to a consideration of the alleged misconduct A The Conduct of Supervisor Frank Thresher Employee Joseph Griffith testified that, about a week before the first election which was conducted on July 10, Supervisor Frank Thresher approached him in Respondent's warehouse and inquired "who I was going to vote for." Griffith replied that "the union had done nothing for me at the time and the company had " Thresher remarked that "if it wasn't for the unions, that we wouldn't be making the wages we were now " Griffith further testified that, following the first balloting, he informed Thresher that he was assisting the Union in its organizational campaign Approximately 4 weeks prior to the second election on September 12, Griffith once more was queried by Thresher as to how the former intended to vote, and Griffith rejoined that "I considered that my business. I would vote for who I saw fit " Griffith added that "I mentioned that I had changed my mind about the union, and I did not want- likefor the company to try to brainwash me" Two weeks later the Union dispatched a letter to Respondent in which it set forth the names of the employees who constituted the in-plant organizing committee and Griffith's name was included among them Employee Clifton Stone had worked for the Respondent since 1951 He testified that, a few weeks before the first election, Thresher approached him in the pipefitter's shack carrying a piece of paper Thresher asked Stone what the latter thought about the Union. When Stone stated that the Union "was all right, had some good points," Thresher made a note of these comments on the paper According to Stone, Thresher then "asked me if I was going to vote for the Union I told him I didn't know, I hadn't decided at the time. And he wrote that down and seemed like he asked me if I would help them, you know, ask the boys in the union not to vote for the union and what not " Thresher concluded the conversation by advising Stone that Captain Neville Levy, Respondent's chief executive officer, "probably would close down the yard" if the Union succeeded in weaning the collective support of the employees It is Stone's further testimony that, a day before the initial voting, Thresher visited Stone's work station with a number of Respondent's campaign buttons bearing the legend "I am True Blue" and requested Stone to wear one of the buttons and to distribute the rest to the men under him. Stone retorted, "if I am ordered to I will offer to give them out to my men but I will not wear one myself." 'Unless otherwise indicated , all dates fall in 1968 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD About a week after the first election, Stone completed a job on a Coast Guard vessel and requested another work assignment from his supervisor, Thresher Thresher instructed Stone to remove some valves from the bottom of a barge When Stone, who was a leaderman and normally worked with assistants, inquired as to who would assist him in this task, Thresher replied, "I am breaking you down to a worker you cut my throat before I am going to cut your throat, you Union Loving Mother " With this, Thresher placed his hand on his watch pocket from which a 4-inch knife protruded When questioned whether Thresher mentioned how Stone had "cut [Thresher's] throat before," Stone initially responded with a vague reference to an argument he had with Thresher many years before concerning the supervision of some employees Stone then informed Thresher that "I was going to vote for the union " Upset by what he believed to be a threat on his life by Thresher's remarks, Stone visited the office of Hudson Bourgeois, Respondent ' s assistant vice president and plant superintendent , shortly thereafter to report the incident In the presence of Thresher, Stone told Bourgeois that "I am afraid for my life " Bourgeois proceeded to assuage Stone's fears, at which juncture Thresher assured Stone that the former "wasn't going to cut my throat He didn't mean it that way He was figuring on cutting me down because I tied up with the Union " During this conversation Stone related to his superiors that he felt ill and was going home After returning home he went to the local office of the National Labor Relations Board to process his complaint against Thresher and Respondent When he returned to work the following day, he apprised Harold Hebert, Respondent's assistant plant superintendent, of his journey to the Board Hebert told Stone that "I am not cutting you down Frank Thresher has not the authority to cut you down I am the one to cut you down Keep you nose clean and forget about that " In his testimony, Thresher steadfastly denied that he had any conversations with Griffith prior to the initial election either in the warehouse or elsewhere in which the Union was mentioned or in which he questioned Griffith as to how the latter was going to vote According to Thresher , the subject of unionization did arise during a colloquy with Griffith approximately a week prior to the second balloting although he could not recall how this conversation was initiated. It is Thresher's testimony that Griffith volunteered the information that "he was complaining about the union, that they had to, either forty to sixty dollars coming in, and he was paying a dollar a day to work, and he got laid off and he went to the hall and tried to get sent out on a job." Thresher related that Griffith "wasn't for the union any more on account of that incident they had when they took his money " Thresher entered a testimonial denial that he had any conversations with Stone concerning the Union prior to the first election He acknowledged, however, that a day prior to the second election, Stone approached Thresher and Assistant Plant Superintendent Hebert and , patting his supervisors on the back , exclaimed "Well, I am stabbing you in the back tomorrow I am going to cut your throat , and stab you in the back, I'm no longer with the company . I got a good offer from the union." When asked whether he had a discussion with Stone on the day of the second election regarding the Union, Thresher initially responded in the negative . After being prompted by Respondent's counsel, Thresher finally recalled that he did converse with Stone on that date about a union construction book, and Stone remarked that "he had to go with the union because they gave him a good deal They offered him a master construction book, and he wasn't going to turn that down, because that-that calls for $5 80 an hour " Thresher stoutly proclaimed that no mention was made of Captain Levy closing the yard if the Union was successful in their discussion and nothing was said about what would happen if the Union won the second contest He further denied that he requested Stone to urge his crew to vote against the Union, and denied he made notes of this conversation Thresher was then queried as to whether he had any recollection of a disagreement with Stone approximately a week following the first election Thresher allowed as how he had However, he thereupon pinpointed the episode as having occurred after the second balloting on September 12 until counsel jogged his memory by showing him certain notes which he had made on July 16 to memorialize the incident and which would, as Stone testified, place the occurrence about a week following the initial vote According to Thresher, Stone had asked for another work assignment that day and the former instructed the latter to pull some valves from a barge with the assistance of a helper Stone protested, "What, are you cutting me down"" and Thresher tartly rejoined in the affirmative Stone inquired whether this meant that he would lose his status as a leaderman with a consequent loss of pay and Thresher replied "No, I'm not cutting your pay I'm in a bind and I need some help " Stone complained that he was ill and could not undertake the new assignment and again pressed Thresher for the reason for "cutting me down " Thresher stated "Well, Stone, I will give it to you this way,you've been fooling around enough You've been cutting my throat and stabbing me in the back You took three weeks to do a one week job Every time I look for you you are shooting the bull somewhere." Thereupon, Stone demanded an audience with Hudson Bourgeois and Harold Hebert and together they proceeded to Bourgeois' office When they arrived, Stone reported that Thresher had threatened his life and that he intended to visit the Board's office to lodge a complaint against Thresher Thresher averred that, while he did carry a knife on his person, he did not overtly threaten Stone with it and, indeed, assured Stone during this conference that he meant no harm. Stone then punched out and proceeded to the offices of the Board Upon his return to work the following morning, Stone "just laughed it off That's all. He come [sic] back laughing , and I was laughing." Initially, Thresher denied that the subject of the Union arose at any time on July 16 . However, he then admitted that he made notes of the episodes which occurred that day, relating that "When he [Stone] told me he was going to the Labor Board, I wanted to memorize as much as I possibly could what I said . He was going to the Labor Board, so I had to know what I said." When questioned as to whether he knew that if Stone went to the Labor Board "it would have something to do with the union," Thresher brought himself to admit "I imagine they would have." Finally, Thresher denied that he distributed Respondent ' s campaign buttons to the employeeswhich bore the legend " I Am Equity True Blue," but stated " I found some on my desk, when I went in there , but I didn't pass them out." Griffith and Stone impressed me as candid witnesses who earnestly sought to speak the truth By contrast, Thresher was an evasive witness who was in frequent need of testimonial rehabilitation Although Thresher at the outset of his testimony denied that, in his discussion with F(U'TABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Stone on July 16, he "cut back" Stone because of his union sympathies, he acknowledged that Stone's visit to the Board on that date "would have" had something to do with the Union. I credit the testimony of Griffith and Stone and find that, on or about July 3, and again on or about August 15, Thresher interrogated Griffith as to whether the latter intended to vote for the Union. I also find that, on approximately July I, Thresher interrogated Stone as to the latter's inclinations toward the Union and his desires regarding collective representation I further find that, on July 16, Thresher threatened to demote Stone from his position as a leaderman because Stone had sided with the Union Finally, I find that Thresher threatened Stone on or about July 1 that Captain Levy would curtail operations at the shipyard in the event the Union won the election conducted on July 10 By the foregoing conduct, when taken in conjunction with the findings hereinafter made, I conclude that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act B The Conduct of Supervisor William Hughes, Jr Samuel Grego was first employed by Respondent in 1967, was laid off in March, and was recalled in April. He testified that, a few days after he resumed work in April, his foreman, William Hughes, Jr , approached him and Hughes "asked me if I was for the union, and I didn't know at that time that they had any union activities going on in the yard " However, Grego expressed the opinion that "it was a pretty good thing." With the commencement of the Union's campaign among Respondent's employees, Grego enlisted in its ranks and he proceeded openly to wear a pencilholder bearing the Union's insignia on his work clothes He further testified that, a few weeks before the first election, Hughes inquired whether Grego "was still for them, and I told him I would vote the way I wanted to vote." Shortly prior to the first balloting, Hughes once more asked if Grego continued to favor the Union and the latter replied that "I was for the union all the way " According to Grego, he had occasion to pass his foremen's shack on July Il, the day following the first election As he approached within 2 feet of an open window in the shack, he observed Hughes, as well as Welding Foreman Robert Spiers and his leaderman, Ken Isabell, standing inside and he overheard Hughes mention the "to Greco boys." This reference drew his attention and, while he paused to listen, he heard Hughes "telling Bob Spiers and Ken Isabell that he knew who all of the main union representatives out at the yard; me and Pete Greco and Bill Green and Larry LaFarge And he was going to get us." Hughes added, "I will get all them union mother . Employee Jack Malone started to work for the Respondent in May and relinquished his employment with the Company in January 1969. He testified that, on the date of his hire, he visited the personnel office where he was interviewed by Hughes. According to Malone, Hughes "asked me how I felt toward a union, that they was going to have an election there, and that they would like to have people that would stick by the company " Malone replied that "I would rather not discuss it with him," after which Malone was offered and accepted employment. When called to the stand, Hughes recounted that he was aware that Grego had been laid off and was rehired in April. Hughes maintained , however, that he did not 305 interview Grego for reemployment but that this chore had been performed by the latter's leaderman who expressed a desire to reemploy him. Hughes categorically denied that he had any conversations with Grego concerning the Union or Grego's attitude toward collective representation. He also steadfastly denied that he ever told Foreman Spiers or Leaderman Isabell that he knew the identity of the main union supporters, that he named Grego, Greco, Green, or LaFarge in this connection, or that he stated that he intended to rid himself of these active union adherents, although he conceded that he and his foremen and leadermen frequented the shack in question where blueprints and timecards were stored. However, when pressed on this issue, Hughes admitted that he was aware that these four employees were not only sympathetic towards the Union but also were the principal union organizers in his area, noting "we knew that . it was common knowledge, they wore union badges." Hughes also acknowledged that he had heard that Grego, Greco, and Green had served as observers on behalf of the Union during the first election He frankly admitted that he preferred not to have a labor organization in the shipyard and that he "definitely" appreciated the fact that there were some employees who were loyal to Respondent during the union campaign. Nevertheless, when queried as to whether he would rather employ more workers who exhibited an allegiance to the Respondent, Hughes exclaimed that "It would be immaterial to me, as long as I could get my job done " Hughes further testified that he interviewed Jack Malone on the date of the latter's hire, but denied that he ever had occasion to discuss the Union with Malone. However, he conceded that, during Malone's accession interview, "I questioned him on where he had worked I asked him what his trouble was. He just told me he didn't like it He said he worked on a construction job. I said, 'How the hell, you work up there on a construction job, you have to belong to a Local ' " Malone responded that he maintained his job security by paying a "dobie" to the union ' I credit the testimony of Grego and Malone, not only because they impressed me as sincere and honest witnesses, but also because I deem Hughes' testimony to be implausible.' Hughes concededly knew that Grego, Greco, Green, and LaFarge were the chief union adherents inasmuch as they openly wore union buttons and served the Union at the first election. His displeasure for union protagonists was made manifest by his statement that he "definitely" preferred employees who sided with the Respondent in the organizational drive and he harbored no discernible compassion for those who espoused the Union's cause. Moreover, the credible stature of Grego's and Malone's testimony that they were interrogated by Hughes concerning their union propensities is enhanced by the findings, hereinafter made, that Respondent's Assistant Plant Superintendent Harold Hebert, who was Hughes' superior, as well as Foremen Donald Lemons and Chuck McVety, systematically sought to ascertain the desires and sympathies of the employees regarding union representation In sum, I find that, in or about April, June, and July, all before the first election on July 10, Hughes interrogated Grego concerning his union sympathies and inquired whether the latter intended to vote for the Council in the forthcoming 'Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the record by the insertion of the words "a dobie," apparently on p 233, 1. 22 of the transcript between the words "paid" and "up," is hereby granted 'Respondent contends that Grego's testimony should be discredited both 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election I further find that, in May, Hughes similarly interrogated Jack Malone I also find that, in the presence of Grego on July 11, Hughes threatened to discharge Grego, Greco, Green, and LaFarge, all known union activists, because of their efforts on behalf of that labor organization and, by so doing, created the impression that he had their union activities under surveillance by remarking that he knew that they were the major union organizers I conclude that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act. C The Conduct of Supervisor Bobby Spiers Hillard Pruett had been employed by Respondent from 1966 until the latter part of 1968 He testified without contradiction and I find that, about a week prior to the first election, he encountered Foreman Bobby Spiers in the shipyard Spiers inquired "what I thought about the organizing that was going around the yard" and Pruett "more or less told him I thought it was okay " Spiers also asked whether Pruett had any dislikes or gripes Pruett answered that "we needed more money and also better working conditions " I conclude that, in the context of this proceeding, Respondent, by Spiers' act of interrogation of Pruett, violated Section 8(a)(1) D The Conduct of Supervisor Chuck McVety LeRoy Abron was employed by Respondent in February and is still working for the concern His testimony is uncontroverted and I find that, about a week prior to the initial balloting, he was accosted by Foreman Chuck McVety who "asked me how did I feel about the union. So I told him I didn't have any comments about that " Upon receiving this answer, McVety commented, "they just wanted to know how each one felt about the union " Alton Fontenot went to work for Respondent in June and left its employ on December 30 He testified that, on the date he was hired, he entered the personnel office for an interview by James Hymel, Sr., Respondent's personnel clerk Hymel summoned McVety who was to become Fontenot's foreman. While waiting for McVety's arrival, Hymel asked Fontenot "how did I feel about the union He told me to tell him how I felt about the union I said either way, it didn't make no difference 11 McVety then entered the office and, after studying Fontenot's application, asked the latter "how did I feel about the union " Fontenot gave the same response When Hymel was summoned as a witness, he testified that he recalled interviewing Fontenot in June but had no independent recollection of the event Nevertheless, Hymel insisted that he and McVety conducted separate, consecutive interviews of Fontenot on that day, and he was certain that he did not inquire into the latter' s feelings toward the Union Hymel was equally insistent that McVety did not pose a similar inquiry to Fontenot McVety was not called to the stand I credit Fontenot's testimony and find that, during an accession interview in June, both McVety and Hymel because he filed charges under Sec 8(a)(3) alleging that he had been illegally discriminated against by Respondent which subsequently were found by the Board to be lacking in merit, and because he failed to inform the Board investigator of Hughes ' statements to Spiers and Isabell until he gave a second affidavit to the investigator on October 3 after he left Respondent 's employ I am not convinced that these circumstances affect the otherwise credible quality of his testimony questioned Fontenot as to his feelings about the Union Respondent asserts that Hymel was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and therefore it is not responsible for his utterances As the record fails to establish that Hymel possessed the requisite indicia to qualify him as a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Statute, I find merit in Respondent's assertion and conclude he was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act However, the General Counsel alternatively argues that, even though Hymel was not a supervisor, Respondent was nevertheless accountable for his conduct because he was "sufficiertly aligned with management in the eyes of the employees for his conduct to have a coercive effect and further be attributed to Respondent." Hymel was classified as a "Personnel Clerk" and worked in an office where he received applications for employment, advised applicants if jobs were available, noted their skills, checked their references, and arranged for their insurance coverage He also determined in his interviews whether the applicants had any physical disabilities When employees were tardy, they would take their timecard to Hymel who ascertained and made a notation as to the reasons for the tardiness which could be a factor in their discharge Moreover, he attended management safety meetings and occasionally distributed paychecks. Under the circumstances, I conclude that Fontenot had reasonable cause to believe that Hymel was acting for and on behalf of management when he made his inquiry concerning Fontenot's union sentiments 7 Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) when McVety interrogated Abron and Fontenot, and similarly offended the Statute by Hymel's questioning of Fontenot. E The Conduct of Supervisor Donald Lemons Mark Gemelle was last employed by Respondent from April to September as a shipfitter, and his foreman was Donald Lemons Gemelle's testimony is undisputed and I find that, around the end of May, he was called into Lemons' office and was told that Lemons had a questionnaire containing a series of questions which Respondent wanted Gemelle to answer. Lemons stated that he would fill in most of the answers because he was aware of "how [Gemelle] felt, as far as my attitude toward the company, and so on " Gemelle asked what this interrogation was all about, and Lemons explained that "it had to do with the union movement in the yard." Gemelle commented that he was unaware that any union campaign was in progress at the shipyard and, as the questioning continued, Lemons told Gemelle that the latter was "very, very green; very, very green " Gemelle inquired into the meaning of this expression, and Lemons replied "Well, it's a code. It was a questionnaire, he said that he had to ask all men to sign their opinion as far as the union was concerned in the yard. That if you were green, you were for the company, if you were yellow, you were on the fence, and if you were red, you were for the union " Lemons then asked Gemelle "How I felt about the company, what men in the yard he thought I could influence, and what men in the yard could influence me as far as there were some questions on ability which he answered, and filled in my capacilities [sic] and my-my views on unionism He asked how I felt about unions, and he -I told him frankly that I believed in unions, but I didn't think they did any good in shipyards " At this 'See Finesilver Manufacturing Company , 160 NLRB 1400, 1402 EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC 307 juncture, Lemons stated that "there is a big union movement in the yard " When Gemelle expressed his ignorance as to this activity, Lemons responded, "Well, I know it's going on I know who the ringleaders are At that point he mentioned Red Huggins, said he was a ringleader in the back " Lemons concluded the session with the remark, "There is more than one way of skinning a cat We will get even with them " Based upon the foregoing undenied testimony, I find and conclude that Respondent coercively interrogated Gemelle concerning his union desires and sympathies and, through the use of the questionnaire, created the impression that it was engaging in the surveillance of its employees' union activities. I conclude that, by such conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act F The Conduct of Supervisor Lloyd Givens Hillard Pruett testified that, on July 9, the day before the first election, he encountered Supervisor Lloyd Givens during his tour of work According to Pruett, Givens inquired whether Pruett drank beer When the latter replied in the affirmative, Givens stated, "You stay with us and you can have all the beer you want to drink after the election is over " Pruett retorted that he did not care for Givens' beer and the conversation terminated Although Respondent sponsored a beer party for its supervisors that day, Pruett was not invited In his testimony Givens denied that he had any conversation with Pruett on July 9, denied that he mentioned the Union to Pruett on that day, and denied that he offered Pruett free beer if he voted against the Union. I do not credit his denials, in light of Pruett's undisputed testimony that Respondent held a beer party after the election to which Pruett was not invited In its brief, Respondent would write off Givens' proffer of lager as "shipyard raillery " When viewed against the backdrop of Respondent's entire course of conduct in this case, I do not so consider it Accordingly, I find that, on July 9, Given, promised to provide free beer to Pruett if the latter shunned the Union in the balloting which occurred the following day By this conduct, I conclude that Respondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) G The Conduct of Supervisor Herbert "Blackie" Chauffe Employee Clifton Stone testified that, approximately 2 weeks before the second election which was held on September 12, he had occasion to speak to Welder Foreman Blackie Chauffe regarding the well-being of a welder who had been assigned by Chauffe to work in the hold of a barge This welder, who possessed but one lung, had experienced sieges of vomiting and coughing on the job Because the welder was a union adherent who prominently displayed a union decal on his person while at work, Stone accused Chauffe of assigning the man to the most undesirable and hazardous jobs in the shipyard due to his union adherence According to Stone, this argument precipitated a discussion of the Union's organizational campaign during which Chauffe remarked, "do you know that Mr Levy [Respondent's president] would close this yard down if he had the union in here." Chauffe further remarked that Levy had once owned a brewery which he had shut down because a labor organization had struck the enterprise In his testimony, Chauffe denied that he ever discussed the physical condition of any welder with Stone, and denied that he told Stone that Levy would terminate operations if the Union succeeded in the election Neither Chauffe's demeanor nor candor on the stand was impressive. I therefore credit the testimony of Stone and find that, shortly before the second election, Chauffe threatened that Respondent would close its shipyard facilities in the event the employees voted for the Union I conclude that, by Chauffe's threat, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) H The Conduct of Supervisor John Koepp Anthony Monistere was employed by Respondent in 1966 and left the Company in September His testimony, which was taken at a hospital in New Orleans where he was recuperating from injuries sustained in an automobile accident, was to the effect that, sometime in August, he and Clifton Stone had been selected as union committeemen at a union meeting and this intelligence was immediately brought to Respondent's attention. In a conversation a few days later with John Koepp, Respondent's vice president, which Monistere placed about 2 weeks prior to the second election on September 12, Koepp commented, "Tony, I understand that you went to a union meeting last night." Monistere admitted that he had attended such a gathering. Koepp then lamented, "You know, I hired you in, I gave you a job, you learned a trade Then after you turned round and cut my throat, I can't understand it." Thereupon, Koepp demanded to know the names of the other employees who had gone to the union meeting but Monistere replied that he was not at liberty to divulge this information Koepp concluded the conversation with the observation that "as far as he was concerned, that I [Monistere] was finished with Equitable Equipment Company." Monistere further testified that, prior to becoming a union committeeman in August, Koepp met him at work and reported, "Tony, things got kind of tied up right now. I can't give you a raise because the union won't let us, but I'm going to the main office right now and see what I can do for you " Koepp admitted that, in August, he had a conversation with Monistere regarding the Union which Koepp initiated According to Koepp, he approached Monistere that day and inquired whether Monistere "was connected with the Union," and Monistere replied in the affirmative, adding that "he had accepted a book from the Union " Koepp then asked "if there was anyone else in the Union at the Plant connected with the Union," and Monistere supplied the name of employee Joe Notriano When questioned as to whether there was any further discussion about the Union, Koepp initially responded that there was none. He then changed tack and stated that he told Monistere that "I did not want him to talk Union on the yard during working hours but after he left the Yard he could do as he damn pleased." Koepp denied that he queried Monistere as to whether the latter had attended the union meeting or was a committeeman, although he subsequently admitted that he had learned from certain unidentified individuals earlier that morning that there had been such a meeting, that Monistere had been present, and that Monistere had received a union "book " Koepp also denied that he informed Monistere that he was "finished" with Respondent, or that he told Monistere that he had given the latter a job and taught him a trade and that Monistere turned around and cut Koepp's throat. 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nevertheless, Koepp conceded that he far from relished the intelligence that Monistere was prounion stating that "it disturbed me, yes, because I was trying to build this boy up as a Machinist . He was only a Machinist Helper at the time." Koepp also conceded that he believed Monistere displayed a "lack of gratitude" by attending the union meeting , and accepting the union "book" and the post of committeeman , explaining "It sort of took me off guard, he would do something like that , yes." Koepp added that he had spoken to Norman Bourgeois, Respondent' s machinist foreman and a brother of Hudson Bourgeois, Respondent's assistant vice president and plant superintendent, about Monistere' s union activities and this information "disturbed" Norman Bourgeois as well. Finally, Koepp related that he had received a letter from the Union about 3 days after his conversation with Monistere in which the names of the committeemen, including Monistere' s, appeared , and that he conveyed this knowledge to Norman Bourgeois immediately upon the receipt of the letter. Koepp also acknowledged that he spoke with Monistere about a wage increase before the second election. According to Koepp, Monistere inquired when the former could obtain the raise and Koepp replied that "we could not give him any increase until we found out the decision on the election," an apparent reference to the fact that the Board had under consideration the decision as to whether to schedule and when to conduct a second election. However, Koepp denied that he told Monistere that he would proceed to the main office and see if he could obtain a raise, and denied that he informed Monistere that the Union had tied his hands. Douglas Peters, Respondent superintendent of production, was present during the discussion between Koepp and Monistere concerning the Union . Peters testified that, early that morning, it became general knowledge that Monistere and Notriano had accepted "a book with the Union." Whereupon, he sought out Koepp and related that "I understand from a rumor on the Yard that Tony Monistere and Joe Notriano accepted to represent the Union here in this Yard , in the upcoming election ." Peters and Koepp then began making the rounds of the shipyard and they stopped at Monistere's work station. Koepp approached Monistere and stated, "Tony, I understand you are going to represent the Union in the Yard over here." Monistere replied , "Yes, I have accepted a book." Koepp inquired , "Tony, is there anybody else in the Yard here who has accepted a book or has decided to represent the Union?" at which juncture Monistere uttered the name of Joseph Notriano. While Peters denied hearing Koepp tell Monistere that the latter was "finished" with the Company or that he had cut Koepp's throat , Peters candidly admitted that Koepp told Monistere "Tony, I think you are making a big mistake." Rounding out Peters' testimony on this issue, he averred that he and the Company received letters from the Union containing the names of the committeemen chosen by its members. I credit Monistere 's testimony, not only because of the forthright manner in which it was given, but also because I deem any contrary testimonial utterances by Koepp and Peters both improbable and implausible . Thus, Koepp and Peters admitted that, during the conversation with Monistere in August , Koepp asked him whether he was "connected" with the Union and whether he had accepted a "book" to represent the Union at the shipyard in the forthcoming election. Inasmuch as Monistere received his portfolio as a committeeman at the union meeting, I find it implausible that Koepp would not have questioned Monistere as to whether he attended the meeting. Moreover, Koepp admittedly inquired of Monistere whether "there was anyone else in the Union at the Plant connected with the Union" and whether "there was anybody else in the Yard here who has accepted a book or has decided to represent the Union ." Once again, I consider the denials of Koepp and Peters that they inquired into who attended the union meeting inherently implausible in view of the very content of their own testimony . Furthermore, while Koepp denied that he told Monistere that the latter was "finished " with Respondent, he admitted that he deemed Monistere an ingrate for siding with the Union after Koepp had attempted to better Monistere's lot, and that Monistere' s union propensities "disturbed" him. In addition , Peters acknowledged that Koepp informed Monistere that he was "making a big mistake" by carrying the Union 's banner. In short, I find that, late in August, while in a conversation with Monistere, Koepp interrogated Monistere concerning his union activities and the activities of his fellow employees in the manner set forth in Monistere's testimony . I also find that, during this discussion , Koepp threatened Monistere with undefined reprisals because he espoused the Union' s cause. By so doing, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). I further find that, in early August , Koepp informed Monistere that Respondent was unable to grant him a wage increase because the "Union won't let us," and promised to proceed to the "main office right now and see what I can do for you ." While it is true, as hereinafter chronicled , that Peters had promised Monistere a pay increase prior to the advent of the Union and that Peters told Monistere after the first election that Respondent was unable to award the increase because the Union had its "hands tied" by virtue of certain objections to the first election and the scheduling of the second , and while I have found , as reported elsewhere , that Peters' comments in this regard were legally permissible , I am not persuaded that Koepp's fall in the same mold. At the time of his conversation concerning wages with Monistere, Koepp knew that the Board had under consideration the scheduling of a second election which was held on September 12. Moreover, at the same time, Monistere had demonstrated no overt interest in unionization. Under these circumstances , I find it reasonable to conclude that Koepp sought to wean the allegiance and support of Monistere by proffering economic benefits in spite of the fact that the Union's representational efforts might have forestalled their legitimate award . Accordingly, I conclude that by Koepp's offer of a wage increase to Monistere, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). 1. The Conduct of Supervisor Norman Bourgeois Anthony Monistere testified that, on August 30, approximately a week after his conversation with Koepp regarding Monistere's union activities, he discoursed with Norman Bourgeois , Respondent's machinist foreman. While hanging a rudder on, a tugboat , Bourgeois boarded the vessel and "wanted to know how come I got in there, if I was high pressured to sign up for committeeman, and all." Monistere replied that he had not been forced into assuming this position but did so voluntarily. Bourgeois inquired if Monistere "wanted to get out, that he could fix it where, you know, where John Koepp and all of them would forgive me for what I have done, you know, and EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. 309 that he would make it possible for me to be back in good standing with the company. But as far as he knew, at the time, I was in bad standing with the company." Monistere rejoined that if Bourgeois "wanted me to get out so badly and if Mr. Koepp wanted me to get out so badly, if he would go up there and tell Mr. Koepp to give me, to write me a written guarantee that I would never be laid off or fired I would withdraw." Norman Bourgeois, who was Monistere's immediate supervisor, recalled a discussion on that day with Monistere. According to Bourgeois' version, he boarded the tug and approached Monistere and an employee named James Wager, who were in conversation. Bourgeois overheard Wager tell Monistere that the latter was "making a mistake. Won't you come over to the Company?" Monistere replied, "Well, I can't. I am too deep in it." Turning to Bourgeois, Wager asked the former, "Don't you think he's making a mistake," and Bourgeois answered, "Well, I don't know." Monistere spoke up and said that "I know I am getting fired. I can't very well back out. If the Company will give me a written statement that I won't be laid off . . . I will come over." Bourgeois stated that no company could give such an assurance, but promised that Monistere would continue to be employed as long as any other personnel. During his examination, Bourgeois denied that he questioned Monistere whether the latter had been pressured into the Union, denied that he promised to obtain Koepp's forgiveness if Monistere defected from the Union's ranks, and denied that he told Monistere that he was "in really bad relationship with the Company." I do not credit Norman Bourgeois' denials, for I believe they were contrived. Thus, Monistere testified that, in his conversation with Bourgeois, the supervisor desired to know why he joined the Union and whether he had been coerced into becoming a committeeman. During his examination, Bourgeois adamantly insisted that he never learned that Monistere had been selected as a committeeman, either by way of overheard rumor or from the mouths of Koepp, Peters, or any other official of Respondent. He also steadfastly proclaimed that he never discussed the Union's organizational campaign or the identity of union adherents with Koepp or any other officer of Respondent, with the exception of his brother, Hudson Bourgeois . Yet, Koepp emphatically declared on the stand that he received a union letter designating Monistere as a committeeman 4 days before Bourgeois' conversation with Monistere which Koepp immediately turned over to Bourgeois' attention. In addition, Koepp testimonially recounted that, after his conversation with Monistere in which the former learned of Monistere's extensive involvement in union affairs, he revealed this intelligence to Bourgeois who became "disturbed" by the knowledge. I credit Monistere's testimony and find that, on August 30, Respondent's Machinists Foreman Norman Bourgeois questioned Monistere as to why he had joined the Union and whether he had been coerced into becoming a union committeeman, and promised that he would use his good offices to restore Monistere to good standing with Respondent's officialdom if he abandoned the Union. I conclude that, in the context of this case, the interrogation and the proffer was coercive within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and violative of that Section. the first election, Douglas Peters, Respondent's superintendent of production, recommended to management that Monistere receive an hourly wage increase of 14 cents and Monistere was so informed.' However, Monistere failed to receive the raise. About a week following that election Peters came to Monistere and explained "the union got things tied up right now but as soon as the union lets us, I'm going to compensate you 10 cents for your waiting period," meaning that "that would be a total of 24 cents raise as soon as the union would let him." In this connection, Peters informed Monistere that the Union had filed objections to the election and that "we wouldn't be able to do it, give any raises until our election is set aside and we have a second election or they say the first election is all right." Peters' testimony on this score is not at substantial variance with Monistere's. Peters related that, several weeks before the first election, he recommended a wage increase for Monistere which did not go through. However, 2 days after the election, he approved a raise of 14 cents per hour for Monistere and personally notified the latter of this personnel action. According to Peters, "Before it [the increase] could be completely implemented it was stopped by the Main Office after it left my office. They were apparently notified about the Labor Board, that they had charges filed against us by the Union involving the first election, concerning the first election and that all wages would be frozen until, pending the outcome of either the first election, it was either set aside, accepted or a new election was held." Peters conveyed this information to Monistere, stating "the raise that I had approved for you has been stopped again. The Union in the last election had filed a protest against us on unfair labor practices in the last election. And, there is a possibility there will be another election or this one will be set aside or there will be another election. Now all wages have been frozen, not just for you but for everybody by the Main Office until this thing is resolved out either by another election or this one is accepted." Peters continued that "the Main Office had decided we wouldn't give any increases pending an election because of the possibility of intimidating the employees to vote for the Company." Monistere remarked, "I understand," and the subject was dropped. Concluding Peters' testimony, he denied that he offered Monistere a bonus of 10 cents per hour for waiting for his wage increase, a testimonial conflict which is not critical to a resclution of the ultimate issue in light of the allegations in the complaint. In his pleadings, the General Counsel alleged that Respondent, by Supervisor Peters, "orally informed an employee [Monistere] he could not have a wage increase because of the Union." As Monistere himself acknowledged on the stand, Peters meant by this statement that Respondent was legally foreclosed from awarding economic benefits pending a Board decision on the Union's objections to the election because, as Peters put it, the award might be viewed as "intimidating the employees to vote for the Company." As the Board observed in a case not dissimilar from the instant one, "We are unable to conclude that the Employer, by its announcement ... sought to shift to the Petitioner [union] 'When the petition in Case i5-RC- 3888 was initially filed by the Union, the requested unit did not encompass the employees at the Madisonville J. The Conduct of Supervisor Douglas Peters installation where Monistere was employed At some undisclosed date prior to the balloting and prior to Peters' recommendation , the unit was Anthony Monistere testified that, some months prior tc enlarged by the Board to include those employees 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the onus for the postponement of adjustments in wages and benefits for employees it sought to represent, or to disparage and undermine the Petitioner by creating the impression that it stood in the way of their getting planned wage increases and benefits"' Moreover, had Respondent paid the wage increase to Monistere, it might very well have been brought before the Board on charges of interference with employees' statutory rights by affording economic benefits to them while a question concerning representation was pending '° Accordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has failed to make out a case on this issue I shall therefore dismiss this allegation from the complaint K The Conduct of Supervisor Hudson Bourgeois Employee Bill Green did not appear at the hearing However, the parties stipulated that, if called to the stand, he would have testified as follows Approximately three weeks before I attended the hearing in the election case, I was called into the office of Hudson Bourgeois [Respondent's assistant vice president and plant superintendent) and Harold Hebert, and been asked, "Are you helping organize the yard " I told him, "No, sir " He said, "We have a letter here from Mr Hornsby which says that you and Larry LaFarge are trying to organize the yard " I said, "No, sir " Bourgeois said, "Well, we have been told you are trying to organize the yard " I told him that when I came there I came there, I came off construction work, that I was a union man, that they knew it when I hired in Bourgeois said they did not think I was the type of man to try to come there and organize the union And I told him I carried two membership books in my pocket already This was about all that was said Clifton Stone testified that, a few days before the first election, he was summoned to Bourgeois' office When he arrived, Bourgeois inquired "who got to me," and Stone replied that no one had Bourgeois then said, "why are you giving up these many years here with me and this organization that is going to go forward for a losing battle, a losing thing, like the Union " Stone stated that he did not believe the Union's cause was lost, and that he hoped to gain more attractive benefits by collective representation Bourgeois ridiculed Stone's observations and asked whether the latter had received his union "book," to which Stone replied that he had not and probably would never get one Bourgeois then stated to Stone that "if you are so set on a Union job why not quit and go to a Union fob " Stone retorted that he "was going to stay there until the Union told me to leave or that he should fire me " Bourgeois observed that the Company had grown over the years and commented that Stone "would grow with the company providing you wouldn't take sides with the Union " Bourgeois amplified this comment by stating that "Frank Thresher would eventually would be stepped up to Superintendent which he was Foreman at the time and since I had been there longer than anyone else I would be scheduled for his job as General Foreman of the Yard " Stone further testified that, a week or two before the second election, he engaged in another conversation with Hudson Bourgeois. On this occasion, Stone entered the bathroom to relieve himself and, when he arrived, he noticed the presence of Bourgeois who was reading 'See UARCO Incorporated, 169 NLRB No 162 "See Performance Measurements Co, Inc. 148 NLRB 1657, 1658 pro-Respondent election posters which were affixed to a bulletin board Observing Stone, Bourgeois asked what the former was doing in the room and Stone explained that he was simply answering the call of nature Bourgeois shot back, "this wasn't no place for union organizers to hang out " Stone repeated that he had come to relieve himself and angrily remarked that if Bourgeois did not believe him Stone would display the end product At this juncture, Bourgeois warned, "you think you are in the driver's seat now but when this union stuff is over with I will be in the driver's seat and that 40 foot gate will hit all you Union Loving Mother in the " According to Stone, this was his first visit to the restroom on that day and he did not discuss the Union with any other employees during this visit Surprisingly, Bourgeois corroborated Green's stipulated testimony in its essential details Hence, Bourgeois admitted that he had a conversation with Green in April concerning the Union. On this occasion, he summoned Green to his office and, in the presence of Assistant Plant Superintendent Hebert, Bourgeois "told Mr Green that we had rumors that he and other men in the Yard were circulating Union Cards for the people to sign, different people in the Yard, in order to try and get a Union Election " Green denied that he had solicited any employees on behalf of the Union, explaining that he was not interested in this type of labor organization because he had previously been a construction worker and held membership in construction unions While Bourgeois initially related that he learned of Green's efforts on behalf of the Union from Hebert, who in turn gained this knowledge from Stone, Bourgeois subsequently conceded that he told Green that he had received a letter from a Mr Hornsby notifying him that Green had been circulating union authorization cards in the shipyard I credit the proffered testimony of Green, which is not basically disputed, and find that, in April, Hudson Bourgeois called Green into the former's office and interrogated him as to whether he had been soliciting membership among Respondent's employees on behalf of the Union I conclude that this conduct falls within the proscriptive ambit of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Bourgeois also acknowledged that he had a discussion concerning the Union with Stone on the day before the first election His version of this incident is that, on July 9, Stone voluntarily visited his office and stated, "Buddy, I want to let you know that I'm on the other side of the fence. I am not going for the company in the Election " Bourgeois asked, "well, Stone, what did we do to you'i" Stone replied, "Well, you didn't do me anything I have analyzed both sides of the story. I told you once before I am a man without any education whatsoever, and I am a poor boy, I have been working in the shipyards, I got to took out for Stone first I got a wife and a couple of kids " Bourgeois pointed out to Stone that the latter had been employed in the shipyards for years and knew what the going rate of pay was, and then remarked, "Well, Stone, my recommendation to you if you feel this way, is this You either should change your daily budget way of living or seek employment in a different field." In his testimony, Bourgeois denied that any mention was made of a "Union book," denied that he told Stone to seek employment elsewhere if he was so set "on a Union job," and denied that he informed Stone that the Company was a growing concern and that Stone would grow with it and receive a promotion if he abandoned the Union Bourgeois also recalled a conversation with Stone in the men's room about 3 weeks before the second election It is EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., his testimony that he was present in the restroom at the time when Stone and an unidentified employee entered. Although Stone and his cohort were engaged in a dialogue as they entered, Bourgeois admitted that he did not overhear what was spoken Nevertheless, Bourgeois was prompted to call out "Stone, this Restroom is not a hangout Do you have to do something here, do what you have to do and let's get back to the job" Stone replied that he had come in response to nature's call and volunteered to prove this to Bourgeois Bourgeois retorted, "Stone, I have no objections, you have the same rights here as anybody, all I asked you to do is not to loaf here in the Restroom, that is all that I have asked of you " When questioned as to whether he observed Stone going into this edifice earlier that day, Bourgeois replied in the affirmative, stating "Several times, I did not count the times " Concluding Bourgeois' testimony, he denied that he referred to the Union during this conversation I have heretofore found that Stone was a truthful witness whose testimony was worthy of belief and I perceive no reason for departing from this appraisal in assessing the quality of his testimonial utterances where they collide with Bourgeois' I deem it implausible that Bourgeois' sole concern when he met Stone in the men's room before the second election evolved around the latter's frequent use of that facility on that day, and that Bourgeois did not broach the subject of the Union or the election on this occasion At the time of this conversation, Bourgeois was fully apprised of Stone's increasing affection for the Union Thus, I have heretofore found that, on the day before the initial election, Stone refused to wear a company electioneering button bearing the legend "I am True Blue," and reluctantly distributed those buttons to his crew on Thresher's orders. I have also found that, after an altercation between Stone and Thresher about a week following this balloting, both men proceeded to Bourgeois' office where Thresher announced that he "was figuring on cutting [Stone] down because I tied up with the Union " Moreover, I have found that Respondent received a letter from the Union in August setting forth the names of the committeemen, and Stone held such a post In sum, I find it improbable that Bourgeois would have been irritated by Stone's allegedly frequent trips to the restroom on the day in question, a dereliction never previously charged against this senior employee so far as this record stands Based on Stone's credited testimony, I find that, prior to the first election, Bourgeois questioned Stone as to his reasons for making common cause with the Union and suggested that Stone should seek employment elsewhere if he desired collective representation. I further find that, during this episode, Bourgeois promised to promote Stone to a supervisory position at some future date if he abandoned his interest in and support of the Union Moreover, I find that, before the second election, Bourgeois threatened Stone that when the balloting was concluded he and his fellow union adherents would be severed from Respondent's employment rolls I conclude that, by Bourgeois' statements, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act L. The Conduct of Supervisor Sonny Alley The testimony of Cecil Kersh is uncontroverted and I find that, approximately 4 weeks prior to the first election, he engaged in a conversation with his supervisor, Sonny Alley During their colloquy, Alley asked Kersh for his "honest opinion about the union " Kersh, who was wearing a union button on his apparel, replied that he favored the Union because of the benefits which it offered Alley informed Kersh that the former was a dues-paying member of the Machinists Union and remarked that he could not fathom how a union could benefit shipyard workers. Alley added, "If the unions did come in, that he would most likely have to lay two or three people off, and that we would more or less work on a day to day basis, rather than steady." Alley also stated that, under a union contract, layoffs would be dictated About 2 weeks before the election, he had another conversation with Alley. When Kersh was first employed, he was told he would subsequently receive the top pay for his craft. Not having received it, he sought out Alley and requested the increase. Alley replied that "the law prevented them from giving a raise during a union campaign " Clyde Ray Malone's testimony is undenied that, about 6 to 8 days prior to the first election, Malone complained to Alley that, when he was hired, he too had been promised a wage increase in 2 to 3 months and that he had not been awarded it Alley remarked, "Do you know this union could hold this up or actually stop you from even drawing this money9 Although I held a card with the union, I feel personally that the yard will be closed down before he will ever sign a contract." On the basis of the foregoing undisputed testimony, I find that Alley questioned Kersh about his desires for representation by the Union, and warned that the employees ran the risk of a reduction in force if the Union was successful because, under a negotiated agreement, layoffs would be necessary I conclude that these statements, when considered in the context of Respondent's other unlawful conduct portrayed herein, violated Section 8(a)(1) However, I am not convinced that Alley's comment to Kersh that "the law prevented them from giving a raise during a union campaign" was offensive of the statute. As in the case of the statement of Superintendent of Production Douglas Peters regarding the award of wage increases, Alley was simply stating a truism for, had Respondent awarded pay raises shortly before the election, this conduct could very well have found its way in the complaint issued in this proceeding. Accordingly, I shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated the Act by the foregoing statement of Alley. I also find that, in early July, Alley informed Malone that Respondent would close its shipyard before it would ever sign a contract with the Union. In my view, this threat of closure impinged upon Malone's freedom of choice in the impending election and was violative of Section 8(a)(1). M The Conduct of Supervisor Harold Hebert Clifton Stone testified that, approximately a month before the first election, Assistant Plant Superintendent Harold Hebert approached Stone in the pipefitters shack with a form in his hand. Hebert asked Stone "what I think of the Union and what way probably I would vote, did I like the union." Hebert further inquired into the names of Stone's friends with whom he ate dinner and rode to work Hebert made a note of Stone's responses on the form which he carried. Hebert then wrote down a series of questions on about 40 to 50 pieces of paper which he gave to Stone with the suggestion that "I go and question the men how were they going to vote." Stone told Hebert that he was still on the fence as to his voting 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD choice, but he agreed to interrogate his crew with the questions which Hebert had given him Hebert instructed Stone to observe the eyes of the employees whom he questioned because "if they looked down to the ground they usually looking off and don't want to talk about it and they probably would be uncertain or they were against us. If they just come out direct and looked you right in the eye and said, no, I ain't going to vote for the union more than likely that man of that type was not going to vote And that if they were hemming and hawing around, trying to get off the subject more than likely he said he would go for the union " At the conclusion of their conversation, Hebert related that "if the union got in here more than likely we wouldn't get no raise Definitely the company had said too that the union didn't have all the say-so" and that Respondent would reduce its hourly pay scale to the level paid by another company in the area Stone further testified that he attended his first union meeting about a week or two before the first election The following day, Hebert accosted him and remarked "I gave you all morning to come and tell me but, that you went to the union meeting and to tell me who was there, and he said, you hadn't done so." Stone replied that he had previously heard the Respondent's side of the electoral argument and that he attended the meeting to hear the Union's. Hebert asked, "you going to change," and Stone responded, "I think I am." Thereupon, Hebert inquired into the names of the employees who had attended the union gathering but Stone refused to divulge this information. According to Stone, about a day or two before the first election, Hebert escorted Stone and some other employees over to a billboard which contained samples of the ballots to be utilized in the forthcoming election Pointing his finger at the box designated "None," Hebert warned that "this is where you must vote if you want to hold your job." Stone jokingly placed his finger in the box designating a vote for the Union, whereupon Hebert exclaimed "I will kick you in the " Shortly thereafter, Hebert came to Stone and instructed the latter Co visit the men in his crew with a sample ballot and stress the fact that "if they wanted to hold their jobs to vote in the box which read, `None.' " On the day before the first election, as reported elsewhere, Stone's immediate supervisor, Frank Thresher, directed Stone to wear a company campaign button and to distribute similar buttons to the employees in his gang. Stone refused to pin one on his apparel. About an hour later he met Hebert who was wearing the button and Hebert asked why Stone did not bear one as well. Hebert cautioned, "You'd better wear one and be True Blue to the Company." Stone protested that he preferred to side with the Union, to which Hebert replied, "If I [Stone] knew what was good for me that I had better wear the button." Stone also testified that, approximately 2 to 3 weeks prior to the second election, Hebert questioned him as to whether he had changed his mind about voting for the Union. When Stone replied in the negative, Hebert remarked "if you Union Lovers would hurry up and get this thing over with the company was going to give us 22 to a 25 cents raise and if we voted the union in there, we probably wouldn't get nothing but $3.37" which was less than the going rate. About a week before the second balloting, Hebert again spoke to Stone. In this conversation, Hebert stated that he "hated to see me get messed up and so forth with this union that there was so much corruption and all in it, I was being misled and if I would realize, if I realized, if we voted the union in there Mr. Levy would close down the yard." Hebert then directed Stone to "instruct the men to that effect." The final conversation relating to the Union took place about a week after the election. It is Stone's testimony that, on this occasion, Hebert approached and stated with laughter in his voice that "he didn't hold no hard feelings and all but said he was intending to step me up into Foreman, which would be Frank Thresher's job Frank Thresher was going to be stepped up to Superintendent if I hadn't took sides with the Union I told him I had bit off a chew of tobacco I guess I would have to chew it " Hillard Pruett testified that, the day before the first election, Hebert told him "I heard you was for the union " After Pruett confirmed his allegiance to that labor organization, Hebert warned, "You'd better stay with us " In his testimony, Cecil Kersh related that, about 2 weeks before the first election, Kersh asked Hebert for a wage increase. Hebert replied that Respondent could not grant any raises due to lack of work. During this conversation, Hebert stated that "he didn't see how the unions could benefit us more than what we were already getting. And said Captain Levy didn't have to submit to a contract even if the unions came in, that rather he asked how would I feel if I come to work after a strike, if the unions came in, and Captain Levy didn't submit to a contract, then the next alternative would be to strike, how would I feel if I came back to work and someone else had my job. That was perfectly legal, that the man could hire men to do the work while the other employees were out on strike And he also made the statement that Captain Levy would rather close the yard than submit to a contract." Respondent summoned Hebert to the stand to meet the testimony of Stone, Pruett, and Kersh He admitted that, in late June, Kersh asked about the possibility of obtaining a wage increase and Hebert stated that such an award was out of the question at that time because it might subject Respondent to unfair labor practice charges?' Kersh then posed the query, "How do I stand?" to which Hebert answered, "Cecil, you stand just like you always have You've got a job here, I have no ill feelings. You have exposed yourself. I take that as your feelings. You believe in what you want " When Kersh inquired whether the yard would be closed because of the Union, Hebert stated "Cecil, this I can't determine. Only way anything like this could happen would be if the unions did win the election, and the demands were such as Captain Levy could not meet the demands. Then the union did pull a strike, and we could not operate. Then we would have to close." He then added, "I didn't think this would happen." Hebert also admitted to a conversation with Pruett a few weeks before the first election. On this occasion, Pruett was looking at a campaign poster on a billboard in the shipyard which contained pictures of two grocery baskets, one empty and one full. When Pruett inquired, "How do you like that?", Hebert retorted, "it could happen." Apart from this discussion, Hebert insisted that he had no other discussions with Pruett regarding the "Whether Hebert declined to award a pay raise to Kersh because of the fear of triggering the filing of unfair labor practice charges, as he testified, or because of lack of work , as Kersh averred, this would not, in my opinion, have been violative of the statute under the circumstances here presented . Insofar as any allegation in the complaint is susceptible of an interpretation that this conduct was unlawful, it shall be dismissed EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC 313 Union While he steadfastly denied that he ever questioned Pruett as to whether the latter favored the Union or ever cautioned him to "stick with us," Hebert conceded that he knew that Pruett was in league with the Union because "he led me to believe in his actions the way he hedged about by the posters and all " Regarding the testimony of Stone, Hebert categorically denied every essential portion of that testimony I do not credit these denials, nor do I credit the denials where his testimonial utterances collide with those of Kersh and Pruett, for I believe that his testimony was contrived as evidenced by the following happenstance On cross-examination by the General Counsel, Hebert was queried as to whether he had ever given Stone examples of questions on little pieces of paper which Stone was to utilize in order to determine whether the employees were for or against the Union He flatly responded, "No, sir." Hebert then adamantly denied that he had ever jotted down on paper some form questions that might be put to employees to determine if they were prounion When asked again whether he had given Stone pieces of paper with questions to be asked of employees, he replied, "No, sir, not that I can remember " At this juncture, counsel presented two handwritten notes to Hebert, one of which bore the names of employees S Allen and Cisco, and the other contained the name of L C. Everett The first note read "For union or against What would do if union was elected and was pulled out on strike with 10 depend to feed. Does he feel satisfied with benefits Co gives. Steady employment Top pay" The second note bore the words "New man with Co. Has steady fob-can union give him any more benefits than the Co gives Is he for against union " Hebert grudgingly acknowledged that he had previously seen these notes When interrogated as to where he had seen them, Hebert proclaimed that he had received the notes from Stone before the first election and that Stone commented in turning them over, "He was giving-he gave me these two He spoke to them like, he spoke to the other boys like for instance Larry LaFarge and Bill Green He told me about them " Hebert stoutly claimed that he did not know from what source Stone obtained the documents When pressed on the matter, Hebert ultimately confessed that the notes were in his, Hebert's, handwriting The following colloquy then ensued between counsel and Hebert Q When were these written? A This was written when Stone was giving me the information, sir Q. Why did you write questions when he was giving you information9 A. Well, just the way he gave them to me, I wrote the question down, that was it Q Did you write the answers down? A. Just kept them in my mind, sir? Q But you wrote the questions? A Yes, sir. Q And you admit both these notes are your handwriting, is that correct? A Yes, sir Q. You were going to go question these people and ask how they were going to vote? A That I was going to ask them9 Q. Stone was9 A. Not that I can recall, sir. Q. Do you deny that you gave Stone 25 or more notes with employees' names on them to question about the Union9 A No, sir, no, sir. Q You don't deny that, or you do deny it) A I do not deny it. Q What did you give Stone9 A. A little booklet, yes. Q Tell us more about the little booklet. A It was just with the man's name, simplyreasons -- I was curious of the people, not for a record of anything , or discriminating against the person or anything. Q But what was Stone supposed to put into the booklets, how employees felt about the Union9 A No, sir, just jotted down whatever the man would tell him I mean if he felt that whatever the man, you know, explained himself, say, "Well, what gripes have you got against the company," or anything- 1 credit the testimony of Stone, Pruett, and Kersh. I find that, on the dates set forth in Stone's testimony, Hebert interrogated the former as to his union sympathies and desires, instructed Stone to interrogate other employees concerning their voting preference in the upcoming election; warned Stone that if the Union were successful Respondent would not only refuse to grant a wage increase but would instead reduce the employees' wage scale, solicited from Stone the names of employees who had attended a union meeting; directed Stone to vote against the Union on pain of losing his job, ordered Stone to inform his fellow employees that they must reject the Union in the forthcoming balloting if they wished to retain their employment with Respondent , threatened Stone with unspecified reprisals if he failed to wear Respondent' s campaign buttons, promised Stone and his cohorts wage increases after the election if the Union were defeated, threatened Stone that Respondent would terminate its operations if the men voted for the Union and directed him to convey this information to his fellow employees; and told Stone that he had forfeited a promotion to foreman because he sided with the Union I further find that, on July 9, Hebert questioned Pruett concerning the latter' s union sympathies and created the impression of the surveillance of Pruett ' s union activities by stating that he heard that Pruett favored the Union, and warned Pruett to forsake the Union in the balloting Finally, I find that, around the end of June, Hebert warned Kersh that Respondent would shut down its shipyard rather than submit to a contract with the Union. By the foregoing acts and conduct of Hebert, I conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a)(1). N The Conduct of Benjamin Waldo and Calvin Parmalee Q Mr. Hebert , did you tell Stone you were going to give him some notes with some men 's names on them, and to question these people and ask how they were going to vote? A Repeat the question James Granger 's testimony is uncontroverted and I find that, the day before the second election, he and Leaderman Willie Andry were walking through a shop in the shipyard when they passed Benjamin Waldo. Andry called out to Waldo that Granger was "another union man " Parmalee was standing nearby and, after Waldo inquired of Granger whether he was in fact a union supporter and received an affirmative answer, Waldo 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD exclaimed "after tomorrow this is another man that would be gone " Parmalee broke into laughter and inquired whether Granger was a member of the Union, and Granger confessed that he was. With this, the conversation terminated The General Counsel argues that the statements of Waldo and Parmalee are attributable to Respondent and that they were coercive within the purview of Section 8(a)(I) Respondent contends that it is not responsible for the acts and conduct of Waldo and Parmalee because they lack the statutory indicia of supervisory authority. Granger testified that Waldo worked in the aluminum shop and "was sort of an inspector, a lower echelon inspector Wasn't a chief inspector " Granger described Waldo's duties as inspection work to ascertain whether certain small parts were adequately fabricated in addition to Waldo, there were three female inspectors in the shop who performed the same tasks as Waldo under the direction of a chief inspector Hudson Bourgeois testified without dispute that Waldo receives an hourly rate of $2 50, that the starting rate in the yard is $2, and that the top nonsupervisory position in the Company is that of a leadman who is paid $3.91 per hour Bourgeois' testimony is also undisputed that Waldo possesses no authority to hire or discharge employees, to assign work to employees, to make changes in their status, to promote them, or to recommend any alteration in their terms or conditions of employment Accordingly, I find that Waldo is not a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(l 1) of the Act Granger related that Calvin Parmalee walked through the shop asking "Why isn't this moving" or "What is wrong with this " While Granger sought to establish Parmalee's supervisory status by stating that the latter granted Granger time off from work, he confessed that he asked permission to absent himself from an individual named Joe who referred him to Parmalee solely for purpose of noting the time lost on his timecard which Parmalee had in his possession Hudson Bourgeois testified without contradiction that Parmalee possesses none of the statutory indicia of supervisory authority and that Parmalee's authority is similar to that possessed by Clifton Stone and Bill Green, both of whom are alleged to be "employees" in the General Counsel's complaint I therefore find that Parmalee is not a supervisor under the Act As I have found that Waldo and Parmalee are not statutory supervisors, I conclude that their statements, as reported by Granger, are not binding upon Respondent and that it did not thereby violate Section 8(a)(1) I shall accordingly dismiss the complaint insofar as it attributes the commission of unfair labor practices to Respondent by virtue of their conduct O The Conduct of Supervisors Neville Levy and John T Knight The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by a series of speeches delivered by Captain Neville Levy, Respondent's president, and Colonel John T. Knight, an official of Respondent, to the employees shortly before the second election Inasmuch as I have found that Respondent had indulged in an extensive series of acts of interference, restraint, and coercion prior to the second election which were violative of Section 8(a)(1), and in view of the conclusion herein made that this misconduct so interfered with the holding of a free and untrammeled second election on September 12 which warrants the scheduling of another vote, I deem it unnecessary to consider whether these speeches were violative of the Act. Even if these addresses were found to be unlawful and coercive of the employees' freedom of choice, a consideration of that effect would unduly extend this opinion Moreover, such a finding would merely be cumulative P The Objection to the Election As heretofore noted, the Union filed an objection to the election held on September 12 which does not find its parallel in the complaint. In this objection, the Union charges that Respondent interfered with that election by the conduct of Supervisor John Sisson who "was seated approximately twenty-five feet away from the voting line at the New Orleans facility and during the afternoon session, called out voters' names as they stood in line, and made a thumbs-down motion with his hand," and Sisson was observed in the voting area talking to two men as they lined up to vote Uncontroverted testimony concerning this incident was elicited from employee Thomas Huggins I find that, while Huggins was standing in line waiting to vote, Sisson was located approximately 25 feet away where he proceeded to gesture with his hands pointing his thumbs toward the floor According to Huggins, he interpreted this gesture to mean that Sisson was urging the employees to vote against the Union Huggins also observed Sisson speaking to some voters on the line but the former was unable to overhear the content of the conversations Huggins testified that Sisson was his "immediate supervisor" who assigned work to approximately 13 employees under him, grants time off, and disciplines employees as evidenced by the fact that he told an employee to return home and procure workshoes However, the parties stipulated at the hearing that Sisson was a leaderman with the same authority and duties as Calvin Parmalee, Bill Green, and Clifton Stone I have heretofore found that Parmalee was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and that the General Counsel alleged in his complaint that Green and Stone were "employees " In light of the stipulation, I do not credit Huggins' testimony that Sisson possessed and exercised the authority of a supervisor and find that Sisson was a rank-and-file employee In announcing its new rule relating to electioneering at the polls by word or presence, the Board addressed its concern to "last minute electioneering or pressure, and unfair advantage from prolonged conversations between representatives of any party to the election "" (Emphasis supplied.) So far as this record stands, there is absolutely no evidence that Respondent instigated Sisson's actions or even tolerated them Moreover, although Sisson was in the voting area for a considerable period of time, according to Huggins' testimony, he was not admonished by the Board agent conducting the election or ordered to leave Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent was not responsible for or bound by this rank-and-file employee's activity I shall therefore recommend that this objection be overruled I have heretofore found and concluded that Respondent indulged in an extensive series of acts and conduct designed to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in their exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the statute and, by so doing, thereby created an atmosphere which made it impossible for its employees to express their free choice in the election "See Mitchem, Inc, 170 NLRB No 46 EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. which was held on September 12 1 shall therefore recommend that, in addition to ordering Respondent to refrain from engaging in any like or related unfair labor practices found herein, the election be nullified and that another election be conducted at an appropriate time. IV THE hFFLCT OF T1IE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCL The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act I have also found that Respondent, by the commission of unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, thereby engaged in objectionable conduct which interfered with the election held on September 12, 1968 1 shall therefore recommend that the election be set aside and another be conducted at such time as may be appropriate Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing 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)(I) of the Act 4 By the aforesaid unfair labor practices, Respondent has interfered with and illegally affected the results of the Board election held on September 12, 1968 5 The aforesaid conduct constitutes conduct affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I recommend that Respondent, Equitable Equipment Co , Inc and its Wholly Owned Subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards, Inc , New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities in a manner constituting interference , restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (b) Threatening employees that the shipyard would close and their jobs would be lost if they voted for or 315 assisted the Union (c) Creating the impression of surveillance among the employees that their union activities are under surveillance (d) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals if they joined, voted for, or assisted the Union (e) Promising employees economic and other benefits if they refrained from supporting the Union. (f) Instructing employees to interrogate other employees concerning their voting preferences in Board elections (g) Threatening employees with a reduction of wage rates if they voted for the Union. (h) Ordering employees to convey threats to other employees that the shipyard would be terminated if the employees cast the ballots for the Union. (i) Threatening employees with reprisals for failing to wear its election campaign insignia (f) Threatening to withhold wage increases if the employees voted for the Union 2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its places of business in New Orleans and Madisonville, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix"" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by the Respondent, shall be posted by it 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 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 14 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that !the election conducted in'the appropriate unit of Respondent's employees on September 12, 1968, be set aside and another election directed at an appropriate time IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein, and that the objection to the election be overruled "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 said Regional Director, 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 interrogate our employees concerning their activities on behalf of New Orleans Metal Trades Council or any other labor organization in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion within 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that the shipyard will be closed and that they will lose their jobs if they vote for or assist labor unions. WE WILL NOT create the impression among our employees that we are spying on their activities on behalf of a union WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other reprisals if they join, or vote for, or assist a labor organization. WE WILL NOT promise our employees economic and other benefits if they vote against a union or cease joining or supporting a union. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to question other employees concerning their voting preferences in Labor Board elections WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will reduce their wages if they vote for a union. WE WILL NOT order our employees to convey our threats to other employees that the shipyard would be closed if they voted the Union in. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals if they do not wear our election campaign buttons WE WILL NOT threaten to withhold wage increases if our employees select a union WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY EQUITABLE-HIGGINS SHIPYARDS, INC. (Employer) Dated 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 , T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361