Lawrence Rigging, Inc.

1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lawrence Rigging, Inc. and Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO.' Cases 29-CA-2415 and 29-CA-2554 April 12, 1973' DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On August 25, 1972, Administrative Law Judge2 Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Charging Party filed exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 1. We agree with the finding of the Administra- tive Law Judge that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by laying off and refusing to recall employees Natale (Chris) DiBlasi, Francesco Paolo DiBlasi, Martel Henry, Ottereno Lavorata, Ramiro Quintero, Jesus Ramirez, Fred Vasquez, and Gilberto Florez on June 3, 1971, and by assigning more arduous duties to Jorge Cortes, and thereafter laying him off on August 27, 1971. 2. The Administrative Law Judge further found, and we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and further violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by assisting, supporting, and recognizing Local 5, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO,3 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees. Moreover, we agree with the recommen- dation of the Administrative Law Judge that a bargaining ' order is warranted in light of the widespread and flagrant nature of Respondent's conduct. 3. The Administrative Law Judge found that James Reilly, John Corbett, and Daniel Gardner did 1 Hereinafter referred to as Local 455. 2 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972. 3 Hereinafter referred to as Local 5. 4 Sec. 2(11): The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in not possess or exercise the indicia of supervisory authority outlined in Section 2(11) of the Act.4 Accordingly, he concluded that these individuals are "employees" within the meaning of the statute who appropriately belong in the bargaining unit.. We disagree. Phillip Dugan, the plant supervisor, is the only admitted supervisor. However, it is clear that Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner assign the work to the employees, and the employees receive work assign- ments and direction from no one else, as Dugan rarely comes to the work areas. Carlos Acero testified that he was informed by Dugan that Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner were the foremen. Juan DeJesus testified that Corbett chooses the place where he (DeJesus) works, and tells him who his helper is. DeJesus also testified that, while Corbett does work himself, most of his time is spent telling the employees what to do. Ottereno Lavorata stated that Dugan told him to follow Reilly's orders. It also appears that Reilly admonished Francesco DiBlasi. Antonino DiBlasi testified that Reilly and Corbett approved .time off without first consulting Dugan. The average hourly rates of Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner exceed by approximately $1 the next highest wage rate. Reilly notified the employees of their layoff on June 3, 1971. Gardner informed the employees that the boss decided to grant a wage increase, and it was Reilly who later notified the employees that they could not get a raise because of the wage freeze in effect. In these circumstances and on the credited record evidence, we conclude that Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner responsively assign, discipline, and direct the work of the employees and are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. To hold otherwise would require a finding that over'40 employees are supervised by only the plant supervi- sor, who rarely visits the work areas. Having found that Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner are supervisors, we conclude that Respondent is responsible for certain conduct which is violative of the Act. Thus, on two occasions Reilly asked employee Jorge Cortes whether he favored Local 455 or Local 5. This conduct violates Section 8(a)(1). Reilly also took an active role in establishing Local 5 as the bargaining representative for the unit employ- ees, to wit, he collected dues. Corbett conveyed Dugan's threat of a reduction in force and hours in the event Local 455 were successful. Gardner promised the employees a raise after the union the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. 202 NLRB No. 159 LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. 1095 contract was signed. The foregoing-conduct violates Section 8(a)(2).5 The Administrative Law Judge, in determining that Local 455 represented a majority of the unit employees at the time it made its demand for recognition on June 4, 1971, assumed, without deciding, that the authorization card of Lachman Raghunauth, an alien lacking working papers, should be disregarded because he was not an "employee" within the meaning of the Act. We find nothing in the Act to support this position, and as the eligibility of aliens to vote in Board elections is well estab- lished,6 we shall count Raghunauth's authorization card in determining whether Local 455 represented a majority of the unit employees. The Administrative Law Judge included C. Her- bert, Lance Bedwell, Dennis Chancellor, James Crosby, and T. Verblitsky in the unit because they were temporarily separated from their employment, had a reasonable expectancy of being reemployed, and were so employed. These individuals were not on the payroll list during the critical time, and the only evidence relating to their employment status was obtained through the testimony of Lucille Marino Harvey, Respondent's assistant treasurer and head bookkeeper, who was not in a position to testify as to any agreements reached between Respondent and any of the individuals alleged to be in layoff status. We are therefore unable to conclude on the evidence presented that these individuals had a reasonable expectancy of reemployment on June 4, 1971, and we shall not include them in the unit for the purpose of determining whether Local 455 represented a majori- ty of the unit employees. From the above, we conclude that at the time Local 455 made its demand for recognition it possessed valid authorizations from 24 employees 7 out of a unit consisting of 40 employees.8 We therefore find that on June 4, 1971, Local 455 was the designated majority representative of Respon- dent's employees. The Chairman's appraisal of Respondent's miscon- duct seems to us to be the same as our own, as is his conclusion that a bargaining order is appropriate to remedy that misconduct. We are rather less certain that unlawful speech, such as threats, interrogation, and promises, is necessarily less intimidatory than a grant of benefits or a discriminatory discharge. For example, the threat of plant closure should the union be selected to represent the employees is bound to be regarded as a most grave matter by the employees. We do not subscribe to the Chairman's apparent view that such a threat, accurately repeated and widely disseminated, may be disbelieved and thus fail to influence the employees, as the Chairman expressed in his concurring opinion in General Stencils, Inc., 195 NLRB No. 173. A somewhat similar argument was made in N.L.R.B. v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, 82 LRRM 2455 (C.A. 5, February 2, 1973), on the ground that because the threats were made only by allegedly low-level supervisors they were not serious, or not to be taken seriously by the employees., The Fifth Circuit disagreed, and affirmed the Board's bargaining order remedy. Despite the attractiveness of "rules" for guidance in this area which the Chairman suggested in General Stencils, supra, we continue to think as the Fifth Circuit did in Kaiser, supra, that "whether a free and fair election is possible depends on the facts of each case." Accordingly, as the record establishes that Local 455 had valid authorization cards from a majority of the unit employees at the time it requested recogni- tion, we find, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that, by refusing Local 455's request and thereafter engaging in the unfair labor practices found, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Act. We are convinced that none of the traditional remedies available to the Board is sufficient to erase the effect of Respondent's exten- sive campaign to preclude Local 455 from becoming the bargaining agent and to force the employees to accept Local 5. We deem it highly unlikely that the use of such remedies would enable us to hold a fair election. Therefore, an order requiring Respondent to recognize and bargain with Local 455 is necessary to remedy these violations.9 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Lawrence Rigging, Inc., of Corona, County of Queens, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. CHAIRMAN MILLER, concurring: I concur in my colleagues' conclusion that a 5 Even without these additional violations, the other conduct engaged in by Respondent, as detailed supra, and relied on by the Administrative Law Judge, clearly warrants the issuance of a bargaining order 6 American Smelting and Refining Company, 102 NLRB 1489, 1493 7 This figure includes Juan DeJesus, who did not sign an authorization card, but joined Local 455 in May 1970 and remained a member continuously through the period in question 8 This figure excludes , Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner, whom we have heretofore found to be supervisors, as well as Bedwell, Chancellor, Crosby, Herbert, and Verblitsky Even were we to include these 8 individuals in the unit, Local 455 possessed 25 authorizations, including the additional authorization of Herbert, in a unit of 48 employees. 9 See N L R B v Gissel Packing Company, 375 U.S 575, 614-615, Isaac Putterman d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, 193 NLRB 959 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining order is required here , but I do not find their rationale therefor adequate. In General Stencils, 195 NLRB No. 173, I set forth suggested criteria for determining the appropriate- ness of a bargaining order where a Gissel10 remedy is sought . In that case, I stated I would contrast situations where an employer grants significant benefits or repeatedly engages in violations of Section 8(a)(3), which action almost always calls for the 'imposition of a bargaining order, with coercive conduct limited to forms of speech , such as threats, interrogation , and promises , which may or may not warrant a bargaining order, depending on the particular circumstances . I suggested, in such cases, that we should answer three questions" in order to determine whether application of a Gissel remedy is warranted. In this case the evidence is that there were repeated, widely disseminated, threats made by individuals capable of carrying them out. The threats were of a nature likely to be seriously regarded by the employees . For these reasons, I find a bargaining order appropriate . The evidence leading me to this conclusion may be summarized as follows: When Respondent received Local 455's demand for recognition, Dugan, the plant manager and highest Respondent official around , interrogated employees, threatened layoffs, and implied that the Company "would run out of business" if Local 455 were successful . Dugan also told an assembly of Respondent's employees that Respondent wanted Local 5 rather than Local 455, and that Local 5 was a good union with good benefits. Dugan introduced Local 5's representative who, in Dugan's presence, and without disavowal by him, stated that, unless the employees selected Local 5, the plant would be forced to terminate operations . During this meeting, Dugan was asked what would happen if the employee did not sign for Local 5 and he replied, "You know what will happen. You better sign." Dugan answered another question stating, "We have a local 5 union , and then if we sign for that union, we will continue working, we will have more benefits, or we have nothing, we can't work anymore." Supervisor Corbett also told several employees that Dugan had instructed him to announce that, if Local 455 were successful, Respondent would bring the shop down to 12 or 15 men and that hours would be cut. On August 20, Respondent posted a notice reciting that employees were obligated to pay dues to Local 5 on pain of losing their jobs and being suspended from Local 5's parent organization. Considering Dugan's authority as plant manager, the pervasiveness of Respondent's threats , the serious nature of the threats, and the continuous nature of Respondent's campaign, it is my opinion that such interference with the free exercise of employee choice prevents the conduct of a free and fair election or other traditional remedies. For these reasons, I concur with my colleagues that the order to bargain is appropriate. 10 N L R B v Gissel Packing Company, supra II What actions were threatened) Were the threats , considering their source, their deliberateness and their specificity, likely to be seriously regarded by employees') Were the threats disseminated among the employees') TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner : This case, with all parties represented, was tried before in Brooklyn, New York, on January 24, 25, 27, and 28, and February 1, 2, and 4, 1972, on an amended complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an amended answer filed thereto by Lawrence Rigging, Inc., herein called the Respondent.' The issues raised by the pleadings relate to whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3 ), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter . At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument . Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent which have been duly considered.2 Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, including my observation of the witnesses who testified, I hereby make the following: 1. FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Respondent, a New York corporation , maintains its office and principal place of business in Corona , county of Queens, State of New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of steel smokestacks and related products . During the annual period material to his proceeding, Respondent purchased and caused to be delivered to its place of business , steel and other materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which materials valued in excess of $50,000 were delivered to its place of business directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 455, and Local 5, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, herein I The complaint, which issued on December 23, 1971 , is based upon charges filed and served on June 7 , 1971, in Case 29-CA-2415, and additional charges filed and served on October 7, 1971, in Case 29-CA-2554 2 The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the record in certain minor respects is hereby granted LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. 1097 called Local 5, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees regarding rights guaranteed to them in Section 7. The complaint further alleges that Respon- dent ran afoul of Section 8(a)(2) by rendering unlawful assistance and support to Local 5. The affirmative pleadings also charge that Respondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) by laying off and refusing to recall employees Natale (Chris) DiBlasi, Francesco Paolo DiBlasi, Martel Henry, Ottoreno Lavorata, Ramiro Quintero, Jesus Ramirez, Fred Vasquez, and Gilberto Florez, on June 3, 1971, and by assigning more arduous duties to Jorge Cortes (and thereafter laying him off on August 27, 1971), because they joined and assisted Local 455. Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with Local 455 on and after June 4, 1971, as the exclusive representative of its production, maintenance, and shipping and receiving employees.3 Respondent denies the commission of any labor practices banned by the Act. The facts are not essentially in dispute and I find them to be as follows. On May 21, 1971,4 employees and brothers Antonino and Chris DiBlasi visited the office of Local 455 where they met with President William Colavito and expressed their desire that Local 455 organize Respondent's plant. Colavito explained the organizational procedures to the men and provided them with blank authorization cards with the instruction that- they solicit the signatures of their fellow employees. Thereafter, Antonino and Chris, togeth- er with brother Francesco Palo DiBlasi, distributed the designations to employees at the shop and, between May 26 and 28, received signed authorizations from 24 employees.5 So far as this record stands, no member of Respondent's official family observed, or otherwise be- came aware of, this activity at the time. At a meeting called by Colavito on May 28, the cards were turned over to his possession. In addition to these authorizations, the record establishes and I find that employee Juan DeJesus had joined Local 455 in May of 1970, and remained a dues- paying member of that organization until August. At the conclusion of this meeting, Colavito announced that Local 455 had obtained signed designations from a majority of the work complement and that he proposed to contact Respondent and demand formal recognition. It is uncon- troverted and I find that, on May 28, Local 455 possessed authorizations from a total of 25 individuals in the unit. 'At approximately 6 a.m. on June 3, Colavito and Business Agent John Steinhauser visited Respondent's plant to seek out Plant Supervisor Philip Dugan to press Local 455's demand for majority recognition. Steinhauser accompanied Colavito on this mission because the former was acquainted with Dugan as a result of previous organizational campaigns at the installation. When Colavi- to and Steinhauser arrived, they sought out the plant supervisor. However, Dugan was absent from the plant, in consequence of which the union representatives left the premises without speaking to Dugan or any other manage- ment official regarding their quest for recognition. Later that afternoon, Colavito dispatched a letter to Respondent advising that Local 455 represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and requesting a collective-bargaining session. The letter also recited that, in the event Respondent harbored any doubts as to the Union's exclusive status, it was ready and willing to prove that status to Respondent. Meanwhile, at 8 a.m.,on June 3, James Reilly, whom the General Counsel contends is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, approached alleged discnminatee Otterend Lavorata at his work station and handed him a layoff slip. Lavorata visited Dugan to inquire into the reason for his loss of employment, and Dugan remarked that the layoff occurred because "there wasn't any work." That same morning, while alleged discriminatee Francesco DiBlasi was working in the yard, he overheard Reilly call to some employees and inform them that they were being laid off. Reilly then turned to Francesco and stated that he, too, was being placed in layoff status "because we got no work." Reilly added that Respondent had not received its anticipated shipment of steel and that this happenstance, coupled with the breakage of a "cherry picker," warranted the layoff. Sometime during the morning, an unidentified individual informed alleged discriminatee Martel Henry that the latter had been placed in layoff status. Henry called upon Dugan to verify this personnel action and Dugan reiterated that Henry had been laid off because "When you have less amount of men working the shops you get more work done and things are slow now." At 11:30 a.m., Reilly approached Antonino DiBlasi and related that Antonino's brother, Chris, had been laid off. Because Chris was at home due to illness, Reilly requested that Antonino relay this information to his brother. Shortly thereafter, Antonin went to Dugan's office to ascertain why Chris had lost his job. Dugan replied that the layoff was due to the fact that "they don't have a lot of work" and Dugan was dissatisfied with Chris' performance as a mechanic. According to Antonino, Dugan returned to the former's work station at 1 p.m. and reported that Chris was an "instigator" because "he told the people what to do about their rights . . . he tried to pull a trick with the Union, and that's no good for the company." Additionally, on June 3, Respondent laid off employees Jesus Ramirez, Gilberto Florez, Jose Vasquez, and Ramiro Quintero. These employees were not summoned to the witness stand by the General Counsel. I do not credit the testimony of Antonino DiBlasi regarding Dugan's statement that Chris was laid off because he believed that Chris was an "instigator" who "tricked" employees into embracing Local 455, because I 3 The parties stipulated and I find that all production, maintenance, and purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the shipping and receiving employees of Respondent at its Corona, New York, Act plant, exclusive of boilermakers (outside field employees), office clerical 4 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1971 employees, sales employees, professional employees, guards, and all 5 For the most part, the designations were procured at some distance supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the from the plant 1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD deem it implausible. So far as this record stands, Dugan was totally unaware that Local 455 had made any inroads in obtaining the membership of Respondent 's employees prior to June 4 when representatives of that organization visited the plant and demanded recognition . Moreover, it is undisputed that none of Respondent 's supervisors ob- served the solicitation by the DiBlasi brothers on May 26 and May 28, or otherwise gained knowledge of these efforts. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Lavorata, Francesco and Chris DiBlasi , Henry, Ramirez, Florez, Vasquez, and Quintero were laid off on June 3 solely due to economic considerations and not because of their engagement in activities on behalf of Local 455. I therefore conclude that, by laying off these individuals , Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall therefore dismiss this allegation in the complaint. Continuing the narrative , Local 455 President Colavito entered Respondent's plant at 6:30 a.m. on June 4 and engaged Dugan in a conversation . After identifying himself, Colavito proclaimed that his labor organization had obtained signed designations from a majority of the men and requested exclusive recognition . At this juncture, Colavito inquired as to why the Respondent had laid off the eight employees on the preceding day. Dugan replied that this action was necessitated by slack business conditions. When Colavito asked if the men would be reemployed, Dugan answered in the affirmative , stating "In a week or two." Dugan then remarked, "what do you want here anyway? This is Boylan's," an apparent reference to the fact that Dugan surmised that Respon- dent's employees appropriately belonged under the wing of Local 5, of which an individual named Boylan was the principal officer. Colavito rejoined, "You don't have a union in here, now," and Dugan agreed . Colavito then stated that "a majority of the guys authorized us to represent them, and we are here to discuss that with you." Dugan replied, "The boss is not here . He is out of town and I have to go back inside." According to Colavito, he reached the conclusion that his union constituted the majority representative at the shop because he had learned that Respondent maintained 44 timecards, including that of Dugan, and Local 455 possessed 25 representational authorizations. Following this conversation , Colavito telephoned the headquarters of Local 5 . Boylan was not at his office. However, Colavito lodged a complaint with another official that Local 455 had already organized Respondent's employees and eight of them had been laid off the preceding day. Colavito suggested that Local 5 and Local 455 get together and discuss the situation. Although the Local 5 official promised to do so, no further dialogue ensued. At 8 a.m . on June 4, after Colavito's visit to the plant, Dugan summoned employee Juan DeJesus to the office. DeJesus testified and I find that Dugan inquired, "What are you going to, do, now that the 455 is coming in?" DeJesus replied that he planned to "vote for them because that is my union." Dugan remarked that "if you are going to stick with Local 455, I have to lay you off." Displaying a Local 5 authorization card to DeJesus , Dugan stated that the shop should be represented by Local 5, adding that because "this is a small company . . . we can't afford to have two-to have Local 455 in here . If we do, we would run out of business." DeJesus then declared that "he was going to play neutral . I wasn't going to vote for none of them." At approximately 9 a.m. on June 4, James Reilly asked employee Jorge Cortes whether he favored Local 455 or Local 5 . Cortes responded that he supported Local 455. Upon receiving this intelligence , Reilly instructed Cortes to proceed to Dugan's office . At 10 a.m., Dugan and Reilly called all employees then on duty to report to the office, a number fixed by the record as between 15 and 17 . Present in the office, in addition to the employees and Dugan and Reilly, were John Corbett, Daniel Gardner, whom the General Counsel also contends are statutory supervisors, and Alfred Rogers, business agent for Local 5. Dugan opened the discussion by stating that he desired to install Local 5 into the shop because Local 5 was a "good union" which would offer "good benefits." Dugan concluded that the men could join that labor organization , and turned the meeting over to Business Agent Rogers. Rogers placed Local 5 authorization cards on the table in the office and solicited the membership of the individuals in attendance, announcing that the men would receive more money than they were currently earning if they , executed Local 5's designations. He also warned that, unless the employees selected Local 5, Respondent would be unable to erect its smokestacks at the field sites, with the result that the plant would be forced to terminate operations . Reilly was the first to accept the invitation of Dugan and Rogers to sign a card. Rogers invited Dugan to do likewise, and Dugan replied that he had already signed a designation. Dugan thereupon commenced to solicit the hesitant or recalcitrant employees to join Local 5. Thus, he advised employee George Crichlow that a vast majority of the work complement had executed cards. When Crichlow stated that he had already joined Local 455 and inquired what would happen to the men who had done so, Dugan replied, "You know what is going to happen. You better sign the card. Everybody sign a card." Rogers also informed Crichlow and the assemblage that they would be dis- charged if they did not join Local 5 . Turning to DeJesus, Dugan claimed that Local 5 had obtained 50 percent of Respondent's membership and cautioned that "If you don't sign already, later on you have to pay three hundred dollars for a union book or we have to lay you off. If you sign now, it will cost you" less. Dugan then addressed himself to Jorge Cortes and, with DeJesus interpreting from English to Spanish , advised that "we have a good Union. We have a Local 5 Union, and then if we sign for that Union, we will continue working, we will have more benefits or we have nothing. We can't work any more." Similar remarks were uttered by Dugan to employees Carlos Acero and Antonino DiBlasi. Dugan also instructed employees Lachman Raghunauth , Gheorghe Badila, and David Cohen to join Local 5. As a result of the efforts of Dugan and Rogers at this meeting, all of the individuals in attendance executed cards on behalf of Local 5. Events abided until June 8. On that date , Respondent's Vice President Arne Jacobsen mailed a letter to Local 455, LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. which was received on June 10 or 11, and which recited that: Replying to your letter of June 3, 1971, I wish to inform you that, to the best of my knowledge, the men in our shop signed application cards for the Boilermakers Shop Local Union # 5. As I see it, at the present time, it is now a Union problem and not a Employers problem. Local 455 received no further communications from Respondent thereafter, other than in the course of a discussion at the Board's Regional Office on some undisclosed date. On June 11, while Cortes was at work, James Reilly approached and inquired as to which union the former desired to represent him. A short time thereafter, John Corbett told several employees that Dugan had instructed Corbett to announce to them that, if Local 455 succeeded in organizing the employees, Respondent would "bring the shop down to twelve or fifteen men . . . . He [Dugan] said that hours will be cut down to forty hours a week. He said that there will be no overtime." DeJesus testified that, on or about June 19, he met Dugan and three other employees in a Brooklyn bar. DeJesus asked whether Dugan intended to recall any of the men who had signed Local 455 cards on June 3 and who had been laid off on that day. According to DeJesus, Dugan answered that "I wouldn't hire none of them because they are instigators . The ones that brought Local 455 in." In this connection Carlos Acero testimonially claimed that, while Rogers and Dugan were attempting to sign up the employees for Local 5 on June 4, Dugan told DeJesus that "we shouldn't think that our friends who were fired were going to come back because they weren't going to come back ...." The complaint alleges that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, not only by laying off Natale (Chris) DiBlasi, Francesco DiBlasi, Martel Henry, Ottoreno Lavorata, Ramiro Quintero, Jesus Rami- rez, Fred Vasquez, and Gilberto Florez on June 3,6 but by thereafter failing to recall them to work. However, at the hearing, the General Counsel himself proposed a stipula- tion, which was entered into by all parties, to the effect that Gilberto Florez was laid off on June 3 and recalled on June 10; that Jesus Ramirez was laid off on June 3 and was offered reemployment on August 4, to which offer he did not respond; that Fred Vasquez was laid off on June 3, was recalled to work on August 18, was again laid off on August 26, and was offered reemployment on October 22, but did not reply to the offer; and that Ramiro Quintero was laid off on June 3, recalled to work on June 10, was again laid off on August 20, and reemployed on September 16, but did not report for duty until October 9, and then was laid off on October 15. The General Counsel further agreed that Martel Henry was recalled to work on August 11, was laid off on August 26, and again offered reemployment on October 22. He also acknowledged that Chris and Francesco DiBlasi were afforded an opportunity by Respondent to return to duty. In light of the stipulations of the parties, I do not credit the testimony or DeJesus and Acero in the foregoing regard. I find and conclude, as testimonially reported by the General Coun- 1099 sel's witnesses, that Respondent temporarily laid the eight employees off on June 3 for lack of work and promised that they would be rehired in "a week or two," and, with respect to at least seven of the eight alleged discriminatees, that promise was kept despite the fact that they were adherents of Local 455. I therefore conclude that the General Counsel's assertion that Respondent failed to recall the discriminatees for illegal reasons lacks merit, and I shall dismiss this allegation. On or about August 20, a notice appeared on Respon- dent's bulletin board over the timeclock, and remained posted for about a month. The notice recited that the employees were obligated to pay dues to Local 5 on pain of losing their jobs and being suspended from Local 5's parent organization . In consequence of the notice, employ- ees paid the assessed amounts to that local. During the same period, Daniel Gardner and James Reilly spoke to the employees in groups of five or more and informed them that the "boss" had decided to give them a wage increase in advance of negotiating a contract with Local 5. Gardner promised one group, which included employee Acero, that the men would receive a raise from $3.25 to $3.75 per hour. Gardner added that, once a contract was negotiated, they would receive as much as $4.60 to $4.80 an hour. Approximately a week later, Reilly reported to the employees that no wage escalations would immediately be forthcoming because of the Federal pay freeze, but he promised that their wages would be increased when the freeze was lifted. Sometime in September , Rogers, Local 5's business agent, conducted a meeting in the shop prior to lunchtime. The employees were summoned to the meeting by Dugan. In addition to the work complement, Dugan, Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner were present. Rogers opened the session by commenting that Respondent and Local 5 had not reached a collective-bargaining agreement because the Respondent's owner had died. Rogers added that a contract would nevertheless be forthcoming because a new official had taken over the management reins. Rogers inquired as to which of the men desired to assist him in negotiations, and Reilly volunteered, along with three other employees . Rogers advised the newly appointed . committee to canvass the sentiment of the employees regarding their contract demands. Thereafter, Reilly enlisted the committee membership of Herman Woodroffe, who questioned employees concerning their desired con- tract terms, and recorded their responses. I turn next to a consideration of the facts surrounding the General Counsel's assertion that Respondent discnmi- nated against employee Jorge Cortes in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by imposing more menial tasks upon him and harassing him at work, and by laying him off on August 27, because of his activities on behalf of Local 455. The evidence discloses that Cortes was first hired on September 13 or 14, 1969, and worked until September 8, -1970. He was rehired on March 15, when Dugan offered him a wage increase from $3 . 15 to 3.50 per hour. Cortes performed the duties of a machinist , burner, and piece- setup man. According to Cortes, he signed an authoriza- tion card for Local 455 in May and, prior thereto, had been 6 1 have heretofore dismissed this allegation from the complaint 1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD informed that his work performance was good. However, during June and thereafter, James Reilly told Cortes to sweep the floor, pick up junk, and load trucks. Cortes claimed that he had never previously performed this type of work. He conceded that he worked at these chores for only 2 to 3 hours per day, that the work was less arduous than his normal duties, and that he continued to receive the same rate of pay. At one point, Cortes asked Reilly why the former had been assigned to these tasks, to which Reilly replied that "he had nothing else to offer" Cortes. Commencing in June, Reilly observed Cortes' work and noted the time spent on the various operations. Reilly urged Cortes to do better, and informed Cortes that he was checking on Cortes' volume of production. Around August 20, Cortes approached Dugan and inquired into the number of pieces which he was required to produce. Dugan responded that Cortes must extend his efforts. Cortes then requested a wage raise, to which Dugan replied that Respondent was not according anyone an increase. Dugan added that, "You want to stay here, you have to do more. If you don't like it, you have to stay home." On August 27, shortly before quitting time, Dugan advised Cortes that the latter was being laid off. When Cortes demanded the reason for the separation, Dugan replied "You know why." On the following day, Cortes returned to the plant and spoke with Louie Mayo, the shop steward. Mayo remarked that "very soon the Union president will be here and we will get-the Union president will be there and we will get benefits and the contract and everything," after which Cortes asked why he had been laid off. Mayo stated, "You don't recognize the Union," an apparent reference to the fact, according to Cortes, that he had not paid his fees to Local 5. While the issue is not entirely free from doubt, I am nevertheless not convinced that the General Counsel has sustained his burden of showing by preponderant proof that Respondent singled out Cortes for a reassignment of duties and layoff because he espoused the cause of Local 455. While Cortes joined Local 455 in May, along with 24 other cohorts, he was not particularly active in that organization's campaign. Although Cortes was questioned by Reilly on June 4 as to his umon sympathies and indicated that he favored Local 455, DeJesus was similarly interrogated and gave a parallel response, yet his terms and conditions of employment were not thereafter altered. As heretofore found, Respondent laid off eight employees on June 3 because of slack business conditions. In view of this economic circumstance, it is not unreasonable to infer that Respondent attempted to keep Cortes gainfully employed by assigning him to other than his normal tasks, particular- ly in view of the fact that he continued to draw the same rate of pay and performed, on a limited basis, less arduous duties. Moreover, Dugan's refusal to award Cortes a wage increase on August 20 was consistent with the findings heretofore made that Respondent did not afford wages increases to any employee during that period because of proscriptions set forth in the Federal wage-freeze policy. Furthermore, there is no probative evidence to establish that Shop Steward Mayo's statement that Cortes had been laid off for failing to embrace Local 5 by the payment of fees reflected management's reason for severing Cortes from its employ. In sum, I find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent altered Cortes' working conditions and laid him off on August 27 because of his activities on behalf of Local 455. I therefore conclude that, in its dealings with Cortes, Respondent did not offend the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Inasmuch as the supervisory status of James Reilly, John Corbett, and Daniel Gardner impinges upon the questions as to whether Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with Local 455 as the majority representative of its employees, and whether Respondent is to be held legally accountable for the acts and utterances of these individu- als, I now turn to an evaluation of that status. Reilly, Corbett and Gardner performed layout work and fits. They instructed employees in the manner in which they fulfilled their assignments . However, it is abundantly clear on this record, according to General Counsel's witness, Juan DeJesus, that all decisions regarding the allocation and assignment of work emanated from Philip Dugan, concededly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner engaged in manual labor and discharged the same duties as the other employees. They had no authority to hire or fire employees nor did they possess any authority to grant time off or discipline employees in the true sense of the word, although they may have scolded employees for "goofing off." Neither were they authorized to award wage increases . On the entire record before me, I am convinced and find that the duties of Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner were essentially those of traditional leadmen, and that they did not possess or exercise the indicia of supervisory authonty outlined in Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, I conclude that these individuals are employees within the meaning of the statute who appropriately belong in the collective-bargaining unit. I also conclude that, in light of their employee status, Respondent was not responsible for their utterances and conduct which allegedly intruded upon the employees' rights under Section 7. This is not to say that Respondent had not otherwise indulged in conduct which collided with the employees' Section 7 rights. Based upon the findings heretofore made, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following: (1) Dugan's coercive interrogation of Juan DeJesus on the morning of June 4 as to "what are you going to do, now that the 455 is coming in?" (2) Dugan's threat to DeJesus on June 4 that "if you are going to stick with Local 455, I have to lay you off," and Dugan's threat that the plant would be closed if the employees did not select Local 5 as their bargaining agent. (3) Dugan's promises to the employees assembled at the meeting on June 4 that they would receive "good benefits" if they joined Local 5, and his threats that the men who did not sign a card on behalf of Local 5 would be deprived of their employment. (4) Dugan's threat to several employees, conveyed through employee John Corbett on June 11, that Respon- dent would reduce its work complement to a figure of between 12 and 15, would curb the number of weekly LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. hours worked to 40, and would eliminate overtime, if Local 455 succeeded in gaining their collective support. (5) Dugan's promise, made through James Reilly and Daniel Gardner to employees on or about August 20, that the employees would receive a wage increase in advance of negotiating a contract with Local 5, and the promise made through Gardner that the employees would receive additional, increases when a contract was consummated with` Local 5. (6) Dugan's sponsorship of, and participation in, the meeting of June 4, during which Local 5's business agent, Rogers, warned that the plant would be closed if the men failed to select Local 5 as their bargaining representative. I further conclude that Respondent rendered unlawful assistance and support to Local 5. Thus, after Local 455 had made its demand for recognition on the morning of June 4, Respondent, without questioning Local 455's majority status or requesting to assess Local 455's strength by checking its signed authorization cards, invited Local 5 Business Agent Rogers to the plant later that day. When Rogers arrived, Dugan summoned his employees to a meeting conducted on company time. At the outset, Dugan lauded Local 5 as a "good union" which could provide "good benefits," and he, himself, signed a designation in the presence of the employees, after urging them to do so. Dugan thereupon turned the meeting over to Rogers. With Dugan's obvious approval, Rogers positioned blank authorization cards on a table and exhorted the men to sign up, accompamed with promises that the men would receive' higher wages if they joined Local 5, and with threats that the plant would be closed if they failed to do so. Dugan personally solicited the signatures of the hesitant employees with such statements as "You better sign the card. Everybody sign a card," and with threats that they would be discharged if they refused to'join Local 5. Thereafter, Respondent continued to furnish unlawful assistance and support to Local 5. These activities were manifested by a notice which was posted in the plant on August 20 reciting that the employees were obligated to pay dues to Local 5 on pain of losing their jobs. As a result of this warning, the employees complied with Local 5's dues requirements. On or about the same date, Respondent advised the employees that it had decided to afford them wage increases immediately, and that higher rates would be paid to them when it concluded a contract with Local 5. Again, in September, Respondent knowingly allowed Rogers to conduct another meeting at the shop on company time where he selected a negotiating committee. By the foregoing acts, I find and conclude that Respondent assisted and supported Local 5 in a manner offensive to Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. I next turn to a consideration of the salient issue presented in this proceeding, namely, whether Local 455 represented a majority of the unit employees when it made its demand for recognition on June 4. It is undisputed, and I find that, on May 28, Local 455 possessed 24 signed authorization cards and, with the inclusion of Juan 7 This figure includes the eight alleged discnmmatees While I have heretofore found that they were laid off for economic reasons on June 3, I have also found that their layoff was temporary in nature and I therefore conclude that their cards should be counted in ascertaining Local 455's 1101 DeJesus, who had previously joined that Union, the total authorizations amounted to 25.7 It is also undisputed and I find that, during the payroll period ending May 31, 42 employees, including Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner, whom I have heretofore found to be employees rather than supervisors within the meaning of the Act, numerically constituted the appropriate unit on that date. Should these figures stand up, there is no question but that Local 455 had achieved majority status on June 4. However, Respondent maintains that the unit compo- sition should include Phil Dugan, Jr., and individuals named Golok and Hastings, on the ground that they were employees who entered the Armed Forces of the United States, and were on military leave on' June 4. I find no merit in this argument. In Supersweet Feed Co., 8 the Board held that a union's status as a majority representative may be determined without reference to the number of employees in the unit who were members of the Armed Forces, inasmuch as the interest of the currently working employees outweighed the remote interest of the military personnel in establishing present terms and conditions of employment. Moreover, the record discloses that, with respect to Dugan, he did not commence working for Respondent until June 7, 1971, some 3 days after Local 455 sought recognition. Accordingly, I shall exclude Dugan, Golok, and Hastings from the unit. Respondent also contends that Lance Bedwell, Dennis Chancellor, James Crosby, T. Verblitsky, and an individual named Vinci, should be included in the unit because they were in temporary layoff status and remained employees of Respondent on June 4, even though they were not then working. In this connection, Respondent points to the treatment accorded to C. Herbert, as indicated in the marginal reference below. The record shows that Bedwell suffered injuries to his fingers as a result of an industrial accident at the plant on June 22, 1970. Following his recovery, Bedwell was victimized by a drug addiction problem. Apparently, after treatment, he returned to work in November. Dennis Chancellor left his employment on May 3 in the mistaken belief that he would have to undergo surgery. He returned to work in September, after learning that the operation was unnecessary. James Crosby left his job with Respondent on April 5 because of personal problems, with the assurance that he could return at any time when they were resolved. He resumed his employment in October, and was laid off on November 1. T. Verblitsky was employed by Respondent in 1968. Because he was an alcoholic, he worked continuously for Respondent during the periods of his sobriety until March, when he was committed to a sanitarium. He returned to duty on August 16. Finally, Vinci worked as a regular part-time employee from February 1970 until June 7, averaging approximately 18 hours per week during that period. Accordingly, I conclude that Bedwell, Chancellor, Crosby, and Verblitsky should be included in the umt because, like Herbert, they were temporarily separated from their employment, had a reasonable expectancy of being reemployed, and were so majority status The figure further includes the card of C Herbert. who was hired by Respondent in January, laid off in May, and recalled in August 8 62 NLRB 53, 54 See also Pholobell, Inc, 158 NLRB 738, 741 I 1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reemployed. I shall also include Vinci, due to my conclusion that he was a regular, part-time employee on June 4. With the foregoing inclusions, I find that, on June 4, the unit was comprised of 47 employees. Finally, Respondent asserts that the cards of six signers on behalf of Local 455 should be disregarded on the ground that they were aliens who did not possess lawful employment status. The only evidence which Respondent adduced on this issue sprung from the testimony on cross- examination of Lachman Raghunauth that he was an alien who had entered this country on a student visa and did not possess a "green card" entitling him to seek or hold gainful employment. Apart from argumentative assertion, Respon- dent presented no evidence to sustain its contention that the designation card of any other employees should be voided on this basis. Assuming, without deciding, that the card of Raghunauth should be disregarded because he was not an "employee" within the meaning of the Act, Local 455 nevertheless possessed a total of 24 authorizations out of a unit of 46 employees when it made its recognitory demand on June 4, I therefore find that, on that date, Local 455 was the designated majority representative of Respondent's employees. Accordingly, as Local 455 had obtained valid authoriza- tion cards from a majority of unit employees when it demanded recognition on June 4, I conclude that, by refusing that demand, and thereafter engaging in the above-chronicled compendium of unfair labor practices, which evinces to me a total disregard by Respondent of the right of its employees to select their own collective- bargaining agent without interference from their employer, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Under these circumstances, I am persuaded and conclude that the issuance of a bargaining order flowing in favor of Local 455 is necessary in this proceeding, because, in my opinion, a fair election cannot now be held to resolve the representational issue .9 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close and intimate 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 thereof. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent illegally assisted, support- ed, and recognized Local 5 as the collective representative 9 See NLRB v Gesell Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575, 614-15, Rockville Nursing Center, 193 NLRB 959 10 In 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, of its employees. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent withdraw and withhold recognition from Local 5, unless and until that labor organization has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. I have also found that Respondent refused to bargain collectively with Local 455 as the authentic majority representative of its unit employees. I shall therefore recommend that, upon request, Respondent bargain with Local 455 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. As previously indicated, this bargaining order is deemed warranted in light of the widespread and flagrant nature of Respondent's conduct heretofore found. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions, and the entire record made in this case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 455 and Local 5 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section (5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in conduct proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By assisting, supporting, and recognizing Local 5 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employ- ees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 5. All production, maintenance, and shipping and receiving employees of Respondent at its Corona, New York, plant, exclusive of Boilermakers (outside field employees), office clerical employees , sales employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the purview of Section 9(b) of the Act. 6. By refusing, on June 4, 1971, and thereafter, to recognize and bargain with Local 455 as the exclusive collective-bargaining agent of the employees in the above- described appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 10 Respondent, Lawrence Rigging, Inc., of Corona, county of Queens, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: conclusions, 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 LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. 1103 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their sympathies for Local 455. (b) Threatening employees with discharge, and with the closure of the plant, if they rejected Local 5 as their collective representative and selected Local 455 to repre- sent them. ,(c) Promising economic benefits to employees condi- tioned upon their rejection of Local 455 as their exclusive representative, and threatening the employees with dis- charge if they declined to sign authorization cards on behalf of Local 5. (d) Threatening employees that the work complement will be reduced, that the number of weekly hours of work will be curtailed, and, that overtime will be eliminated, if Local 455 succeeds in gaining their collective support. (e) Promising employees increased benefits upon the execution of a contract with Local 5. (f) Sponsoring and participating in meetings of employ- ees on company time in which representatives of Local 5 warn employees that the plant will be closed unless they join and support Local 5. (g) Assisting, supporting, and recognizing Local 5 as the exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate unit described as follows: All production, maintenance, and shipping and receiv- ing employees of Respondent at its Corona, New York, plant, exclusive of boilermakers (outside field employ- ees), office clerical employees, sales employees, profes- sional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, unless and until said labor organization has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as such representa- tive. (h) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 455 as the exclusive representative of the above-described appropriate unit, upon request, regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (i) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Local 5 as the collective representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described above, unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive agent for those employees. (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 455 as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employ- ees and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed contract. (c) Post at its place, of business in Corona, county of Queens, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" i Copies of said notice, drafted in English and Spanish, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Mail signed copies of the aforesaid notice, depending on the native tongue of the individuals involved, to all former employees, at their last known address, who worked for Respondent from June 4, 1971, to date. (e) Notify the Regional Director, for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.i2 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed as those allegations not specifically found herein. 11 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." 12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in wnting, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the 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 WE WILL NOT coercively ask our employees regard- ing their feelings about being represented by Shop- men's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, because this is a private matter for our employees as guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the loss of their jobs, or with closing our plant in Corona, because they decide to join and embrace Local 455 to represent them in their negotiations with Lawrence Rigging, Inc., instead of Local 5, International Brother- hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT promise better wages to our employees if they refuse to select Local 455 to represent them, and we will not threaten our men that they will be discharged if they refuse to support Local 5. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will reduce the number of our employees at the shop, lower the number of hours of work each week, or cut out overtime work, if they continue to support Local 455. WE WILL NOT promise our employees better econom- ic benefits when and if we sign a contract with Local 5. WE WILL NOT promote and take part in meetings of our employees on company time so that officials of Local 5 can warn you that our plant will be closed unless our employees join and support Local 5. WE WILL NOT assist, support, or recognize Local 5, to become your bargaining representative. 1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain with Local 455, as your truly selected bargaining representa- tive and, if a contract is agreed upon, we will sign it and agree to put into effect its wages, hours, and other Dated By terms and conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, except to the extent that such rights may be effected by lawful agreements permissible under this Federal law. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization. LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. (Employer) (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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.