Yale Rubber Manufacturing Co.

YALE RUBBER MFG. CO. Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company and Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-8459 September 14, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On July 28, 1971, Trial Examiner George Turitz 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. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, Sandusky, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) of the recommended Order: (b) Announcing, granting, or committing itself to wage increases or other employee benefits at times chosen by Respondent for the purpose of dissuading its employees from joining, aiding, or assisting the UAW, or of dissuading them from designating the UAW as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, except that nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondent to revoke any wage increases or other employee 141 benefits previously announced, committed, or grant- ed. 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Examiner's notice. I The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to provide in Section l(b) of his recommended Order that nothing contained therein should be construed as requiring the Respondent to revoke any wage increases or other employee benefits previously announced, committed, or granted We find ment in the exception and shall appropriately modify the recommended Order and notice APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant or terminate our operations if you decide to bargain collectively, or if you designate the UAW for that purpose, or if you engage in organizational activities. WE WILL NOT announce or grant wage increases or other employee benefits at times chosen for the purpose of dissuading you from joining, aiding, or assisting the UAW, or from designating that organization as your representative for the pur- pose of collective bargaining, except that nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring us to revoke any wage increases or other employee benefits previously announced, committed, or granted. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the UAW or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except insofar as these rights might be affected by a contract with a labor organization, if validly made in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. YALE RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 193 NLRB No. 24 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boule- vard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE TURITZ, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) ("the UAW" and, at times "the Union") on February 5, 1971, and served that day upon Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company ("Respondent" and, at times, "the Company"), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ("the Board"), through the Regional Director for Region 7, on March 19, 1971, issued a complaint and notice of hearing which was duly served upon Respondent. Respondent filed its answer in which it denied all allegations of unfair labor practices. A hearing on the Complaint was held before me at Sandusky, Michigan, on May 4 and 5, 1971, at which the General Counsel and Respondent were represented by their respective counsel. Respondent has submitted a brief. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, is a Michigan corporation having an office and place of business in the City of Sandusky, State of Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of molded and extruded rubber goods and related products. In the course of its operations at the Sandusky plant Respondent annually purchases and causes to be transport- ed from points outside the State of Michigan directly to said plant materials valued in excess of $50,000, and annually sells and ships from said plant directly to its customers located outside the State of Michigan products valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ("the Act"). II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint was based entirely upon Respondent's issuance of a bulletin to the employees on the evening of January 14, 1971. The issues litigated were: (a) whether Respondent threatened in the bulletin that it would close its plant and terminate its operations if the employees joined or assisted the Union, or if a majority designated it as their bargaining representative and (b) whether the wage increase therein announced was violative of the Act because it had been timed to dissuade the employees from joining or assisting the Union and from designating it as their bargaining representative. An important evidentiary issue was whether Respondent had knowledge of the Union's organizational effort at the time it issued the bulletin. A. Background Respondent, with close to 500 employees, was the largest employer in Sandusky, Michigan, population 2,400. Very little other work was available in Sandusky. While Respondent had some other business, its most important business was making rubber parts for the automotive industry, primarily General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. Its • principal stockholders were members of the Henderson family. Many of Respondent's employees also engaged in farming and many were related to each other and had been in Respondent's employ for a long time ; the supervisors were people who had been promoted from the ranks. At one time the employees were represented by United Rubber Workers, but they had not been organized since 1949, when the last contract with that labor organization expired. In the interval, however, various labor organiza- tions attempted, without success, to organize the employees and there were one or more organizational campaigns each year. Respondent had a profit-sharing plan pursuant to which the employees received, in addition to their weekly wages, a check each month based on the number of straight-time hours they had worked during the previous month. The amount of the profit-sharing checks was announced in a monthly bulletin which Respondent posted in the plant. The profit-sharing bulletins were normally issued on or after the 20th day of the month following the month covered and occasionally additional bulletins were issued and posted. i Respondent used the bulletins as a kind of house newspaper. It contained personal and community notes, as well as announcements of holidays, job openings, wage increases, fringe benefits, and social affairs. Each started out with selected data, stated to the penny, on profit- sharing, namely, gross sales, returns and allowances, net sales, "profit to share," number of man hours allocable to profit-sharing, number of hours per employee, cents per hour "profit to share," and the amount of a profit-sharing check for that month. The bulletins frequently included exhortations to avoid carelessness, and to reduce absentee- ism and waste of materials or work time. i Of the 13 profit-sharing announcements predating the one in contained Christmas greetings and apparent references to a plant party on controversy which are in evidence, 12 were issued between the 20th and Christmas Eve The August 16, 1967, bulletin did not contain a profit- 28th days of their respective months The 13th, dated December 18, 1969, sharing report YALE RUBBER MFG. CO. 143 An important element in the bulletins was industrial and economic news. The employees were informed of new machinery installed or planned by Respondent, new machinery installed by competitors, and of troubles Respondent had getting adequate prices from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler Bulletins stated the dollar cost of wage or fringe benefit increases announced, using the occasion to warn the employees that the added costs had to be made up by greater efficiency. Almost every bulletin in evidence contained a reference to plant closings elsewhere or an allusion to whether Respondent would continue in business. The following language appeared in bulletins predating the one in controversy: December 20, 1967: . . . belief that the plant can continue in business indefinitely ... . May 22, 1968: . . . conditions that would not encourage the Company to continue .. . . August 16, 1968: If the plant stops making a profit it has to close . . . you can be sure it will not stay operating and provide jobs. The Company wants to stay in business ... . March 28, 1969: . as long as you and the townspeople want the plant to continue operating in Sandusky. May 26, 1969: . . . our chance to stay in business here July 24, 1969: South Haven Rubber . . . is announced for sale. October 27, 1969: "... some Michigan plants will not survive." We intend to survive in Michigan and are making plans accordingly . .. . December 18, 1969: . . . our ability to pay and still keepjobs for you . . . . March 20, 1970: . . . deserve to stay in business ... . If we fail to do any one of these we will be out of business anyway . . . April 24, 1970: . . . After 70 years .. Dryden (once with 2,000 people making molded rubber in Chicago) is closing ... . May 21, 1970: Working together we will survive better than a lot of factories. June 26, 1970: . . . they will not keep the doors open very long on this basis. October 27, 1970: Klieston Rubber of New York, Huron Rubber of Port Huron and Brown Rubber of Indiana went out of business this past month. Directors had approved. The May 22, 1968, bulletin repeated the announcement for the 1968 and 1969 increases and, on August 16, 1968, Respondent again announced the 1968 increase, which was to go into effect the following week. The April 24, 1969, bulletin referred to "the wage increase due 7-1-69"; and the October and December 1969 bulletins referred to the "annual" increase to go into effect July 1, 1970, the amount of which was still to be determined. On June 26, 1970, Respondent stated: "The Board of Directors have authorized a 17d per hour wage increase effective 7-5-70 and an increase in life insurance to $7500.00 . . . . These increases were based upon our promise to the Directors that we would make enough improvements and cost savings to keep this package cost of $24,000.00 per month from destroying the Company C. The Leaflet Distribution on January 14 On January 14, 1971, Andrew Wilson, an international representative of the UAW, accompanied by five other union officials, appeared at Respondent's plant at about 2:40 p.m., when the first shift was leaving and the second shift was coming in,2 and distributed UAW literature. The plant property occupied a complete square block and had entrances on three of the four streets it faced. Six distributors covered all the entrances, and they gave out several hundred leaflets. After close to an hour, having been informed that no more first-shift employees were inside, they left. D. The January 14 Bulletin At a time admittedly after the time when I have found that the distributors had left Rizzardi, Respondent' s general manager, asked his secretary to stay later than her usual quitting time to type up the bulletin which is at issue in this case. She worked on the bulletin, went out for supper, came back and finished it, and after Rizzardi hurriedly checked it and signed it, she posted it on the 15 plant bulletin boards. According to Rizzardi the posting, which took about an hour, was completed at about 8:15 or 8:30 p.m. Larry Collins, at whose house the UAW officials made their first personal contact with employees,3 testified that he saw a female office employee, accompanied by Foreman Glo- gowski, post a copy in his department at about 9:50 p.m. Neither Glogowski nor Rizzardi's secretary testified. The bulletin read as follows: B. Respondent's Wage Practices At least since 1967, Respondent has granted an across- the-board wage increase each year. Beginning in 1969 the effective date had been approximately the first payroll period in July, which coincided with the time when, to the preponderant extent, production commenced on the following year's automobile model. When the 1967 increase was placed into effect, Respondent announced that there would be 10-cent-per-hour increases in 1968 and 1969 contingent, however, upon approval by the Board of Directors; the December 1967 bulletin announced that the 2 The first shift ended and the second shift began at 3 p m 3 This meeting took place on about January 5, 1971 There is no YALE RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY Sandusky, Michigan 48471 January 14, 1971 TO ALL PERSONNEL, Sandusky, Michigan Ladies and Gentlemen: Sales in December were $1,132,921.00 Returns and allowances 28,771.00 evidence , or sufficient basis for an inference , that Respondent learned of the meeting before the bulletin was posted 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Net sales were $1 , 104,150.00 (The week after our December letter Bob Chard's crew really cleaned house) (Highest in 2 years) Outside auditors will be late. We feel the inventory was accurate and we will not wait Profit to share was $4770.00 over 70,126 hours or 7 cents per hour x 176 hours or $12.32. To answer recent questions, because of the unrest and to help you plan your future , Russ Henderson has permitted me to confirm and announce the annual wage increase for July promised two years ago. At Christmas time a possible Railroad and Chrysler strike, now unlikely, prevented a commitment. Effective this June 27th, 1971 there will be a 20 [cent] per hour general hourly wage increase. This plus payroll tax and vacation pay will average $500.00 per person per year. It is in total more than the total netprofitfrom manufacturing ever made any one year in the history of this plant. This is a matter of public record. We feel we will make profits in the next three months. After that we will have to try other means. For example, we have been fighting for a small price increase at Chevrolet for five months . At Ford our biggest volume has had the same price for eight years. This is an example of why a small supplier cannot pay large company wages. Because we have become less competitive there are now 160 less employees here than at our peak Japan and Europe are hurting us much as is Arkansas, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Last fall Russ directed us to do whatever possible to avoid layoffs. We did. Frankly, he is now very worried. He has granted this wage increase knowing it could wipe out any return on investment here for a long time . If even greater financial demands are made by any group there wouldn 't be any escape from closing to avoid financial failure. There must be a profit to stay in business. For those who have not been with us long we point out the fate of others. These are the reasons I am pessimistic over our chances to survive in Michigan. Chicago Rawhide-Still on 3 months strike. Monarch Rubber-3 months strike 1970. South Haven Rubber- 15 months strike. Capac Rubber-Closed after long strike. Baldwin Rubber-Closed. Swan Rubber-5 months strike. St. Clair Rubber-Ask the men who works there. B. F. Goodrich , Cadillac, Mich.-Closed. Michigan Prec . Molded-Moved to N. Carolina. Yale Seat Belt Co.-Closed. Yale Wood Works-Closed. Monroe Rubber, Hillsdale-Closed. Dryden Rubber, Chicago-Closed. Sanilac County and some Yale Rubber employees need this job opportunity Some employees and the majority stockholders do not necessarily need Yale Rubber. Your help to Yale Rubber has been considerable over the years . It is needed now for mutual benefit and continued job opportunity. Very truly yours A. RIZZARDI Rizzardi explained his hurry to get the bulletin out Thursday night on the basis of circumstances surrounding two items announced in the bulletin , namely, the wage increase and the profit-sharing report . He testified as follows: In early December 1970, the Board of Directors had refrained from approving his recommended 20-cents- per-hour increase pending clarification of a possible strike at Chrysler; they had, however, authorized him and the three Hendersons, all of whom were directors, to get together and place the increase into effect once they were satisfied that Chrysler would have no strike. On January 8, he ascertained through his connections at Chrysler that there would be no strike. On January 9, he reported this to the Hendersons and they agreed that the increase could be announced. Since he had been disappointed not to have been able to announce the increase at Christmas time, he was anxious to announce it in the January profit-sharing bulletin . As to this, Rizzardi cited circumstances the effect of which was that if the profit-sharing checks did not get out on Thursday, January 14, it might not be possible to get them out for several weeks , since the payroll department personnel, when not working on payroll, would be busy helping outside auditors with the year-end inventory. Moreover, if the profit-sharing letter, with its announce- ment of the wage increase, did not get out on Thursday, the night shift, which did not work Friday night, would not know about it until Sunday night, and would therefore feel neglected. He started to draft the bulletin on Sunday, January 10, and by Tuesday, January 12, had completed it except for the final profit-sharing figure. This figure was contingent upon inventory data, which he did not receive until 4:30 p.m. on January 14. He and Russ Henderson were then able to complete the profit-sharing report and shortly after 5 o'clock he gave his handwritten draft of the bulletin to his secretary. E. When Respondent Learned of the Leafleting Rizzardi testified that he did not learn of the organiza- tional effort until Saturday, January 16, when he was told about it by Halas, a scheduler. Halas testified that he received the UAW leaflet when he left work on January 14. According to him, at about 9 o'clock on Saturday morning he remarked to Rizzardi, with reference to Respondent's January 14 bulletin, "They really answered your letter in a hurry," and Rizzardi asked, "Who?" He then testified, "I told him that the United Auto Workers were out passing out literature at the time and my neighbor was out there passing it out with the other people." Halas stated that Rizzardi seemed surprised and said , "That's news to me. That's the first time that I know anything about it." Rizzardi testified that he had gone to Halas' office that morning "just to bandy words with him." He testified that Halas said, "I see they answered your letter pretty fast," and that when he asked what Halas meant, the latter replied : "Your raise . The union has a letter out there . . . . There was a handbill last night at quitting time." He stated, further, that he thought that Halas had not mentioned the YALE RUBBER MFG . CO. 145 name of the union. While testifying that he picked up one of the leaflets from the floor on Saturday, glanced at it and filed it, and had a copy of the charge filed by the UAW on February 5, he insisted that the first time he realized that it was "the U.A.W., AFL-CIO" that was involved was on February 12, when he was interviewed by a Board agent.4 Rizzardi testified that he did not mention the leaflet to any other member of management on January 16, explaining that John, Russell, and David Henderson were not in the office that day and that on Saturdays he was usually the only member of top management in the office. Shortly after issuance of Respondent's January 14 bulletin Collins had occasion to receive from Respondent a check from its insurer covering the disability of Collins' wife, Karen, who was also employed at the plant.5 Collins and Rizzardi were in agreement as to some details of the incident-that Rizzardi delivered the check, the substance of their conversation about it, the time of the day, and that Foreman Glogowski had sent Collins to the office. However, Rizzardi testified that the incident occurred on Monday, January 18, and that he told Glogowski to send Collins to David Henderson; he said that he took over only because the latter had left the plant by the time Collins appeared. Collins testified that Rizzardi gave him the check on the day following its date, namely, on January 15, and that Glogowski told him that it was Rizzardi who wished to speak to him. The two men also had different recollections of the substance of the part of their conversation that did not concern the check. According to Collins, Rizzardi, after instructing him about the check, said that the wage increase granted was "as far as they could go"; and he also testified: He stated that they could not meet union demands and that he would appreciate my cooperation and I really can't remember exactly what was after that, but we changed the subject back to my wife's insurance thing. Collins further testified as follows: Q Do you recall as to whether Mr. Rizzardi made any statement as to what would happen if the union got in? A. Just that they could not meet the union demands and that if I didn't like myjob, I don't believe . . . . He did say that if I didn't like myjob that I could leave. Collins denied that anything was said about the General Motors settlement, he testified that it was Rizzardi who brought up the subject of the Union. Rizzardi, after describing the conversation about the check, stated, ". . . and that was the end of my responsibility on that matter." He further testified: Actually it isn't too clear, but I mentioned-well, we talked about the raise in some way . . . . I said-I think I said that, "this is going to cost us a lot of money It's a good thing we don't have a General Motors UAW contract because it would wreck us. We just can't pay that kind of money. It's a helluva settlement." There were words to the effect . . . . I don't remember that he 4 R¢zardi's affidavit given to the Board agent that day contained a statement to that effect s In some instances the transcript refers to her as Carol 6 On February 9, D R Henderson had signed a return receipt for service of the charge 7 The entry meant that he was to ascertain whether she had returned to [Collins] said anything specifically pertaining to my conversation really. I said, "We're going to need all the help that we can get from guys like you, Larry, to try to get their money back." Rizzardi also testified that the General Motors agreement had been reached the previous November. Rizzardi's claim that he did not learn until February 12 that the UAW was involved in the organizing was contradicted by his admission that he had previously glanced at and filed its leaflet, which carried the letters "UAW" in heavy 3/16-inch type, his admission that he knew previously that a charge had been filed,6 and by Halas' testimony that in January Rizzardi had asked who had been leafleting and Halas told him the UAW. Respondent prided itself on its relatively high degree of sophistication in the labor relations area and Rizzardi admitted that Respondent was opposed to having a union in the plant. I do not credit Rizzardi's testimony that prior to his interview by the Board agent he paid no attention to, and did not know, what organization had distributed the leaflet and filed the charge. Since the uncontradicted evidence shows, and Halas himself recalled, that the distribution took place on Thursday, Rizzardi's testimony that Halas told him that the distribution had taken place "last night at quitting time" contradicted the professed recollection of both men that their conversation had taken place on Saturday. Moreover, Halas made no attempt to explain how the Union's leaflet which he received on Thursday could have impressed him as a quick answer to a Company bulletin which he did not see until Friday. I do not credit Halas and Rizzardi's testimony that the latter was surprised when Halas told him about the leafleting. David Henderson, the official in charge of handling insurance checks, corroborated Rizzardi as to the time the insurance check was delivered to Collins. However, his testimony was clouded by inconsistencies with Rizzardi's testimony or within itself. He first said that he did not open the envelope with the check until Monday, but quickly revised this to say that he did it on Saturday. He made a calendar entry for Saturday, January 16, reading, "Karen Collins RTW?" 7 which would seem on its face to be a reminder for January 16 made prior to that date, rather than a reminder entered on January 16 to do something on some subsequent date, as testified by Henderson.8 As to his January 18 entry, "Dentist 3 PM," Henderson said at one time that he made it "definitely" on January 18, and at another that he was sure it was made before. Moreover, since he testified that it was only on that day that he persuaded his wife to let him take her 3 o'clock appointment, and since he had a toothache as a reminder, it is difficult to see what need there was for the calendar notation in any event. Finally, David Henderson impro- vised a 3-week vacation for his father as his initial explanation, soon withdrawn, for his alleged presence in the plant that Saturday-which Rizzardi, incidentally, in work, in which event an appropriate form would be sent to the insurance company. " Henderson canceled each date on his calendar with a uniform scrawl January 16 bore the uniform scrawl in green plus a large black "X" which, so far as appears from the record , was unique 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD another connection denied. I found David Henderson unconvincing and have not credited his testimony. I have appraised Collins' testimony in the light of the fact that he was the most important figure among the employees in bringing the UAW to the plant and therefore an interested witness. His testimony as to the date he received the check was forthright and convincing, and I find that the incident occurred on Friday, January 15.9 I have also credited his version of the conversation over Rizzardi's. The timing of the bulletin a few hours after the leaflet distribution is striking It is especially striking in view of the fact that the bulletins normally were issued on or after the 20th day of the month. Moreover, Rizzardi had to keep his secretary at work overtime in order to issue the bulletin that day. There is no possible basis for inferring that the leafleters chose January 14 for their work because they knew that the bulletin was to appear. On the other hand, as six strange union officials distributed the leaflets for almost an hour at the plant gates, covenng all entrances on three different streets, there was much opportunity for the various members of management to see what was going on. In addition, the record establishes that many employees were not averse to discussing unionization with manage- ment; it seems probable that some employees on the second shift would have mentioned the distribution to their superiors Rizzardi's discredited testimony that he first learned of the leafleting and of the UAW's participation on January 16 and February 12, respectively, his discredited denial that on January 15 he had Collins brought to him to hear the Company's view on the Union and to solicit his cooperation, and David Henderson's discredited attempt at corroboration show a reluctance on Respondent's part to disclose the actual time and circumstances when Rizzardi learned of the union activity. On the basis of all the facts set forth in this paragraph, I have inferred that Rizzardi knew about the leaflet distribution when he made his decision to issue the bulletin on January 14. I find that Respondent did not issue the bulletin in the regular course and would not have issued it at that time but for the Union's organization- al campaign. I further find that Respondent issued the bulletin for the specific purpose of dissuading the employees from responding favorably to the Union's organizational campaign F. Concluding Findings 1. The threat to close the plant Respondent's policy was to condition its employees by constantly holding before them the specter of its going out of business, whether because of competition, inadequate prices, inefficiency, waste, strikes, or other adverse circumstances. Of the 14 bulletins in evidence issued before January 14, at least 12 contained reference to plant closings or to the question of whether Respondent would continue to operate the Sandusky plant. The criterion it usually mentioned for its continuing in business was not ability to meet costs, but profit or return on investment. Employers 9 At one point during cross-examination Collins testified that he received the check on its date, at another point he said that his conversation with Rizzardi was the (lay after he received the check Left to himself to recount what had happened, he testified that he did not are, of course, in business for profit. However, profit and return on investment are relative terms, and by emphasiz- ing that factor Respondent emphasized that the possible discontinuance of business it was warning the employees about would be of its own choice. As Respondent had close to 500 employees, and the population of Sandusky was only 2,400, and as little other work was available, the employees were especially sensitive to such conditioning. The Supreme Court said, in The Sinclair Company v. N. L. R. B. (N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co.), 395 U.S. 575, 617: And any balancing of those rights must take into account the economic dependence of the employees on their employers, and the necessary tendency of the former, because of that relationship, to pick up intended implications of the latter that might be more readily dismissed by a more disinterested ear. While the warnings of plant closing in most bulletins were indirect and only occasionally tied to strikes, when Rizzardi was confronted with the task of opposing a UAW drive, he held back little. The bulletin he rushed to issue on January 14 contained a stronger than usual dose of references to plant closings and Respondent's continuing in business. In order to point out to newer employees "the fate of others," it listed a dozen firms that were engaged in long strikes or had been closed, adding, "Those are the reasons I am pessimistic over our chances to survive in Michigan." The bulletin stated: "He has granted this wage increase knowing it could wipe out any return on investment here for a long time. If even greater financial demands are made by any group there wouldn't be any escape from closing to avoid financial failure. There must be a profit to stay in business." Rizzardi explained his use of the term "financial demands" as follows: Financial demands to me are many of the company's taxes, quality control, depreciation, demand for expan- sion of capital-demands for new equipment;" and he stated that it differed from a "union demand." I do not credit this testimony. I find that the reference to "financial demands . . . made by any group" would reasonably be read by the employees, and was intended by Rizzardi, to mean wage and fringe-benefit demands which might be made by the UAW and the employees supporting that organization. In this manner Rizzardi explicitly tied the threatened plant closing to the possibility that the employees might choose to bargain collectively and to their selection of the UAW as their representative for that purpose. Finally, to bnng home to the employees that the shutting off of "any escape from closing" was a matter of Respondent's choice, the bulletin stated: "Some employees and the majonty stockholders do not necessanly need Yale Rubber." I find that Respondent threatened to close its plant and terminate its operation if the employees decided to bargain collectively, or designated the UAW as their representative for such purpose, or if they continued their organizational efforts. I further find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. remember the date as such, but only that it was the day after the date on the check He further testified that there was only one meeting with Rizzardi YALE RUBBER MFG. CO. 2 The wage increase Respondent's claim that it had a policy of granting wage increases annually is true, but only in a limited sense. While there had been one increase each year since 1967, the first two in September and the latter two in July, and in some instances Respondent referred to them in the bulletins as "annual" wage increases, there was no policy or practice as to the amount of increase. The first three increases were 10 cents each. As to the fourth, one was promised in the December 1969 bulletin but the amount was reserved for future decision. The 17 cents decided on was not announced until issuance of the June 26, 1970, bulletin, which also stated: "These increases were based upon our promise to the Directors that we would make enough improvements and cost ravings to keep this package cost of $24,000.00 per month from destroying the Company . . The January 14, 1971, bulletin made the contingent nature of the wage-increase policy especially clear, stating: "Russ Henderson has permitted me to confirm and announce the annual wage increase for July promised two years ago. At Christmas time a possible Railroad and Chrysler strike, now unlikely, prevented a commitment." At least as to the amount of increase and as to definitive commitment, Respondent's claim that it had a policy of announcing wage increases around the end of the year to be effective the following July is not borne out by credible evidence. The evidence shows, rather, that the important question of the amount of increase was reserved for future determination and that before such determination there was no commit- ment by Respondent With the employees thus warned that the amount, if not even the fact, of future wage increases would depend on Respondent's future decision, Respon- dent met the UAW's organizational drive with a stick and carrot. It chose that day, well in advance of the effective date and well in advance of the season when it had announced the amount of the 1970 increase, to commit itself to a 20-cent increase and at the same time threatened to close the plant if the employees sought to bargain collectively. I find that Respondent did not select that time to commit itself to a wage increase and to announce its amount for business reasons or in accordance with its normal practice but did so for the specific purpose of dissuading the employees from seeking the benefits of collective bargaining. I further find that by granting and by announcing the increase in the January 14 bulletin Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Goldblatt Bros, Inc., 174 NLRB No 114. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE I find that the activities of Respondent set forth above in section III, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, 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. is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 10246 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in V. THE REMEDY 147 In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it is necessary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights and to take certain affirmative action. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10 ORDER Respondent, Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees that it would close its plant or terminate its operations if the employees decided to bargain collectively, or if they designated the UAW for such purpose, or if they continued their organizational efforts, or if they engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (b) Announcing, granting, or committing itself to wage increases or other employee benefits at times chosen by Respondent for the purpose of dissuading its employees from joining, aiding, or assisting the UAW, or of dissuading them from designating the UAW as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its office and place of business in Sandusky, Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, automatically become the findings, conclusions, decision, and order of the Board, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Michigan, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." i i Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 shall, after being signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.i2 11 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Notify said Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " herewith "