Solmica, Inc.

224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Solmica, Inc. and Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Employees of the Office . Case 14- CA-6646 September 22, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY AND PENELLO On June 15, 1972, Administrative Law Judge I Samuel M. Singer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief s and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 3 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Solmica, Inc., St. Louis, Mis- souri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972. 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 In the absence of exceptions thereto we adopt proforma the Admimstra- tive Law Judge's findings and conclusions contained in fn.8 of the Decision. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE SAMUEL M. SINGER, Trial Examiner : This case was tried before me in St. Louis, Missouri, on April 12, 1972, pursuant to charges and amended charges filed on January 25 and March 2, and complaint issued on March 9 , 1972.1 The 1 Unless otherwise noted, all dates are 1972. complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by engag- ing in acts of interference, restraint, and coercion; by initiat- ing, dominating, assisting, and interfering with the administration of a labor organization (Employees of the Office); and by refusing to meet and bargain with Charging Party as the statutory representative of its employees. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportuni- ty to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Respondent called no witnesses, merely cross-examining those of General Counsel. Both Respondent and General Cousel filed briefs on May 22. The motion of Respondent to dismiss the complaint, made at the end of General Counsel's case, is now disposed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions below. Upon the entire record 2 and my observation of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses , I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent, a Missouri Corporation, with its office and place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, manufactures and sells aluminum siding and related products. During the representative past year Respondent shipped in interstate commerce from its St. Louis plant to points outside Mis- souri, and received at that plant in interstate commerce from such points products valued in excess of $50.000. I find that in all material times Respondent has been and is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction here is proper. Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America (herein called the Un- ion) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts 3 1. The organizational drive; the Union's recognition request Dissatisfied with working conditions Respondent's five female office clerical employees 4 met with Union Business Agent Smith on December 30, 1971. Smith explained the benefits they could derive from self-organization and showed them a union contract covering another office cleri- cal unit setting forth wages, vacations, holidays, sick leave, 2 Transcript as corrected by my order on notice dated May 31, 1972. 3 As noted, Respondent did not produce any witnesses at the conclusion of General Counsel's presentation of his case, although it did introduce one exhibit in the course of cross-examining a witness. Respondent admits (br., p. 2) the "facts of the case are essentially not in dispute ." General Counsel called five witnesses--one a union business agent and organizer and the others female employees still with Respondent. Although the testimony of the four employees is essentially consistent and mutually corroborative, I place most reliance on the testimony of employee Finley, who impressed me as a most sincere and honest witness with excellent memory. 4 Finley, Darrough, Ousley, Vella, and Michener. 199 NLRB No. 41 SOLMICA, INC. and other fringe benefits. After answering questions, includ- ing some pertaining to initiation fees and dues, Smith dis- tributed union cards which each of the five employees signed. Each card clearly and unequivocally stated that the signatory "accept[ed] membership" in the Union and desig- nated it as her collective-bargaining representative to nego- tiate wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. On January 3, Business Agent Smith visited the plant and requested Respondent's office manager, Myrick, to rec- ognize the Union as the bargaining agent of the five office clerical, explaining that they had executed authorization cards. Myrick told Smith that he had no authority to grant recognition and that no one was there who could. Smith left his business card and a copy of the Union's-conventional recognition form, stating that "anyone" with "capacity to give us recognition" could contact him, but apparently no one did. On January 5, the Union filed a representation petition, seeking an election among Respondent's office clericals.5 2. Company President Schmidt's January 19 meeting with the employees; his opposition to the union drive On January 10, the Regional Office issued its notice of a hearing on January 25 on the Union's election petition. In the meantime, an informal joint conference was set for Jan- uary 20. On the preceding day (Wednesday, January 19), Company President Schmidt 6 summoned the four office clericals to meet with him in a company office? Explaining that he was going to meet with Board personnel the next day, Schmidt said he "knew that ... all signed cards to join the Union" and said he wanted to know [the employees'] complaints." He also indicated that he had in his possession a "letter" from the Board describing what supervisors may and may not say or do, reading (or having one employee read) a portion of the "letter." When the employees started to recite their "complaints," Schmidt suggested that one of them act as spokesman, asking if any had belonged to a union previously. Advised that Mrs. Finley had, Schmidt said he would "let you do the talking." When Finley com- plained that "we haven't had a raise for one and half or two years," Schmidt questioned each girl as to when she had last obtained one, adding that he "didn't realize that it had been whether they "were going to be off on holidays," Schmidt likewise disclaimed knowledge of the situation. Finally, Fin- ley raised the question of layoffs, indicating that the girls had not been given sufficient advance notice. Responding to the girls' complaints, Company Presi- dent Schmidt said that he could not see why they needed a 5It was stipulated that on January 3, the five office girls (supra fn. 4) constituted all of Respondent's office clericals and that all were eligible to vote in an appropriate bargaining unit. One of the five (Michener) left Re- spondent around January 12 6 Schmidt is identified in the pleadings as "Chairman of the Board" and in Respondent's brief as "Company President." For convenience he will be referred to here as "President." There is no question that he was Respondent's chief executive at the plant. 7 As previously noted (fn. 5), one employee (Michener) had already left Respondent. Employee Finley testified that this was the first time in her 4 years there that Schmidt had called an employee meeting to discuss working conditions. 225 union, pointing out that he "didn't really think [they] would get ... much out of it" and that as union members they would "have to pay dues" and "go to meetings." One em- ployee (Ousley) answered that a union "did a lot" for her husband, mentioning his union's achievement in reducing the workweek and securing overtime pay. Schmidt then "asked why [they] decided on the Teamsters union" instead of another union which already represented the plant's pro- duction employees. Finley replied that they felt the Team- sters was a "better union, a stronger union" and would accomplish more than the production employees' union. Schmidt remarked that the Teamsters was "a rough union," commenting "I don't have to tell you that. You can read the newspapers and see [the] things that are going on." He also said that he could not promise them anything at that time, stating at one point that he "couldn't offer [the girls] anything unless [they] decided not to join the union." Schmidt further said since "such a small group" was in- volved, he "didn't know why we couldn't work out an agree- ment with him instead of getting the union in." He made it clear that he preferred to deal directly with the employees. At the close of the meeting-which lasted at least an hour-Schmidt again asked if the girls "still wanted the union." When all answered they did, he indicated that if they changed their minds to "let [him] know" before he was to attend the Board conference the following day. The four employees then met to review the situation "and everybody said they still wanted the union." When Schmidt later asked Finley what was "decided," the latter reported the employ- ees' determination to adhere to the Union, whereupon Schmidt said "O.K." or "that's it." 3. The employees' abandonment of the Union and their direct dealings with Respondent At Respondent's request, the informal Board conference on the Union's representation petition scheduled for Janu- ary 20 was postponed upon the ground of Company Presi- dent Schmidt's illness. The next day (Friday, January 21), the employees began to have second thoughts about unioni- zation, surmising that they might gain the benefits they desired by direct negotiations with Schmidt and without having to pay union dues and attending union meetings. Mrs. Ousley testified that she had discussed the Union with fellow employee Darrough with whom she rode to work and with her husband who, although a member of a railroad union, objected to her decision to join the Union "from the very beginning" because he felt a small bargaining unit (four employees) could accomplish little and she (Ousley) did not have "much ... to crack about." Mrs. Ousley also talked the matter over with an acquaintance , a steward in an 'unidentified union, who (in response to her inquiry) mentioned the possibility of her having to participate in strikes-although she testified that this "had nothing to do with my changing my mind." Ousley mentioned her reserva- tions to employees Darrough and Vella, "just kind of won- dering" if "it's a good idea to join the union" and pay it dues. Vella testified that she told Ousley "maybe we could have gotten what we wanted without going to all this trou- ble." Vella and Ousley then approached Finley stating that they "would like to talk it over again and see if we couldn't 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD come to an agreement with Mr. Schmidt ourselves." Ac- cordingly, Finley and the girls asked Office Manager Myr- ick if they could meet again to discuss the union problem using the premises for that purpose. Myrick agreed, saying it was a "good idea." The four employees met an hour and a half in one of Respondent's offices, concluding they would forget the Un- ion and deal with Schmidt directly. They prepared a list of requests for salary increases on "every anniversary date," increased (10 days) sick leave, specified holidays, more va- cation, and seniority in layoffs. Finley and Vella thereafter gave Myrick a list of these proposals and asked him to set up a meeting with Schmidt. Myrick promised to do so and, looking over the list, told them that he felt that 10 days' sick leave was "quite a lot" and suggested that they ask for eight with which Schmidt "might go along." The girls thereupon agreed to reduce their request to 8 days. 4. Company President Schmidt's January 21 contract discussion with the employees; the signed contract Around 1:30 p.m. of the same day (January 21), Schmidt returned to the office and met with the four employees. Also present was Office Manager Myrick, who read to Schmidt the list of employee proposals, acting as "spokesman" for the group. At the very outset of the meeting the girls de- clared to Schmidt that they no longer wanted the Union to represent them. Schmidt then readily agreed to "all" of the employees' basic demands and indicated he "was going to have it typed up" for signatures. The document, entitled "Agreement" between "Solmica, Inc.... party of the first part ... and the employees of the Office, party of the second part" stated that "The `Company' recognizes the `Office' as a collective bargaining unit;" stipulated that it "will be in force" for 5 years; and set forth the "basic agreement" as to "pay, fringe benefits and working conditions." Among other things, the agreement provided for $5 a week salary increases "each anniversary date of employment," granted 8 days' sick leave, set up a vacation schedule in accordance with length of service, established seniority in effectuating layoffs, and guaranteed a specified number of holidays. The agreement was thereupon signed by Schmidt on behalf of the Company and by all four employees as or on behalf of the "Office." On the next day (January 22), employee Finley called Union Business Representative Smith and advised him that the employees had signed the above agreement with the Company. This was the first and only communication to the Union indicative of any change of mind by the employees concerning union representation. On January 25, the Union filed the original charge on which this proceeding is based, alleging the Company's refusal to bargain with it as statuto- ry representative; and on the same day the Union also requested postponement of the representation hearing pending investigation of the charges. On March 9, the Re- gional Director approved the Union's request to withdraw the representation petition and issued the complaint herein. B. Conclusions 1.As already indicated, the facts are essentially undisput- ed. On December 30, 1971, Respondent's five plant clericals - signed cards unequivocally and clearly designating Team- sters as their collective-bargaining representative. On Janu- ary 3, the Union requested (but failed to obtain) recognition; and on January 5 it filed a petition for an election. After the Regional Director scheduled a hearing on the petition and on the day before the parties were to hold an informal conference with him (January 19), Compa- ny President Schmidt summoned the remaining four plant clericals to the office, where he confronted them with the announcement that he knew "all [had] signed cards to join the Union" and he then solicited the complaints that led them to join. After the girls voiced grievances about wages, holidays, and the layoff system, Schmidt sought to convince them that they did not need a union, that a union would not achieve their objectives, and that if they really wanted one, they should keep away from "a rough union" such as the Teamsters. He pointedly added that he "couldn't offer [the girls] anything unless [they] decided not to join the union." Schmidt went on to say that he "didn't know why we couldn't work out an agreement with him instead of getting the union in." By 2 days later (January 21)-the January 20 conference with the Regional office having meanwhile been put off on Schmidt's plea of illness-the girls developed second thoughts about unionization, supposing that deal- ings with Schmidt would suffice-as Schmidt had indica- ted-without being burdened with union dues and meetings. To be sure, one employee (Ousley) testified that her husband had objected to her decision to join the Union "from the very beginning," but this did not prevent her from signing a union card; nor (as she testified) did a steward acquaintance who told her that as a union member she might have to participate in strikes affect her decision to abandon the Union. Uncontradicted credited evidence es- tablishes that the substantial motivating factor for the em- ployees' decision to drop the'Union and to deal directly with Respondent was Schmidt's January 19 statement that he "didn't really think that [they] would get much out of it [the Union], "that the Union would only burden them with dues and meetings, that the Teamsters was "a rough union," and, most importantly, that Schmidt "couldn't offer [the girls] anything unless [they] decided not to join the Union." I find, contrary to Respondent's contention, that Schmidt's statements tended to chill and discourage union activity, that his statements held out to employees the hope that their complaints would be remedied if they abandoned the Teamsters, that his remarks implied promises of benefits if the girls dealt directly with Respondent, and that he influ- enced the employees' decision to change their minds about bargaining collectively through the Union-their freely and voluntarily designated collective-bargaining representative. Even if this case were devoid of many of the indicia of outright threats and coercion found in classic 8(a)(1) cases this would not be determinative. Labor relations is a field where even "subtleties of conduct play no small part." N.L. R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 437. In- deed, "today the employer seldom engages in crude flagrant derelictions. Nowadays it is usually a case of more subtlety, perhaps the more effective and certainly more likely to es- cape legal condemnation." N.L.R.B. v. Neuhoff Brothers, Packers, Inc., 375 F.2d 372, 374 (C.A. 5). "The test is wheth- SOLMICA, INC. er the employer engaged in conduct which, it may rea- sonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act." N.L.R.B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F.2d 811, 814 (C.A. 7). See also N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 804, fn. 6, (C.A. 5). Under all of the circumstances, I conclude that the Re- spondent, by the conduct described above and to be de- tailed below, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.' 2. The record also supports the complaint allegation that Respondent influenced and induced its employees to form a group or labor organization of their own to deal with it directly, and that it assisted, dominated, and interfered with its administration. After planting in the employees the seed for disaffection from the Teamsters, the employees swiftly caught Company President Schmidt's message and prompt- ly heeded his suggestion at the January 19 meeting that he "didn't know why we couldn't work out an agreement with him instead of getting the union in." On January 21, Office Manager Myrick readily granted them permission to meet on company time and premises to rediscuss this very ques- tion-as he said, "a good idea." After an hour and a half discussion the girls drew up a list of proposals rectifying past grievances concerning wages, holidays, layoffs-as well as other demands such as vacations and sick leave. Myrick himself suggested reduction of the sick leave proposal, as- serting that Schmidt would be more receptive to an 8-day (than a 10-day) sick leave clause proposed by the girls- another management message resulting in immediate ac- quiescence and acceptance by the employees. In the meet- ing with Schmidt that followed, Myrick presented the employees' demands and was regarded by the girls as their "spokesman." Schmidt accepted all of the proposals with- out much ado and had the agreement immediately typed up for signature by himself and the four employees-charac- terized in the agreement as the "Office" and "party of the second part." The contract set forth the basic terms and conditions of employment usually found in collective agree- ments, with Respondent undertaking to "recognize" the "Office" as the "collective bargaining unit." I find that the genesis and existence of the "Office"-its idea, birth, promotion, and success in securing a collective agreement from Respondent-were primarily, if not whole- ly, attributable to Schmidt's statements and conduct which were intended and calculated to influence and induce the employees to abandon support of the Teamsters and to bargain directly with Respondent. Schmidt's conduct was all the more egregious in that he dealt with them as the "Office" group at the very time that the Teamsters petition was being processed before the Board. Schmidt in effect arrogated unto himself the determination of a question con- cerning representation pending before the Board. 8 In so finding, I do not find violative of Sec. 8(a)(1) certain allegations in the complaint dealing, for example, with Schmidt's questioning of employees as to why they wanted a union, or why they selected the Teamsters as opposed to another union-statements falling within the ambit of protected free speech. Nor do I regard as coercive Schmidt's inquiry to employees as to who had previously belonged to a union since the context of the question demonstrates that its purpose was to select a spokesman for the group famili- ar with union matters and not to delve into past union membership. 227 Respondent's contention that an 8(a)(2) violation is un- warranted because Respondent was dealing with individual employees and not with a "labor organization" is without merit. As Respondent itself concedes (br., p. 10), "under Board and court law the definition of a labor organization is quite broad." The term "labor organization," as used in Section 2(5) of the Act, encompasses a wide variety of enti- ties. See Porto Mills, Inc., 149 NLRB 1454, 1471-72, and cases cited therein. Indeed, in N.L.R.B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 182 F.2d 817, 818 (C.A. 3), the court held that "the employ- ees who informally joined together to present their griev- ances ... [fell] within the statutory definition, even though they had taken no steps for formal organization." Here there is no question that the "Office" with which Respon- dent signed a collective agreement "exists for the purpose, in whole or part, of dealing with employers" concerning matters falling within the area of collective bargaining. (Sec. 2(5) of the Act.) 3. Finally, I find that the record supports the complaint allegations that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with the Teamsters, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Admittedly, all of Respondent's plant clericals signed clear and unambiguous cards author- izing Teamsters to bargain on their behalf. Shortly af- terward the Union requested recognition and, upon failure to obtain it, filed and sought to process its petition for an election. During the pendency of the petition (January 19), Company President Schmidt met with the office employees and unlawfully induced them to abandon the Union and to deal directly with him. As a result, all of the employee union signatories ignored their previously designated bargaining representative, presented Schmidt with proposals rectifying. their grievances, and signed a collective agreement with him. Based on the entire record, I find and conclude that at no time since the Union's January 3 recognition request did Respondent intend to bargain with the Union in regard to its office employees, that its intention was to avoid bargain- ing collectively with the Teamsters, and that by unlawfully inducing the clericals to bargain directly, it rejected the principles of collective bargaining. I agree with General Counsel (br., pp. 9-10) that the aroma of coercion-includ- ing the encouragement and assistance given by Respondent in the formation of the "Office," its full and complete recti- fication of longstanding grievances in dealing with its em- ployees through the "Office," and the execution of a collective agreement with it covering the employees' terms and conditions of employment for 5 years-all of these are of sufficient severity to preclude a fair election to test to the employees' sentiments in regard to self-organization. Appli- cable here is the Board's language in International Harvester Company, 179 NLRB 753, where the Board stated: Insofar as relevant here, the Supreme Court in Gissell Packing [375 U.S. 575], approved the Board's authority to issue a bargaining order to redress unfair labor practices "so coercive that, even in the absence of Section 8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order would have been necessary to repair the unlawful effect of those [unfair labor practices]." Additionally, in, cir- cumstances where the lawful conduct is less flagrant in nature, the Court held that the Board may issue a bar- 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gaming order where such unfair labor practices "have the tendency to undermine majority strength and im- pede the election process," and thus "the possibility of erasing the effects of [the] past practices and ensuring a fair election (or a fair rerun) by the use of traditional remedies . . . is slight and . . . [therefore] employee sentiment once expressed through cards would, on bal- ance, be better protected by a bargaining order ... " We are satisfied that a bargaining order is war- ranted on the facts in this case under the latter standard of Gissell. Thus, the Respondent, upon being confront- ed with the Union's demand for recognition, which was clearly supportable, embarked upon a deliberate cam- paign to undermine the Union's majority status. The Respondent utilized the forum of an assembled meet- ing of the store employees to interrogate the employees, and subsequently, ascertained their complaints and grievances, which were of long-standing duration, and immediately corrected them, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. These unfair labor practices, which, although perhaps not extensive in number, nor heinous in character, nevertheless were deliberately and calcu- latedly designed to interfere with the employees' desig- nation of their bargaining representative. There are few unfair labor practices so effective in cooling employees' enthusiasm for a union that the prompt remedy of the grievances which prompted the employees' union inter- est in the first place. Under such circumstances, Respondent's unlawful conduct tended to undermine the Union's majority and impede the election process, and thus the possibility of erasing the effects of the past unfair labor practices, and of ensuring a free election by the use of traditional remedies is slight. We there- fore find, on balance, that the employees' sentiment, expressed through the membership applications ... is a more reliable measure of employee desires, and that statutory policies are better effectuated by issumg a bargaining order in this case. See also Ace-Alkire Freight Lines, Inc. v. N.L.RB., 431 F.2d 280, 284 (C.A. 8); of. Flight Safety Inc., 197 NLRB No. 40 (TXD). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Employees of the Office (or "Office") have at all material times comprised and are a lobor organization with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By dominating, assisting, and interfering with the formation and administration of said labor organization, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 3. Under the circumstances shown, by the foregoing conduct, by questioning employees for the prupose of solic- iting grievances or complaints and impliedly promising them benefits if they abandoned the Teamsters, by granting such benefits in direct dealings with employees, and by otherwise inducing employees to withdraw from the Team- sters-all in order to discourage employees from supporting said Union-Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), of the Act. 4. All office clerical employees at Respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding all professional employ- ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. At all times on and after January 3, 1972, Teamsters has been and still is the exclusive representative of all em- ployees within said appropriate unit for purposes of collec- tive bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 6. By refusing on and since January 3, 1972, to bargain with Teamsters as the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in the above-described appropriate unit, Respon- dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 7. The unfair labor practices described in above para- graphs 2, 3, and 6 affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend the customary cease-and-desist or- der and affirmative relief conventionally ordered in cases of this nature. Respondent shall withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish Employees of the Office (or the "Office") and cancel or cease giving effect to the January 21 agreement signed with it; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to authorize Respondent to re- scind, abandon, or vary any economic benefit or betterment heretofore established. Respondent will also be required, upon request by Teamsters, to recognize and bargain collec- tively with said Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and to embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices in which Respondent has engaged, I shall also recommend that it be required to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon rights guaranteed employees by Section 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:9 ORDER Respondent, Solmica, Inc., its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Dominating or interfering with the formation or ad- ministration of the Employees of the Office (or "Office") at Respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, or of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to any labor organization, and 9In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. SOLMICA, INC. from otherwise interfering with the representation of its employees through a labor organization of their own choos- ing. (b) Recognizing or bargaining with said "Office," or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employ- ees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment. (c) Giving effect to any agreement with said "Office," provided that nothing herein shall authorize Respondent to cancel, withdraw, or modify any benefit thereunder. (d) Conducting meetings with and questioning employ- ees for the purpose of soliciting their grievances or complaints and impliedly promising them benefits, or granting them benefits, where an object thereof is to discourage its employ- ees from adhering to or supporting Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. (e) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively in good faith with said Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other terms and conditions of employment. (f) Interfering in any other manner with, or restraining, or coercing any employee in the exercise of his right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza- tion; to bargain collectively through representatives of his own choosing; to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish Employees of the Office (or the "Of- fice"), as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment. (b) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively in good faith with Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate bargain- ing unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. (c) Post at its plant and office in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being signed by Respondent's representa- tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days after receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." The complaint is dismissed in all other respects. 229 10 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to Read. "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, it has been decided that we, Solmica, Inc., viola- ted the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been ordered to post this notice. The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as an employee, these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representative of your own choosing To act together with other employees to bargain collectively or for other mutual aid or protection and, If you wish, not to do any of these things. According- ly, we give you these assurances: WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with any of your rights listed above. WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the forma- tion or administration of Employees of the Office (the "Office") at our St. Louis, Missouri, plant, or any other labor organization, or contribute financial or other support thereto. WE WILL NOT recognize, bargain or otherwise deal with the above-mentioned "Office," or any successor thereto, and we hereby permanently withdraw recogni- tion from and disestablish said "Office" as representa- tive of any of our employees for the purpose, in whole or part, of dealing with or discussing grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of work, WE WILLNOT conduct meetings with you, or question you, for the purpose of soliciting your grievances or complaints, nor directly or indirectly promise you ben- efits resulting from such solicitation, nor grant you benefits or correct grievances, in order to discourage you from adhering to or supporting Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain col- lectively with said Teamsters, Local Union No. 688, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD following appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. The bargaining unit is: All office clerical employees at our St. Louis, Mis- soun, plant, excluding all professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities. SOLMICA, INC (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 direct- ed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12 Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4142.