Sequoyah Industries, Inc.

326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sequoyah Industries, Inc. and General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local 886, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 16-CA-3516 and 16-RC-5084 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on February 20, 1969, among Respondent's employees be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election' omitted from publication ] October 24, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On August 18, 1969, Trial Examiner Benjamin A. Theeman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. He further found that certain conduct by Respondent interfered with and affected the results of the election in Case 16-RC-5084 and recommended that the election be set aside and that a rerun be directed. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Sequoyah Industries, Inc , Anadarko, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'in view of the Trial Examiner ' s failure to resolve certain credibility conflicts relating thereto, Member Zagoria is unwilling to find a violation of the Act, or objectionable conduct , in plant manager Heller's statements concerning union contracts and a 40-hour week In all other respects he agrees with his colleagues and the Trial Examiner 'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list containing the names and addresses of all eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 16 within 7 days after the date of this Notice of Second Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN, Trial Examiner The complaint as amended' alleges that Respondent Sequoyah Industries, Inc , at its Anadarko, Oklahoma, plant since about December 1, 1968, had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S.C. 151, et seq (the Act), by (1) threatening employees of its shipping department with discharge, layoff, loss of benefits, or other reprisals if they became or remained members of the Teamsters or assisted or supported it, (2) interrogating employees; (3) creating among the employees the impression that their union activities were being kept under surveillance by Respondent, and (4) announcing that Respondent would refuse to bargain with the Teamsters if that Union were designated or selected by the employees as their collective -bargaining representative. The,election in Case 16-RC-5084 was held on February 20, 1969, pursuant to stipulation for certification upon consent election. Of 69 eligible voters 66 valid votes were cast The Teamsters lost by a vote of 34 to 32. On February 26, 1969, the Teamsters filed objections to the election A report on objections and order consolidating the two cases issued May 16, 1969. In essence, the objections and the allegations of the amended complaint are the same Pursuant to notice , a hearing on the consolidated cases was held before me on May 27 and 28 in Chickasha, Oklahoma. All parties appeared and were represented by counsel They were given full opportunity to participate, adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and argue orally. The General Counsel and Respondent submitted briefs Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,' I make the following The original complaint was issued April 25, 1969, on a charge filed January 27, 1969 'The testimony of all witnesses has been considered In evaluating the testimony of each witness , his demeanor was relied upon in addition, inconsistencies and conflicting evidence were considered The absence of a statement of resolution of a conflict in, or an analysis of, specific testimony does not mean that such did not occur See Bishop and Malco. Inc, d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 179 NLRB No. 53 SEQUOYAH INDUSTRIES, INC. 327 FINDINGS OF FACT C Individual Conversations Between Supervisor and Employee 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, an Oklahoma corporation maintains its principal office and place of business in the city of Anadarko, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing carpets and related products During the past year, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations manufactured, sold, and distributed from its Anadarko, Oklahoma, plant, products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from said Oklahoma plant direct to States of the United States other than the State of Oklahoma. It is found that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE TEAMSTERS General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers , Local 886, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Case 16-CA-3516 A. The Issues The issues of this proceeding are sufficiently set forth in the statement of the case B. Background The main action in this proceeding took place in the shipping department of Respondent's plant I in Anadarko. Plant I has about 750 employees The shipping department has about 70 employees. The following persons, admittedly supervisors, are alleged to have committed the unfair labor practices between the period of December 13, 1968, and February 20, 1969 Don Greve, chairman of the board; Jack G. Bush, vice chairman of the board; Sanford D. Lee, executive vice president in charge of manufacturing; William Mark Heller, plant manager, Fate A Capshew, shipping foreman, Marvin Harvey, Jr., shipping foreman (through December 29, 1968), Leonard Miller, receiving foreman, and Bobby Jay, tufting foreman. Among the employees, Harold B. Cotton was the focal point of the union campaign Respondent started an active anti-union campaign as soon as it became aware of the union activity and maintained it to the day of the election. The campaign was directed to all the plant employees not only those in the shipping department Respondent's campaign consisted of (a) individual conversations between supervisor and employee on a man-to-man basis The supervisors were (1) Harvey, (2) Lee, (3) Heller, (4) Jay, (5) Miller, and (6) Capshew, (b) 50 talks by Vice Chairman Bush to small groups of from 8 to 18 employees, and (c) four speeches by Chairman Greve to groups exceeding 100 employees. These communications will be dealt with in the given order 1 Conversation between Shipping Foreman Harvey and Cotton Cotton was employed by Respondent in the shipping department from March 1967 to May 1969, first as a hyster driver and then as a switch driver. He was active as a union organizer In November 1968, in an earlier and different campaign to organize truckdrivers, Cotton obtained signature cards for an election. The Respondent was aware of this activity On Friday, December 13, 1968, shortly after lunch, Harvey called Cotton into the break room' saying he wished to speak with him. Harvey informed Cotton that he understood he was passing out union cards in the shipping department and the Company was watching him Cotton thanked Harvey and the conversation ended ° This conversation is coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and it is so found.' The same afternoon Cotton obtained the cards that had been signed in the shipping department and that evening delivered them to the Teamsters office in Oklahoma City. The following Sunday, Cotton held a meeting of employees at his house to convince them to join the Union. 2 Conversation between Executive Vice President Lee and Cotton In the middle of the following week (about a week before Christmas) Heller told Cotton that Lee wished to speak with him They went to Lee's office and the three of them held a conversation. Cotton testified on direct as follows Q. Tell us what was said while you were in Mr. Lee's office? A Mr Lee asked me if I was not satisfied, if I thought I should have special treatment, and if I thought so, why, I could dust quit. I'd be treated like everybody else and that I was trying to create unrest and if I thought - if I wanted to create unrest - I could go somewhere else and do it This room , containing a coffee machine and soda vending machine, is next to the shipping office in the shipping department area This is a composite of the credited testimony of Harvey and Cotton 'Respondent urges that the Harvey -Cotton conversation preceded the filing of the election petition and cannot be considered in deciding a question to set aside an election They cite Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company , 134 NLRB 1275 According to Harvey the conversation occurred about I p in on December 13 The time stamp on the election petition shows it was filed the same day at 1 14 p in in the Board' s Fort Worth office As hereafter shown no merit is found in Respondent's contention The Board 's intent in Ideal was to eliminate from postelection consideration preelection activity that was too remote to have prevented a free choice election To achieve that end the Board reviewed its procedures under The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , 101 NLRB 1118, 1120, and under its delegation of decisional authority in representation cases to its Regional Directors (see 26 Fed Reg 3911 (May 4 , 1961)) As a result, the Board decided that "the date of filing of the petition should be the cutoff time in considering alleged objectionable conduct in contested cases " I do not believe that the Board intended by that decision to cut the time factor so fine as to make it depend upon the time stamped on the petition when filed in the Board's office It is conceivable that petitions may not be time stamped immediately when received I consider that when the Board used the word "date" it reasonably meant the day of filing not the "hour and minute " The Harvey-Cotton conversation having occurred on the day of the filing of the election petition it is concluded that it may be considered in determining a question to set aside an election 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. I replied in this manner That I wasn't trying to stir up trouble for anybody, most especially myself. * * * Q. (By Mr. Evans) Was there anymore to that conversation? A Well, that's about it was dust along the line of if I was dissatisfied - why, I could hit the road, along that general line That's the best I remember it. By cross-examination of Cotton, Respondent showed that Respondent had a policy of permitting employees to buy furniture at a discount, that Cotton had spoken to a Mrs. Abbot the same morning about such a purchase, that at the Lee-Cotton meeting Lee criticized Cotton for having given Mrs. Abbot a "hard time" about the furniture and that Lee was not going to take it. Cotton added, "I'll put it this way, if the girl took offense it wasn't intended I didn't give the girl no rough time." Lee testified that Cotton had used profanity in speaking with Mrs. Abbot and that she had complained to Lee about it; that this behavior was the cause of the interview Lee continued A. Well, I told Mr. Cotton that I only ran our plants by one set of rules and knowing that Mr Cotton had been in the Army I said, "Harold, now you know" I had been in the Army, too, and when I was a sergeant and when I was an officer I ran my outfits in the same way, because then I don't ever have to remember what I tell somebody. I told him, "I want to tell you that I will not permit you creating unrest with my employees in the office by abusing them and if you want to buy something you buy it, but don't ever, because a lady is a lady in this plant as long as she's on the property of the company and she is going to be treated as one." I also said that if he didn't feel he could do that he could resign, and Mr. Cotton said that he didn't realize that he had made her mad and that he would apologize. I told him that I thought an apology would be in order. I don't know whether he apologized or not, but I do know this, that he bought a - Lee testified further that the Union was not mentioned in this conversation and that the reference to "unrest" or "going elsewhere to work" had nothing to do with the Union. The Lee account of this conversation is credited This conclusion takes into consideration the fact that this episode could have been used by Lee as a pretext to advise Cotton that his union activities were known and being watched and to warn him that they might be cause for discharge The record contains no substantial evidence to support the pretext aspect Cotton's failure on direct examination to bring out the fact that Lee and he had discussed the Abbot matter, or that the Abbot exchange had previously occurred make his testimony with regard to this discussion the less credible 3. Plant Manager Heller spoke with 20 to 25 employees individually William Mark Heller was plant manager in plant 1. He testified he spoke with 20 to 25 unnamed employees about the Union between the period December 13, 1968, and the election In some instances he spoke to one employee three to six times Heller stated that all his talks were "essentially the same." The subjects he covered were (a) the background of Sequoyah, officials with the exception of Heller and Lee had been promoted from the ranks, (b) job security, (c) seniority, (d) fringe benefits (insurance including sick benefits) and a profit-sharing plan, and (e) salary increases at Sequoyah in the past 2 years After some questioning by his counsel, Heller stated that he had also mentioned a company where he had previously worked, where a union contract had been in effect and in these conversations made reference to the working hours and conditions under that contract He testified I stated on the basis of my personal experience with the previous company that I had been employed with that the contract had been negotiated called for four hours pay when ever a man was called in to work or came in on his regularly scheduled shift I stated at this company that when the man came in and his work was completed at the end of four hours he was sent home * * * * * Q Has that procedure ever been followed at Sequoyah to your knowledge? 'A No, sir Q Did you make a comparison of the Sequoyah policy to the policy of this other company? A On the short work week, the only comparison that I can recall is that Sequoyah was to the other extreme that we did everything possible to assure that every employee received 40 hours work each week to the best of our ability and that policy is being followed to this date Three employees in the shipping department, Cotton, Creasey, and Brown testified on the "four hour" subject Cotton stated that Heller spoke to him about the second week in January and among other things said A . like these boys standing over here, which as I said earlier that shipping was working around us and we was standing there talking and they was caught up and standing there. He said, "These boys standing here we could call them in and when they get caught up we could turn around and send them home and the Union couldn't, they couldn't do nothing about that . " Creasey testified that on a Saturday early in January Heller initiated a conversation with him about the Union and said A. that if the Union was voted in, well, we could just work the Company could dust have us come in and work four or five hours a day Q Well, repeat for us what it was that Mr. Heller said about four or five hours a day? A Well, in the event that the Union was voted in that we could just be - the Company could have us come in during the slack period - and just work four or five hours a day and then have us go on home whereas the Company had always tried to provide at least a 40 hour work week for their employees, which they had. Brown another employee testified that the week before the election Heller spoke to him about the Union and said A Then he told me that if the Union was voted in they could bring the employees in and work them four hours a day and if it got slow they could send them home. It is concluded that when Heller spoke to the employees he made reference to the union contract in existence at the company where he previously worked, further that he mentioned the clause in that contract providing in effect that the company could send the men home at the end of SEQUOYAH INDUSTRIES, INC 329 4 hours if there was no work Precisely how he phrased the matter, or what language he used is difficult to determine But for the purposes of this decision it is not necessary to make that determination It is reasonably clear that when mentioning the "four hour" subject he combined that statement with the statement that Sequoyah had always had a 40-hour week and had done everything possible to assure that every employee had 40 hours employment. It may be that each statement by itself is factual and standing by itself contains nothing coercive But when stated together regularly and persistently in the heat of a union campaign they yield a different effect It is found that the combination of the two statements could only have one meaning to the employee that heard them, i e , that if the Union came in the Company would send the men home at the end of 4 hours instead of attempting to maintain a regular 40-hour shift as it was currently doing 6 Such a statement made by a plant manager whether couched in language of certainty or probability, whether expressed or implied, is a threat to curtail employment if the men voted for the Union and restrains and coerces the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cotton testified further that in the conversation with Heller quoted immediately above, Heller also stated " . there wouldn't be no overtime for the boys for the Union would make us hire more people and that would cut out overtime when we had to hire more people." Heller testified that he made reference to overtime as part of the general conversation about "four hours work." He stated A In the overtime I made this following general statement in my discussions with the people and in essence it was this. That Unions derived their income from dues and on the basis of, again, my experience with this previous company, that what the Union required was for management to put extra people on each shift to fill in absenteeism and I said that in those instances where that happened that cut down on the people's overtime, because, then, these people took over work from the people that were absent, and in all of these discussions on overtime it was on that basis. The General Counsel asserts erroneously that the overtime statement constitutes a threat by Heller to cut overtime. This statement differs from the "four hour" subject In the latter, the Company has the action and power to carry out the cut As to overtime, the statement shows that the Union has the action and Heller is advising the employees what may occur should the Company comply with such a union demand. There is no implication in the statement that the Company will cut overtime absent such a demand. It is concluded that Heller's statement as to overtime is neither coercive nor restraining and therefore nonviolative of the Act.' About New Year's Day, 1969, Cotton and Heller held a conversation in the shipping office. Heller was talking with some of the shipping employees Cotton walked in According to Cotton, Heller turned to him and said, "I was just telling the boys that you was going to have another meeting at your house and you was going to set everybody up You was furnishing everybody " Cotton answered, "There would be a meeting alright but I wouldn't furnish anything." Heller testified that he jokingly said, "Everybody out to Cotton's house He's throwing a big party. " He testified further that he happened to pick on Cotton's house because Cotton had just walked in at that moment. It is concluded that this coincidence is too strong and that Heller by this reference was warning Cotton and the other employees that Respondent knew of their union activities and was keeping them under surveillance The words of the conversation appear neither coercive nor threatening But, there is no question that by this time Respondent was aware that union meetings were being held at Cotton's house and that this "joke" was Heller's method of communicating that fact to Cotton and the other employees Such an impression of surveillance is coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act particularly within the context of Respondent's active antiunion campaign Cotton testified that the conversation with Heller continued We was discussing people being mistreated along the line of, well, why everybody was dissatisfied or why some of us was dissatisfied Q What was said9 A Well, Mr Heller felt like that nobody, that personalities never got involved, that nobody had been mistreated personally I asked him, I said, "Well, it's no doubt that the Company is down on me, on myself." He said, "Well, don't you think we have good reason to beg" The General Counsel contends that "this undenied assurance of Heller . . that the Company was `down on... him constitutes another threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) I do not agree Cotton asked a question and received a truthful answer It was Cotton's union activity that got the Company "down on" him Cotton knew it and the Company did not hide the fact. The condition existed without Cotton's question A statement by the Company that the fact existed does not constitute a threat Something more is necessary and there is no showing of an additional factor Accordingly, it is concluded that the factual answer provoked by Cotton's question does not justify a conclusion that in this instance the Company threatened Cotton This conversation between Cotton and Heller wound up according to Cotton with the statement by Heller 'Note that the version of Heller's talks in the testimony of Cotton, Creasey, and Brown shows that each of them "got the message " Further, it is noted that the version of Cotton, Creasey, and Brown is corroborated by the testimony of Creasey with Supervisor Capshew Capshew told Creasey, " the Union if it was voted in that we couldn ' t - that the Company - could have us come in and work four or five hours a day and just send us home during the slack period of time or just whatever was convenient for the Company " It is found that this statement by Capshew is coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 'This aspect of the conversation is somewhat corroborated by employee Louthen who testified that in a conversation with Foreman Miller, the latter stated that if the Union came in, by bringing in other men from other departments to run the machines during a strike , "the Union would cut down on overtime " . . . there won't be but three `yes' votes when it comes to an election anyway. That will be yourself, George Brown and George Durham," or he said "yourself, Brown, and Durham," which at that time was three switch drivers. Q Did you reply to that? A. Well, I asked him if he really believed it and he said that we would have to wait until the election and see. Heller admits that he jokingly said, "Well, Harold, I believe we're going to beat you and there's going to be three votes for the Union and everybody else against it " 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Counsel contends that the statement by Heller constitutes another impression of surveillance and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I do not agree. The statement by Heller may be considered a hope, a prediction or a bit of "puffing " There is no question that the statement shows that the Company was aware of the employees who were union adherents But a bold statement of this knowledge is insufficient to constitute a violation. As with the "down on him" statement above something more is needed to justify a conclusion that the statement created an impression of surveillance. As to this statement the additive factor has not been shown At different times between December 13 and the day of the election Heller spoke to Moore, Janousek, Brown, and Kilpatrick, employees of the shipping department. He asked questions, such as what they expected to get from the Union, and what they thought of the Union, etc The evidence shows that the Company was opposed to the Union and made its position clear to the employees. Whether or not the above constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(I) is a close question Such coercion and interference as may accompany the interrogation is mild when viewed in the light of the hard core conduct which has often accompanied a representation campaign. But viewing these incidents collectively and recognizing that they occurred during an active campaign opposing the Teamsters they amount to part of a coordinated pattern of coercion As stated by the Fifth Circuit in N L R B v Builders Supply Co. of Houston, 410 F 2d 606 (C.A 5), enfg as modified 168 NLRB No. 29, the interrogation under such circumstances is coercive "since it took place in an atmosphere of active opposition to the union, Bourne v. N L R.B, 332 F.2d 47, 48, 56 (2d Cir , 1964), without explanation to the employees of the purpose of the questioning and under circumstances indicating that it had no legitimate purpose, Edward Fields, Inc v. N L.R B , 325 F.2d 754, 758-759 (2d Cir , 1964), and was unaccompanied by any assurances against reprisals, see N L R B v. Lorbes, Corp , 345 F 2d 346, 348 (2d Cir , 1965) " The interrogation also exceeded the limits set by the Board in Struksnes Construction Co , Inc , 165 NLRB No. 102. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent unlawfully interrogated its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. Sequoyah maintained a foreman's school for its employees. Selected employees attended with the prospect of being promoted to foreman afterward This school was the subject of separate conversations between Heller and employees Moore and Janousek Moore testified that in the early part of January 1969, Heller asked him to step outside the shipping office for a talk Heller told Moore he held a good job with the Company and I was going to foreman's school at that time and that the Company could give me more than the Union could. He wanted to know what I thought the Union could do that the Company couldn't. He said had there been a Union in there at that time that I wouldn't be able to go, you know, this foreman's school As to this conversation, Heller testified: A We dust generally discussed it in that Mr. Moore was currently attending the foreman's school and, I believe, I pointed out to him that this was, again, was one of the fringe benefits that he already had from Sequoyah. Janousek's conversation with Heller occurred late in January. It was initiated by Heller. They talked about union dues. Janousek testified Heller complimented him on his intelligence and then continued "The point is, that if the Union comes in the Company wouldn't want no Union man to go to foreman school, because when they send them to foreman's school they are generally placed in some other department or some other area of Sequoyah Carpet Mills itself " He said that the advancements would slow down and shipping would just come to a halt You'd just do the job that you presently do now Heller admitted talking to Janousek from three to six times during the campaign He denied discussing the foreman's school, admitted talking generally about advancements and promotions, but denied saying that the Union would affect advancements or would slow them down As stated above, Heller testified that the 20 to 25 conversations he had were essentially the same. But as shown by Heller there were frequent deviations Afterward, upon prompting of counsel, Heller added other items In his later testimony denying conversations testified to by the employees, Heller enlarged upon the standard conversations, became certain as to details that were not included in the standard conversation, and testified to additional items that were amplifications of or additions to the standard conversation Having held some 30-odd conversations with the employees and testified that they were generally the same, a question is raised about Heller's recall of specific details in certain conversations. Helier also testified he spoke to a number of the employees more than once and as much as six times It is not reasonable under such circumstances to conclude that Heller repeated the same spiel each time to the same employee. For the above reasons, and because Heller admitted speaking to Moore and denied speaking to Janousek about the foreman's school, and the further reason that Moore and Janousek testimony support and corroborate each other, the Moore and Janousek versions of these conversations with Heller are credited. Under these circumstances, the conversations about the foreman's school are found to be threats that if the Union were successful, union employees would not be permitted to attend the foreman's school thus curtailing their employment opportunities 8 Such threats are coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Brown testified to one conversation with Heller that occurred about a week before the election in the shipping office in the presence of two other employees They discussed overtime, the raises Sequoyah had given the employees in the past 2 years and Then he said something about the effect that we would probably have to have bargaining power, or something like that. Q Who would have to have bargaining power? A. That we would if the Union did come in Q. What did he say in that regard? A. He said that the Company would probably use the profit sharing plan as some bargaining power Q. Did you reply to that9 A. Well, I told him that I didn't think much of their profit sharing plan to start with myself. 'Shipping Foreman Capshew told Creasey in January 1969, that, in the event the Union was voted in the union employees could not advance any further than they were when the union contract was signed As with Heller, the Capshew statement threatens curtailment of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act SEQUOYAH INDUSTRIES, INC. 331 Heller admitted explaining the operation of the profit-sharing plan to Brown but denied making a statement that the Company would use the plan as bargaining power if the Union came in The General Counsel contends the statement threatens the employees with a lessening or total loss of these benefits should the Union succeed It is found that the conversation even as testified to by Brown is vague and ambiguous and falls short of being a threat or coercive. Accordingly the statement is not violative of the Act Kilpatrick testified to a conversation in January 1969, initiated by Heller that occurred on the shipping deck. The Union was discussed. Kilpatrick asked if the employees "have to go to vote " Heller answered, "if you're going to vote `no' go vote, `yes' don't vote.. " Kilpatrick testified the statement was "something like that" and that Heller laughed when he said it. Kilpatrick stated he "took it for a joke." Heller admitted to holding several conversations with Kilpatrick He denied the joking statement. His testimony on the matter follows A. I don't remember if I specifically talked to Mr Kilpatrick about it or anything else, but anything that I said about the election whatsoever was the one thing in which I said it was a secret ballot and it was within the American system and no one would know how anyone else would vote and I restricted all of my comments with regard to the balloting as a general statement. Based, not on Heller's denials, but on the fact that Kilpatrick's testimony contains no threat of reprisal, it is found that this conversation is not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 Tufting Foreman Jay talks with Couch Employee Couch testified to a discussion with Jay, foreman of the tufting department, and three other employees that occurred at 4 a.m. in the break room the morning of the day of the election. Jay was present in the break room when Couch and the three other employees entered Two of the latter were of the tufting department The tufting department employees were not involved in the election Couch and the fourth employee were of the shipping department Couch testified Q What was said between you and Mr. Jay' A Well, me and the other boys was discussing it [the election] which they had all night, talking about it and what we were going to do We were sitting there and he asked me, he wanted to know how I was going to vote. Q What did he say? A He wanted to know if I was going to vote "yes I said "yes." Then he wanted to know what good it was going to do and what I was going to get out of it. He said that all we was going to do was to cause all of the boys to be out of work and shut the plant down Q Who said that9 A Bobby Jay. Q All right A All of the boys said it. He said it, too. On cross-examination Couch stated that all the employees asked him how he was going to vote and he told them "yes"; further, that the Union was the topic of the conversation during the 20 minutes they were on "break " Jay denied he asked Couch the question, or that he spoke about the Union. The tufting department was not my ived in the election Couch admits that the election was a subject of general conversation, that the employees were asking each other how they were going to vote, and that those who were going to vote answered Under such circumstances, that Jay would ask for information that was available merely by listening seems unlikely I credit Jay ' 5 Receiving Foreman Miller talks to Moore Moore testified to a conversation held with Miller the latter part of December 1968, outside the shipping office. Moore stated that Miller initiated the talk by telling Moore there were a lot of union cards going around, wondering-if Moore had signed a card, and asking Moore if he was going to vote for the Union Moore answered yes to both questions. Miller denied speaking to Moore. The record contains no evidence setting the time of this conversation In December 1968, Miller worked the third shift from midnight to 8 a.m , and Moore worked the second shift from 4 p m to midnight The General Counsel brought out that there is about a 10-minute overlap when shifts are changing at midnight during which the employees of the one shift could meet and talk to employees of the other. There is no showing that this was the time when the Moore-Miller conversation occurred Such facts as were brought forth lead to a conclusion that the conversation could not have occurred at the change Moore testified, for example, there were a few other employees "working around" when the conversation took place That employees were working around when the shift was taking place seems unlikely Under these circumstances I do not credit Moore as to the Miller conversation. 6. Shipping Foreman Capshew talks with Short Short testified to one conversation with Capshew that occurred the first part of December 1968. It occurred in the shipping office in the presence of two other employees. Short invited Capshew to attend a union meeting to be held the following weekend at the Black Beaver Restaurant Capshew refused saying, "No, I wouldn't want to attend one of the Union meetings and if I had to vote I'd vote `no' on it, and besides you'll get fired for talking Union." Capshew did not testify at the hearing. Respondent stated it was unable to produce him because they could not locate him. The statement "and besides you'll get fired for talking Union," when testified to by Short does not have the ring of truth. The statement was allegedly made in the presence of two witnesses neither of whom testified I do not credit that statement. The remainder of Capshew's statement is neither threatening nor coercive and does not constitute a violation of the Act. D The Vice Chairman of the Board Gave 52 Talks to Groups of Employees Ranging From 8 to 18 Persons Bush was vice chairman of the board of Respondent. He is an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Oklahoma. He testified that during the latter part of December 1968 and the early part of January 1969 he gave 52 talks to the employees of Respondent in groups ranging from 8 to 18 persons, the usual group being 12 to 14. The talk was generally the same, "As well as I could recite it." 'This includes a finding that Jay did not make the "shut the plant down" statement 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the history of Sequoyah I talked about our rapid growth . I talked about the necessity of team work and told them that in my opinion it was the team work that resulted in the growth of Sequoyah I told them that they were coming to a point to make a very, very serious decision , and that was a decision regarding a labor union at Sequoyah , and that this was a matter of grave concern to them That they might not know all of the things they should know about the Teamsters' Union I told them about Jimmy Hoffa, his being in prison, and his being the president of the Teamsters Union I told them about the election that we would have and would nobody but them know how they voted, but for them to get the facts and to talk to people who knew Talk to other people who were members of a labor union or had been members of a labor union and ask them their opinion about labor unions Essentially that was my talk Q (By Mr Soule) Was there anything said about the Union promises'? A Yes I referred to the fact that often labor unions promised many things and seldom they could guarantee anything Q Did you say anything about hoodlums in the Union9 A Yes Q What did you say`' A I said that in some Unions there were hoodlums and I felt that in the Teamster Union there were hoodlums Q Did you say that the Union was quote "dust hoodlums" unquote'? A No. Employee Moore testified that in January 1969 he was present at two of Bush's talks at the request of his supervisor He testified A Well, he talked mostly about where there was a Union there was always strikes and that the Union could call a strike at any time without our knowledge or consent, and talked about Mr. Hoffa. Q What did he say about Mr Hoffa9 A Well, that Mr. Hoffa was the president of the organization and he was in the penitentiary He talked about that he knew there had been meetings held at Mr Cotton's house and at the Black Beaver and he knew approximately what promises the Union had made us and he said that's all they were were promises. That's about all that I can remember that he talked about Louthen testified that in January 1969 he was present at two talks given by Bush Miller, his foreman, requested that he go His testimony dealt with only one meeting and he stated that Moore was not present at that meeting Louthen's version follows A. Well, he first started out as far as I remember, he started out with saying that Hoffa was living in this great big old white house now with this big fence around it Then he kind of worked around to saying that he was in the penitentiary and he says let me tell you what he's in there for. He said he was in there for jury tampering He says, "I guess y'all know that the Union is trying to come in here at Sequoyah " He says that we don't need people like that here at Sequoyah. He says that he knew that the Union was promising us a 40 hour work week and that they wouldn't negotiate for a 40 hour work week Q (By Mr. Evans) Did he mention Company stock9 A Yes He asked if - well - he said if or that the Company stock had dropped because the men up in New York had heard about the Union trying to come in and he said that was causing the stock to drop * * * Q Did he compare Mr Hoffa with anybody') A I think he compared him with Don Grieve. [sic] Q What did he say about Mr. Greve? A That he was a Minister of the Gospel and they just didn't feel like they needed the Union there and that they was dust hoodlums Moore's testimony contains statements alleged to have been made by Bush that are not corroborated by Louthen and vice versa.- There is agreement among Bush, Moore, and Louthen to statements by Bush pertaining to unions and strikes, the mention of Hoffa, the meetings at Cotton's house and the Black Beaver Motel, and union promises ii I credit Bush's testimony and find that he did not refer to the Teamsters as "just hoodlums," mention the company stock dropping, or state that the Respondent "wouldn't negotiate" with the Union on a 40-hour week, that except as stated below Bush's talks were within the bounds of permissible free speech Bush testified on cross and redirect examination that in the course of these 52 meetings he became aware of the fact that union meetings were being held at Cotton's home and at the Black Beaver Motel and that this information was given to him during the open discussion portion of the Bush meetings by some of the employees who had attended the union meetings Bush also testified that afterwards he told employees at some of his meetings that he "knew of every union meeting" that went on at Cotton's and at the Black Beaver Motel It is found that the independent statements made by Bush to the employees that the Respondent knew of "every union meeting" held at these places created the impression of surveillance by Respondent over the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, particularly within the aura of the Respondent's strong antiunion activity. E. The Chairman of the Board Gave Four Talks to Groups Exceeding 100 Persons Don Greve, the chairman of the board of directors, gave four talks to the Sequoyah employees 48 hours before election day. He testified that the four talks were essentially the same . Although there were approximately 69 employees in the shipping department unit, all the employees of the Anadarko plant heard the talks because Greve "desired to talk to all our employees at one time "i 3 "Moore and Louthen are in agreement that Bush referred to the Teamsters as "just hoodlums " "As with Greve's speech, it is considered of some significance that no employee testified to corroborate either Moore or Louthen Lee does corroborate Bush '1The record contains no substantial support for the General Counsel's contention that "The only possible reason for extending its antiunion message to employees who could not vote would be either to warn noneligible employees against union activities on their part, or to create an antiunion atmosphere which would completely permeate the plant, or both (footnote omitted)" SEQUOYAH INDUSTRIES, INC. The talk given at 8 a.m was recorded, and then transcribed from the tape of the recording Greve testified that he had read the transcription, that he had reviewed it the week betore he testified, and again the morning of his testimony, and that it was a precise account of what he had said, "no more no less." The document was received in evidence" and is annexed hereto as "Appendage A " As evidence that the Greve talks were violative of the Act, the General Counsel offered the testimony of one employee, Couch, who heard the 8 a m. talk He testified that he did not remember specifically what Greve said His recall follows Q. . Are there any machines in that area9 A Yes, sir Q Were they working at that time? A Well, everything was going that morning but he had everything shut off as we came in Q. The "he" being Mr Greave [sic]? A - except the heat units and the blowers and everything down. * * * * * Now I want you to tell the Court what was said during that speech by Mr. Greave [sic]? A. Well, I can't tell exact. He came out there and talked about he shut everything down and he said that was the first time everything had been shut down since they had opened up and starting running. He was talking about it being a weird sound, quietness Q All right A Then he went on talking about Sequoyah Mills and the team, the family, talking about it Q What did he say about that9 A. Well, just that they had been one happy family and had to work together to make a team and everything Q All right A. Then he changed off and got to talking about Harold Cotton and he said he didn't know whether he was stupid or he was in earnest about it He mentioned that about two or three times in his speech Q And what else did he say about Mr Cotton9 A. Well, he was talking about he was trying to lead the bunch in the back astray Q All right And what was the back area? A The shipping department. Q. All right What else did he say about Mr. Cotton, if anything9 A Well, that was about the content of it. It hemmed on whether he knew what he was doing or not or stupid and that was about the size of it. Q What did he say about profit sharing? A. He said that he had been asked a number of times if that was going to hurt it and he said, no, it wasn't going to hurt it all excepting the bunch in the back if we didn't cut ourselves out. I don't - he didn't say we would he said if they don't cut their selves out. * "Cf Shepherd Laundries Co, 176 NLRB No 113, where transcriptions were received in evidence although not under precisely the same conditions and findings made on the contents of the transcripts 333 A. Then he was talking about the shares He said they had went up considerable - A He said that the stock had went up considerable and said that it was a real put out until the people back East heard about it and said it dropped He said they were dropped Then he went on to talk about if the Teamsters was to get in that they didn't have to bargain. He didn't say they would, but he said they could shut everything down He said if they didn't bargain and shut everything down it wouldn't be anything but a little old piece of iron and tin on that little old hill. He said if they did that people would be out of jobs and take food off of your table, from your families. Q All right A I don't know just how it was worded but he said to wait and see how it went and as to what would happen and to wait on the bunch in the back. He was talking about the election. Much of the Couch testimony is in conflict with Appendage A, and puts into the Greve speech items that are not contained in Appendage A, e.g, profit sharing, bunch in the back room, stock of the company, not bargaining, and shutting everything down, etc. Under the circumstances herein, I do not credit Couch" ° and consider the contents of Appendage A reliable. It is found that Greve's speech does not exceed the permissible limits of Section 8(c)'s and is not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act IV OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION CASE 16-RC-5084 It is concluded and found that the impact of Respondent's conduct, including the unfair labor practices found in section A, hereof, was calculated to impress upon the employees of the shipping department that the selection of the Teamsters as their bargaining agent could only change their employment conditions for the worse. Cf. General Industries Electronics Company, 146 NLRB 1139 It is further concluded and found that the said conduct of Respondent resulted in substantial interference with the election held on February 20, 1969, and prevented an expression of free choice by the employees in that election Accordingly, it will be recommended that the election held on February 20, 1969, in Case 16-RC-5084 be set aside and a new election held V. THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE OF RESPONDENT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to "The record indicates that approximately all the employees of the plant including shipping department employees heard Greve's speech it is considered of some significance that no other employee testified to corroborate Couch's version of the Greve speech "The General Counsel in a footnote of his brief states that Appendage A "contains the coercive statement of Greve that `the company does not have to accept anything across the bargaining table' and on this point [Respondent] admits a violation " The full sentence on page 2 of Appendage A is "Remember, you can promise everything in the world but the company does not have to accept anything across the bargaining table " This statement of the law is neither coercive nor threatening 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce VI. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been further found that the Employer has engaged in certain conduct affecting the results of the election conducted on February 20, 1969, it is recommended that that election be set aside and that a new election be conducted by the Regional Director at an appropriate time Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of tact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Sequoyah Industries, Inc , is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Teamsters is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, as above found, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 Other than as above found, the Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5 By engaging in threatening and coercive conduct, as above found, the Employer unlawfully interfered with the freedom of choice of its employees in their selection of a bargaining representative on February 20, 1969 6 The aforesaid conduct constituting unfair labor practices and conduct illegally affecting the results of a Board-conducted election is conduct affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Sequoyah Industries, Inc , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union sentiments and how they are going to vote in an election. (b) Threatening its employees with economic reprisals, curtailment of work, or more onerous working conditions in the event they chose the Union. (c) By statements or other actions giving the employees the impression that Respondent is engaging in surveillance of the employees' union activities. (d) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2 Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its place of business in Anadarko, Oklahoma, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "16 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith " IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein be dismissed insofar as it alleges any unlawful conduct other than that as above found IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election held on February 20, 1969, in Case 16-RC-5084, be set aside, and that said case be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 16 of the Board to conduct a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the employees' free choice of a bargaining representative APPENDAGE A I want you all to listen to something I don't know if all of you have ever been in this plant when it wasn't running or not, but 1 have That's one of the creepiest sounds in the world. When this plant is running and functioning, it's not merely brick and mortar and steel and tin, but it's a piece of machinery that was designed and developed and put together to provide jobs and salaries and income that could be converted to clothing and to food and to a comfortable way of life. But when this plant isn't running, when it is shut down by a strike it no longer is a piece of machinery It is merely a hunk of tin sticking up out of the country in the prairie, a piece of tin that provides no jobs, that provides no income, provides no better way of life for you and your family. And to me it's kind of an eerie sound. It's kind of a sad sound. It's a kind of sound that I would hope we could always avoid here Day after tomorrow may be the most important single day in the history of his company. Never before in our short years of being in existence here in the country out here on the prairie has anything come up that's as important to Sequoyah and all of its working families. I hope you realize how important it is That's why we've called all of you in Not just to signify you will cast your ballot, a ballot that will determine the future success of each and every one of us. This is not something that you just do vote in, vote out if you don't like it. For once you open the door for those like Jimmie Hoffa, the teamsters, that crowd, that's no easy matter to close the door and get them out It isn't an easy matter to keep them out This is very, very important. I don't know for sure what Cotton's goals are. I don't know for sure whether he is sincere or not. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt So let's give him the benefit of the doubt, but I don't understand "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " SEQUOYAH INDUSTRIES, INC 335 what his special interest is in trying to see we have a union Maybe it's to become the union steward Maybe it's because of the advantages that can come to union steward I don't know But if you choose to follow somebody it really in the final analysis makes no difference whether the person you choose to follow is sincere or whether he's just plain ignorant and uninformed and doesn't know any better because if you follow him and he goes down the wrong road, goes the wrong direction, and you're following along behind, he can take you down with him They talk about job security They talk about better working conditions They talk about higher pay, and they promise you the moon. But what can they guarantee' What can they deliver? What have they done in the past' I think I can stand here in front of you and be proud to look everyone of you in the eye I don't think we have to promise you anything The fact of the matter is, where the union can legally promise you everything, we in the company can't promise you a thing We can't say a thing in the world about what we might do We can't tell you what we were gonna do in the first place. We can't do that, I don't think we have to I think we can look at the past. I see eyes of some of you here that on one hot July you took your shirt off with me and we walked out to that thing and we started carrying steel for the tufters, the creels It was 105, or 106, or 107 and it was heavy and you carried steel right along side of me and we carried it in there. We had only a little bit of concrete poured and we had no roof on the building We started here and we worked hard and we did it because we wanted to provide jobs in this community - jobs that would be secure Jobs that would be here for everyone We worked hard together We made progress together The last year and the year before that combined we have had 35 cents an hour minimum increase in pay for every person here Our starting wage has advanced 35 cents an hour over two years Not one union due had been paid to get that Not one strike has been called that had you take the food off your table Not one demand has been made It was done because we worked together and we had job security together and we were a team And we went down the road together We didn't have anybody from the outside saying give me union dues - give me dues We didn't have anybody saying go out on strike. We didn't need to because we're all together,and I'm interested in you and you're interested in your company And when we're that way then we have job security and anything other than that is not job security and we're like a football team, a basketball team Anytime we stop working together we're going to go down And down, down will go your job security when we don't work together The five years we've been here there has never been a lay off Everyone of you have gotten a full 40 hours even when we couldn't sell all we could make. Sandy Lee and I have sat in the office there and said well the warehouse is full The floor is full. Sales aren't as good as they need to be to keep up with production But what did we do? Cut you down to a three day week? And I said no. He said I don't want to either. He said let's just change production schedule and switch from one to the other We can't do business that way but let's keep a full forty hour week. You know why I'm concerned about that'? I used to live in a sheet metal chicken house. I can remember what it is to go to bed nights and have your guts burning because you're hungry. And I don't want any of our Sequoyah team to be that way I know that there are some of you here who know what it is I know what it is to see an uncle come home and say I don't want to work there anymore I don't want to work at that place anymore because I'm scared somethings going to happen to me because of those union thugs I don't know where I'm going to work, but I'm going to go somewhere else Cotton doesn't know about that At least if he does, he doesn't tell you about it But there are those here who do know There are those here who have experienced the same thing There are those here who have loved ones that have experienced the same thing. And there's nothing wrong with you telling the others There's nothing wrong with you sharing this with those of you that are going to vote day after tomorrow. If you really want to know, don't go to somebody like Cotton to ask him Go to the fellow that knows to ask him This is important, not just to those 65 who can vote, but to all who have jobs here Remember, you can promise everything in the world but the company does not have to accept anything across the bargaining table The company does not have to do what the union organizer promised you they'd get for you. Remember the union can guarantee only one thing. And that is that you'll pay union dues, and you'll pay dues, and you'll pay dues That's all he guarantees, nothing else And if there is a strike, the strikers can be replaced Some of you have asked us They say we signed a card We signed a card because we have to work next to some of these jokers and we didn't want anything to happen to us Do we have to vote yes? My answer to that is no you don't have to vote yes. You can vote no and there is only one living human being that will know how you voted That is you yourself That's the great American way, the secret ballot I don't care whether you signed a card or not. You know what you signed the cards for Afraid not to. When you go in day after tomorrow to cast your ballot you and you alone I hope everyone of you vote I hope everyone of you that are allowed to vote will vote and I hope you will realize that when you vote it's a secret ballot and nobody has the right to know how you vote And I hope you will realize that as you cast your vote, you have in your hand, the hand that you use to vote with, the success, the future, the safety, the happiness, the prosperity of all Sequoyah employees, and their families . and I think that you know that you can count on and you can believe Sandy, Jack, and myself I believe that you will choose to follow not Jimmy Hoffa, not Cotton You know they say "we've changed We're not like we used to be," these newspapers articles and you know the newspapers, if they don't print the truth they can be sued for libel. You've seen these photostats that have been mailed to you. You've seen them on the bulletin boards They say we've changed That's why they recently reelected Jimmy Hoffa their president. That's why . they recently raised their dues That's why on his birthday they flew a plane over the prison and dropped leaflets on him saying happy birthday, Mr President of the Teamsters . You choose whether or not you want to have them as the person you're going to follow and go with Sandy, Jack and myself .. . 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. 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As the result of a trial before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, at which the General Counsel of the Board, the Company, and the Union were represented by attorneys, and at which witnesses testified and were examined and cross-examined, and evidence was introduced, the Trial Examiner, who heard the testimony and considered all the evidence, has found that we have violated the Act in the respects set forth in his Decision, and to remedy these unfair labor practices, he has recommended that we advise you that WE WILL NOT coercively question any employee regarding his own or other employees' lawful union activity WE WILL NOT give employees the impression that we are engaged in surveillance of their union activity WE WILL NOT threaten any employee that he or she will suffer the loss of any existing benefits or conditions of employment or will be treated less favorably because of union activity WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of his or her right to join or assist General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local 886, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through their representatives, or to engage in other concerted activity, or to refrain from such activity, except as such right may be affected by some agreement as provided in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act All our employees are free to support or to become or remain members of General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local 886, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such activity, subject to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Dated By SEQUOYAH INDUSTRIES, INC (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building , 8 19 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2921