Grede Foundries, Inc.

GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. Grede Foundries, Inc. (Milwaukee) and International Molder's and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO- CLC Grede Foundries, Inc. (Reedsburg) and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases 30-CA-1990, 30-CA-2040, and 30-RC-1722 July 26, 1973 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and Gen- eral Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent filed a brief in opposition to General Counsel's exceptions and brief in support thereof. 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 at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order. Our dissenting colleague is satisfied, as are we, with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Respondent's posters and circulars standing alone were not violative of the Act. But he is of the opinion that when the posters and circulars and Grede's speech are "taken together" there is an unlawful threat in them, for the message then conveyed is that if the employee strikes in an effort to procure a con- tract, the plant will close down and he will be out of a job. However, we have carefully read Grede's speech and we find nothing therein, as even the por- tions deemed most significant by Member Fanning demonstrate,' which supports this conclusion. 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 Grede Foundries, Incorporated, Milwau- kee and Reedsburg, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on June 14, 1972, in Case 30-RC-1722 be set aside and that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remand- ed to the Regional Director for Region 30 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as 39 he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] i Member Fanning would not affirm the Administrative Law Judge's con- clusion that neither the circulation of a poster depicting a locked plant gate with the legend "Vote No, Avoid this," followed by the posting of three circulars announcing the closing of various unionized foundries, nor an antiunion speech given by Respondent's Chairman fo the Board Grede to a massed group of employees at Respondent 's Reedsburg plant violated Sec. 8(a)(l) The posters and circulars, taken by themselves, might amount to nothing more than a lawful prediction of the economic disadvantages that might result if a union won the election there. The locked gate poster was accompanied by a letter explaining that the plant closing and attendant loss of jobs might result if customers canceled their orders as a result of an economic strike However, when considered against the backdrop of Grede's speech, the poster and circulars appear more coercive. Grede constantly makes reference to the fact that while unions have often won elections in his plants, he has never signed a contract At one point he concludes, "Let me just sum up-50 years, no contract " While he is careful to say he will bargain with the union, he leads the employees to believe that such bargaining will be futile . "[Ili a majority of the people want to have a union represent them, we will deal with that union I've done it before, we'll do it again Now my dealings before have never resulted in a contract so the union has usually after they've been elected, they've kind of dried up and blown away." When the speech and the circulars and the locked gate poster are read and analyzed together by the Reedsburg employee the message is clear If the union wins the election, his chances of securing a contract are slight , and if he strikes in an effort to procure such contract , the plant will close and he will be out of a job A vote for unionization is an exercise in futility. Member Fanning would therefore find that the locked gate poster, the circulars announcing the closures of unionized plants, and Grede's speech, taken together, constitute an implied threat by Respondent which is not based on "demonstrably probable consequences beyond [its ] control" and thus are violative of Sec. 8(a)(1). N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, 395 U S 575, 618 (1969) 2 The dissent's quotation from the speech of "Let me just sum up-50 years, no contract" is not the complete sentence spoken by Grede at this point The whole sentence reads, "Let me sum up-50 years, no contract, Job security, see our Quarter Century Club " Here, as elsewhere in the speech, Grede is boasting of the fact that, without a union and union contract, he has provided job security for his employees This is not tantamount to telling the employees that "A vote for unionization is an exercise in futility." DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing was held in this consolidated proceeding at Reeds- burg, Wisconsin, December 11, 12, and 13, 1972, and at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 14, 1972. The charge was filed in Case 30-CA-1990 by International Molder's and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, and served on the Respondent June 15, 1972, alleging the commission of un- fair labor practices at the Respondent's Milwaukee (re- ferred to in the record as Milwaukee Steel) plant. The charge in Case 30-CA-2040 was filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and served on the Respondent July 27, 1972; it alleged the commission of unfair labor practices at the Respondent's Reedsburg Wis- consin, plant. Pursuant to a petition filed by UAW in Case 30-RC-1722 April 17, 1972, an election was held in a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Reeds- burg plant June 14, 1972; UAW lost the election 56-116, with 11 challenged ballots, and filed objections. On October 2, 1972, the Regional Director of Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint in Case 30- 205 NLRB No. 12 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CA-2040. On November 16, 1972, the Regional Director issued a complaint in Case 30-CA-1990 and consolidated the two complaint cases. He also found that the issues posed by UAW's Objections 1, 2,3,4, and 6 in Case 30-RC-1722 were similar to issues in Case 30-CA-2040, and consolidat- ed that representation case with the complaint cases. The consolidated complaint was amended at the hearing. Mold- ers filed a petition April 17, 1972, and went to an election in a production and maintenance unit at the Milwaukee plant June 9, 1972; it also lost, but the Board certified the results; that matter is therefore not before me. The issues are whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by granting wage increases, failing to grant improved insurance coverage, posting and distributing certain literature, and soliciting grievances at the Reedsburg and Milwaukee plants; and by interrogating employees, surveilling their union activities, and threatening employees at the Reeds- burg plant. Also at issue is whether the Respondent inter- fered with the Reedsburg election by such conduct. The Respondent denies that it committed unfair labor practices or interfered with the election. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT i AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Ing Ward had with plant employees January 28, 1972. In addition, Molder's Representative Dale Tuel testified, with- out dispute, that he gave a Molder's pamphlet to Eugene Schneider, then works manager of the Milwaukee plant, on the first day Tuel handbilled at the plant gate the week of January 28, 1972. That the Respondent waged a vigorous campaign to de- feat the Unions in both plants is made clear below. A. Reedsburg and Milwaukee Paragraph 6 of the complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by the following conduct at both its Milwaukee and Reedsburg plants. 6(a). Wage increases: The General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated the Act by increasing the number and amount of wage raises given to base-rate (incentive pieceworker) employees and to day-rate (hourly paid non- piece worker) employees at the Milwaukee plant, and to day-rate employees at Reedsburg. The Respondent con- tends that there was no substantial departure from its estab- lished policy of granting wage increases except for certain increases given Milwaukee employees which were governed by special nonunion considerations. The record shows the following with regard to wage in- creases alleged to be unlawful: Reedsburg I JURISDICTION The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in the operation of foundries at several locations including those at Milwaukee and Reedsburg, Wisconsin, involved herein; and that it shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from each of these two plants directly to points outside Wisconsin during the past calen- dar year. The Respondent also admits, and I conclude, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning in Section 2(2),(6), and (7) of the Act. The Respondent admits, and I also find, that Molders and UAW are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES As stated above, the petitions were filed April 17, 1972. The record establishes that the Respondent became aware of the UAW campaign at the Reedsburg plant in late Janu- ary or early February 1972. Thus, Arthur Swenink, an ad- mitted supervisor, testified that he had been informed by then that one of the employees, Bill Demaske, "was pushing the union." In addition, Harold "Woody" Steinhauer, the works manager in charge of plant operations, testified that he learned of the union activity in early February. The Respondent became aware of the Molder's campaign at the Milwaukee plant about the same time. Thus, both employee Albert Hankins and Industrial Relations Director R. J. Ward testified that the Union was discussed at a meet- 1 In resolving credibility issues, I have in certain instances credited some and discredited other testimony of the same witness To believe some, but not all, of what a witness says is a common phenomenon N L R B v Univer- sal Camera Corp, 179 F 2d 749, 754 (C A 2) Av. No . Day- Day- Empi . rate rate Incr. Incr. 1970 1971 1972 229 131 209 Av. No. 59 35 69 Milwaukee 2iX7 25.7% 26.7% 33.0% Day_ Empl. rate rate Incr. Incr. 1970 269 214 79 1971 244 144 29 1972 284 239 134 Total Empi. rec, rec. Incr. Incr. 1970 293 109% 1971 173 71% 1972 373 131% [See p. 41 for fns. 2 and 3.] GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 41 R. J. Ward, the Respondent's director of industrial rela- tions, testified that the Respondent's current wage policy was adopted in 1968. The policy required that all employees be classified and it provided a system for conforming the rate of each incentive worker with that established for his classification, and for bringing the pay rate of each hourly employee within the range established for his classification, with certain exceptions, such as new hires. The plan was put into effect at the Reedsburg, Wauwatosa, Waukesha, Wis- consin, and Kingsford, Michigan, plants about that time; and at the Wichita, Kansas, plant 18 month later. Ward testified that the plan did not become fully effective at the Milwaukee plant until February 1972. Under the plan, the Respondent continuously audits the standards for base rates, and surveys wages and fringe benefits provided in the areas where it operates. New classifications and pay-rate schedules are issued each year providing for rate increases. Documentary evidence was presented that such schedules were issued for Reedsburg February 16, 1970, February 26, 1971, and February 28, 1972; and for Milwaukee February 16, 1970, February 26, 1971, and February 21, 1972. After the new schedules are issued, Ward testified, the plant works manager has authority to grant increases up to the new rates at that time or at a subsequent time based upon such factors as performance and longevity. Ward testified that in late January or early February 1972, Eugene Schneider, who had been permitted to deviate in some respects from company policy in running the Mil- waukee plant, made known he intended to retire as works manager as soon as a replacement was found. At that time, Ward and the president and executive vice president re- viewed the situation and decided to implement the wage policy in full at that plant. They instituted the base rates provided for in the schedules, and established a program to bung all day-rate employees who were below appropriate rate range within range over a 30- to 120-day period, as permitted by wage control regulations. Ward testified that the Respondent's conduct with regard to wage increases was not affected by the advent of the Unions. The new works manager, Frank Brendler, took over the Milwaukee plant during the first week in June 1972. The law provides that granting wage increases for the purpose of inducing employees to vote against a union in a forthcoming Board election violates Section 8(a)(1) 4 Ab- sent such purpose, however, the granting of wage increases during the pendency of a Board election has no inherent tendency to discourage union adherence, and it will not do so if the employer proceeds as he would have done had no 2 All figures cover the period from February 1, the approximate date in 1972 when the Respondent became aware of the union campaign, until June 14, the date of the 1972 election, as nearly as can be computed from the evidence presented There is no evidence as to the average complement of day-rate employees only The General Counsel does not contend that in- creases given to Reedsburg base-rate employees were unlawful 3 All figures cover the period from February 28, the date when, in 1972, the Respondent first became aware of the union campaign at the Milwaukee plant, until June 9, the date of the 1972 election, as nearly as can be computed from the evidence presented Base-rate employee increases affected only downtime and delay, piece rates, which have a greater effect on earnings, are not involved in this case 4 N L R B v Exchange Parts Company, 375 U S 405 (1964) election been pending.5 Thus, wage increases given in sub- stantially similar numbers and amounts at comparable times as they have been given in the past are not unlawful.6 The undisputed evidence in this case shows that the Re- spondent had an established policy of requiring, with cer- tain exceptions, that its employees be paid in accord with the appropriate rates, and of revising the rates upwards every year around the middle or the end of February. Al- though plant managers were allowed a year's time within which to apply the increases to individual employees, the Reedsburg and Milwaukee managers followed a pattern of granting the bulk of their increases within a month or two after the rates were changed. I find that the number and timing of the increases given Reedsburg day-rate employees during the spring of 1972 did not vary substantially from the pattern followed in that plant in the preceding 2 years. There was considerable variance between the number of increases given during this period in 1972 and the number given during the comparable periods of the preceding 2 years in the Milwaukee plant. However, I accept the uncon- tradicted explanation of Industrial Relations Director Ward, which does not seem unreasonable, that the purpose was to regularize the Milwaukee wage structure, and was brought about by the impending retirement of Works Man- ager Schneider, who had been permitted to deviate from company wage policy, and not by the impending Board election.7 As to the amount or size of the increases given, there is no evidence as to the size of the actual increases given in base rates at Milwaukee; the February 21, 1972, schedules for that plant called for smaller increases in base rates (5 to 6 cents) than had been called for in 1971 (21 to 28 cents). As for the day-rate employees at both plants, the evidence reveals the actual size of the increases given to only nine of the Reedsburg employees who received increases in 1972, and to only three who received increases in 1971 and 1970. For Milwaukee, it reveals actual increases for 3 employees in 1972 and 1971, and 16 in 1970. As for the rest of the increases given, the evidence shows only that at Reedsburg 60 employees received increases ranging from 5 cents to 24 cents in 1972; 32 received 5 cents to 26 cents in 1971; and 56 received 5 cents to 16 cents in 1970. Similarly, of the remaining wage increases granted at Milwaukee, 236 in- creases of 5 to 52 cents were given in 1972; 141 increases of 5 to 29 cents in 1971; and 198 of 5 to 25 cents in 1970. Other than the few referred to above, there is no way to tell the number of employees receiving any of these amounts. Accordingly, I conclude that the preponderance of the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent violated the Act by the wage increase given, and that this allegation of the complaint should be dismissed. 6(b): The Respondent announced, in June 1972 issue of its newsletter "Grains of Sand," that Reedsburg and Mil- waukee employees would not presently receive the im- proved health insurance benefits granted to employees of other plants because of the pending Board elections. The 5 See GAF Corporation, 196 NLRB 538, Oxco Brush Division of Vistron Corporation, 171 NLRB 512, Performance Measurements Co, Inc, 149 NLRB 1451 6 Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 198 NLRB No 9, W T Grant Company, 177 NLRB 469 7 See Summitville Tiles, Inc, 190 NLRB 640, fn 1 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent contends extending the improvements to Reedsburg and Milwaukee employees before the election would have been violative of the Act. It was stipulated that the Respondent issues its newsletter "Grains of Sand" every quarter, and that it mailed copies of the June 1972 issue to all Milwaukee employees no later than June 1, and to all Reedsburg employees during the first week of June 1972. The objected-to announcement ap- peared on pp. 4 and 5 and stated that the Company had taken over payment of the employee weekly contribution of $1.07 (personal) and $2.74 (personal and dependent) for insurance coverage at four of its plants. The article stated, however, "these extra benefits are not presently available at Milwaukee Steel and Reedsburg due to union organiza- tional efforts and forthcoming union elections." Industrial Relations Director Ward testified that the Company spotchecks fringe benefits each year when the wage surveys are made, and takes an in-depth look at the fringe package and insurance every 2 years. He said the above improvements had been under consideration as far as cost and the effect of the August 1971 wage controls were concerned since 1971, and that the decision to grant the improvements was made "probably in April" 1972. The improvements constituted a change in policy, Ward testi- fied, which the Company intended to extend to these em- ployees regardless of the outcome of the elections, but did not extend them before the elections because the Company might be charged with influencing the vote. The change was effected at the other four plants on May 21, 1972. It was effected at the Milwaukee plant June 19, 1972, and at the Reedsburg plant July 10, 1972, after the elections were held. President Burleigh Jacobs also testified that the new poli- cy on insurance premiums had been under study since May 1971. Jacobs did not remember when the decision was made to grant the improvements except that it was made in the spring of 1972, and he approved it. Unlike the granting of a benefit, such as the wage increas- es discussed above, intent is not the crucial factor when a benefit is withheld. The test is, rather, whether it may rea- sonably be said that withholding the benefit tended to inter- fere with the free exercise of employee rights.8 Where an employer proceeds as he would have done had a union been on the scene, there is no such interference. On the other hand, to withhold benefits which would normally have been granted but for the presence of a union and the pendency of an election, and so advising the em- ployees concerned, is violative of Section 8(a)(1).9 There do appear to be exceptions to this rule. For example, there may be no interference where an employer can demonstrate the existence of a reasonable ground for its action and its good faith in taking it. Where, however, as here, the ground ad- vanced is fear that it might be charged with an unfair labor practice if the benefit is not withheld, the employer must provide a basis for a "reasonable apprehension" that such a charge would be filed.10 No basis for such an apprehen- sion has been provided in this case." There may also be no interference where an employer makes it clear to the em- 8 See Melville Confections, Inc v N L R B, 327 F 2d 689, 692 (C A 7, 1964), Time-O-Mane, Inc v N L R B, 264 F 2d 96, 99 (C A 7, 1959) 9 The Gates Rubber Company, 182 NLRB 95 10 GAF Corp, supra 11 Cf GAF Corp, supra ployees involved that the benefits are being withheld only because of its fear that to grant them might be interpreted as an attempt to buy their votes and that the benefits will be extended to them after the election regardless of the vote.12 In my opinion, the Respondent completely failed to do this. On the contrary, the criptic statement in "Grains of Sand" advised employees that the insurance benefits were to be extended to employees of other plants (which were nonunion) but withheld from the putative voters due not only to the "forthcoming union elections," but also to "union organizational efforts," could reasonably be inter- preted by the voters as discriminatory. Moreover, contrary to the Respondent's contention, nothing said by William Grede, chairman of the Respondent's board of directors, in his speech to the Reedsburg employees on June 12, 1972, discussed below, would be likely to change such an interpre- tation. In these circumstances, I conclude that the Respondent's withholding from its Reedsburg and Milwaukee employees the improved health insurance benefits granted to employ- ees at other nonunion plants, and advising them that the reason they were not receiving the benefits was "due to union organizational efforts and forthcoming union elec- tions," coerced and restrained the Reedsburg and Milwau- kee employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.13 6(c): The Respondent posted and/or distributed a poster showing a locked plant gate with the legend "Vote No, Avoid This," and various other circulars and bulletins an- nouncing plant closures. The Respondent concedes it mailed out to all Reedsburg and Milwaukee eployees on the dates thereon six letters over the signature of President Burleigh Jacobs, with posters attached, containing the following statements: May 8, 1972. . . . When you have considered all the facts involved in this situation, I believe you will decide that your best interest will not be served by having an "outsider" represent you. Therefore, I want to tell you the company's position. Unions are not welcome at Grede Foundaries. We know this is in the best interest of you and the company May 18, 1972. Letter and poster featuring the theme "What have I got to lose?" portraying a "UAW" and "IM & A.W." "boss" clutching employees' assess- ments, fines, high dues, initial fees, and political contri- butions; and contrasting a "Grede employee" piling up assets entitled "steady work, pensions, insurance, high wages, vacations", and ending with the slogan "Don't gamble with your future." May 25, 1972. Letter describing poster as an example of what happened to other foundry employees after they "bought the union," and pointing out that there 12 Cf Montana Lumber Sales, Inc (Delaney & Sons Division), 185 NLRB 46, Uarco Incorporated, 169 NLRB 1153, Equitable Equipment Co, Inc, 178 NLRB 302, 309, Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara-Tahoe Hotel, 173 NLRB 1349, Standard Coil Products, Inc, 99 NLRB 899 13 See Federation of Union Representatives v N L R B, 339 F 2d 126 (C A 2, 1964), Great Plains Steel Corp, 183 NLRB 968, The May Department Stores Company, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company, 174 NLRB 770, Dorn 's Trans- portation Company, Inc, 168 NLRB 457, reversed in this respect 405 F.2d 706 (CA 2, 1969) GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. had been no strike at the Grede plants for 25 years. The poster was headed "They bought the union," and fea- tured an apparent reproduction of an article in the AFL-CIO Milwaukee Labor Press on May 4, 1972, appealing to the Milwaukee area labor movement for support of a Molder's strike at Pioneer Foundry in progress since January. The poster ended with "No Union! No Strike! Vote No and Save Money!" May 30, 1972. An apparent reprint of an item in the May 8, 1972, U.S. News and World Report, headed "Why Unions Want Your $$$$$$$$$$$ "; featuring an article entitled "UAW's Troubles: Lay-off Strike"; and ending, "Don't gamble with your future-Save your dough-Vote No." The covering letter summarized the article as establishing that unions cause strikes and stating that figures show that during the first three months of 1972, there were 1,110 strikes for a loss of 43,000,000 man hours and $129,000,000 in wages. June 1, 1972 (Milwaukee). June 5, 1972 (Reedsburg). A letter containing the following statements: The only way to prevent a plant from closing is to keep our customers satisfied. This cannot be done with work stoppages, strikes, poor quality and late deliveries which often occur when a union brings discord, distrust and dissension to the plant. We will do everything possible to take care of our customers, and in dealing with the union we will deal hard with it and deal cold with it. We will deal at arm's length with it. You know, or if you don't, you should know before you vote, that we are not obligated by law to agree to any proposals that the union makes on wages, hours, working conditions, or what have you. If the union wins the election, we will be obligated to negotiate with it, but we are not obligated to agree to any proposals or requests that it makes. We are not required to make any concessions to it. An economic strike could cause us to lose business. This might cause us to have to shut down the plant. If so, you would be without a job. You have a lot to lose. Don't gamble with your future. Vote no! The attached poster depicted a locked plant gate bear- ing a sign, "Closed," and the further legend, "Vote No-Avoid this-Many union plants in Wisconsin have closed. Many workers in unions would like to get out and can't. Promises can't replace paychecks and security. Don't buy trouble. Vote No in the representa- tion election." June 6, 1972 (Milwaukee). June 8, 1972 (Reedsburg). Letter posing the question to be decided at the Board election as whether the cost of belonging to a union is worth the possible loss of wages, job security, and a promising future; stating that unions do not bring job security, only satisfied customers do. The letter also stated, "If the union should win the election, all they win is their right to bargain-nothing more." The poster 43 was entitled, "Others seek what you have!" It listed benefits offered at Grede, and stated, "Why share your paychecks-unions are just another monthly bill to pay-unions cost money and you pay the bill-Save your dough Vote No." [Emphasis in original.] There was uncontradicted testimony by employee Alden Helms that the posters attached to the May 18, 25, and June 5 letters appeared on the bulletin boards in the employees' lunchroom at the Reedsville plant for several days before the election; and by Works Manager Steinhauer that they were not posted by the Respondent. In addition, a penodi- cal entitled "The Melting Pot" was mailed to all Reedsburg employees June 5, 1972. The lead article, over Steinhauer's name, stated "we are in a preferred position WITHOUT a union, because our customers do not have to worry about a strike," and stated that when customers inquire if the plant has a labor contract "and if so, when is the renewal date; or in other words, the strike date," Grede had never had to indicate supplies might be interrupted because of a strike. Steinhauer and employee Steven Johnson testified that the following additional bulletins were mailed out to em- ployees and posted in the Reedsburg plant before the eleci- ton: June 5, 1972. Under the heading, "Who says no strikes?" the bulleting stated that the Pekin Foundry Co., Pekin, Illinois, struck by Molders, was closing; and referred to past and present strikes at South Side Foundry Co., Peoria, Ill. by IMAW, and at Ohio Stove Company, Portsmouth, Ohio, by Molders. The bulletin ended with the legend, "Who makes up these lost wag- es? Vote `No' on Friday." June 6, 1972. Under heading "Another Molders union foundry closes," this bulletin stated that Howard Foundry, Chicago, represented by Molders, closed last week; asked whether the unions needed dues to make up losses in closed plants, and whether this was another example of union job security. June 9, 1972. Announcement that Peoria Malleable Foundry Company, Peoria, Ill., whose employees were represented by "a labor union" and had a union con- tract, closed that day. The bulletin asked, "Is this an- other example of union security?" June 9, 1972. A Western Union telegraph form with a typed message to President Jacobs from Catepillar Tractor Company, "United Auto Workers have called for a strike at out East Peoria plant Sunday evening. Hold all shipments." There were, in all, six letters, five with posters attached, distributed to the Milwaukee employees by the Respondent during the union campaign; 11 items were distributed to the Reedsburg employees and most of them appeared on the employees' bulletin board. After careful scrutiny of this literature, I conclude that the major themes expounded were: (1) Unions are interest- ed primarily in the money they can get out of their mem- bers; these and other unions have caused strikes; and unionized plants have closed. There is no contention that the latter statements are false. By contrast, the statements 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pointed out, the Respondent has been strike-free for many years and offers many economic advantages to its employ- ees. (2) The Respondent is determined to keep satisfied customers, which is the only way to prevent plant closing and have job security. An economic strike, however, could cause loss of business which might cause the Respondent to have to shut down. (3) The Respondent is strongly against unions, and if one were elected, the Respondent would be required only to bargain with it, not to make concessions, and the Respondent would be a hard bargainer. In this context, the "locked plant gate" poster did not convey an implied threat that the Respondent would retali- ate against the employees by closing the plants if the em- ployees chose to be represented by the Union. 14 Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent did not vio- late Section 8(a)(1) by distributing and posting the above antiunion propaganda. 15 6(d): The Respondent solicited employee grievances con- cerning wages, hours, and working conditions, and prom- ised resolution thereof. R. J. Ward testified that when he joined the Company in 1967 it was company policy followed in all plants except Milwaukee where Works Manager Schneider "just didn't really buy the concept," that works managers conduct "round-table" meetings with small groups of employees; and that the president, executive vice president, and himself each hold at least two round tables in each plant every year. Ward said that some works managers hold more meetings than others, and that the number of meetings held by the executives varied from year to year. Ward himself held meetings in all plants in 1971 and 1972. He held one meeting in the Reedsburg plant in February 1972. He held more meetings in the Milwaukee plant than in other plants, he said, because it was located closer to his office and because it was decided to institute "a full schedule of round tables," as well as the full wage policy discussed above, when Works Manager Schneider gave notice of his intent to retire. Al- though Ward had held one round-table meeting in the Mil- waukee plant in December 1971, he held five between January 28, 1972, and the date of the election; President Jacobs held one; and Executive Vice President Woehlke held three or four. Ward has held no round-table meetings at the Milwaukee plant since the election there. Ward testified that in the meetings he conducted, he "never made anybody any promises"; he only told employ- ees that he "would look into" any questions raised, and get back with an answer. He did correct a number of things involving safety and operational difficulties about which questions were raised, he said. Ward stated that when the "question of the union" came up in these meetings, he advised employees "that we were opposed to third-party interference and felt it would do 14 Cf Maremont Corp, Case 10-RC-6415, not in published Board volumes (65 LRRM 1135), in which the Board found coercive a similar poster dis- played by the employer contemporaneously with a picture of the employer's plant, and in a context of implications that the employer might move to a location with a nonunion environment 15 Summitville Tiles, Inc, supra, Rodney Heymann d/b/a Galeton Production Company, 182 NLRB 135, 136-137, Formex Company, Division of Huyck Corp, 160 NLRB 835 Cf Rollins Telecasting, Inc, 199 NLRB No 92, Uniform Rental Service, Inc, 161 NLRB 187, 188, 194 nothing to enhance the work situation, that it usually brought dissension and discord to the work force, and that we were opposed to it." Reedsburg Works Manager Steinhauer testified that he customarily invites six to eight employees at a time to round-table meetings which he conducts for the purpose of soliciting complaints and constructive criticism and telling employees about changes in company policy. When matters such as safety hazards are raised, Steinhauer tells the em- ployees he will see what can be done and he corrects the problem. Steinhauer presented documentary evidence that one of his objectives for his fiscal year November 1, 1971, to Octo- ber 31, 1972, was to hold at least 9, and preferably 12, round-table meetings. Between the date his objectives be- came operative on November 1, 1971, and the advent of the Union, Steinhauer held one round-table meeting; between then and the Board election, he held six; during the rest of his fiscal year, three. During his prior fiscal year, November 1, 1970, to October 31, 1971, he held a total of five round- table meetings. Steinhauer testified that he conducted more meetings in the spring of 1972 in order to tell more employ- ees "that we are opposed to the union." He testified that the subject came up at most if not all of the meetings, and he "would state our position that we were unalterably and vehemently opposed to the union." Employees William Demaske, Leslie Phillips, Robert Seamans, and Robert Walter testified to attending round- table meetings held by Steinhauer during the period from February until the election date. They confirmed that Stein- hauer asked what their grievances were; that matters such as poor ventilation, poor lighting, and pay rates were brought up; and that Steinhauer said he would look into them, would check into the matters raised and see about getting them righted, or would try to straighten them out and see what he could do about them. They also testified that Steinhauer took action on some matters brought up at the meetings. For example, Seamans reminded Steinhauer that he had been promised a year before that he would be sent to school to study one of the plant machines; Stein- hauer responded that he would get something done on it; and within a few days, Seamans had the dates when he would attend the school. Phillips had worked at Reedsburg 4 years, had never heard of round-table meetings before, but attended one in April and one in May, 1972. The meeting attended by Walter on June 7 was the only one he attended during his 8 years at Reedsburg. Demaske had attended one such meeting before during his 3 years of employment, but he could not remember when. At Milwaukee, Sylvester Harris and Clarence Rogers at- tended the meeting held by President Jacobs on February 3, 1972. They testified that he asked for their grievances and when Harris said it was too cold at his work station, Jacobs said he would look into it and see if something could be done. Harris credibly testified that Jacobs added that the employees did not need a union as they could discuss their gripes and grievances with him. Albert Hankins, Lee Buggs, Arthur King, Sylvester Har- ris, and Clarence Rogers attended meetings conducted by Ward at the Milwaukee plant. They testified he asked about grievances and complaints and, when Hankins voiced a GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 45 complaint about the piece-work system, said he would look into it or straighten it out. The others testified that matters such as wage increases, insurance, temperature, smoke, work gloves, and heavy lifts were raised, and that Ward made similar responses. Hankins credibly testified that Ward told the employees the Company did not want a union there, he would hold more meetings periodically, and the employees did not need a union to help on grievances. I also credit King to the effect that Ward said the employees did not need a union third party because "they would be able to take care of it." None of these employees had ever attended a round-table meeting before or heard of any being held. Frank Brendler was transferred from another Grede plant and, as indicated above, took over as works manager of the Milwaukee plant during the first week in June 1972. He testified that between that time and the date of the election on June 9 he immediately began a series of meet- ings with practically all the employees at the plant, on an accelerated, intensive basis, holding three or four meetings a day for 6 or 7 days. Although Brendler was aware that an election was imminent, he would have held the meetings anyway, he said. He testified that the reason for the meet- ings was that the Milwaukee plant was not running well, and work tempo and attitude were poor. He held the meetings in order to get acquainted with the employees and get their feelings about company policies, operations, and working conditions, and find out why the tempo and attitude were poor. Brendler said that at the meetings he introduced him- self, told the men he did not know what the problems were, and had to find out in a hurry so he could start taking corrective action. He pleaded with the men to give him an opportunity to demonstrate what he could do; he felt it was his job to establish communication between the foremen and the men, deal with complaints and correct them, and see that the foremen did so. He solicited their grievances and suggestions, and took corrective action on some of them. Brendler also said the subject of the Union and the election came up at all these meetings, Brendler raising the question at all but three. He told the employees, he testified, "I'm trying to really figure out how or why it's necessary for them to have a union to straighten these out, and if we communicate the way we are and move ahead and do them, that we can do them directly for them without having a third party." Although Brendler distinguished these meetings, which he referred to as "communications meetings," from round- table meetings which he had held at his previous location once a month and has held at the Milwaukee plant every 2 week since the election, Brendler conceded that the distinc- tion might be one of semantics only. Solomon Harris, Alonzo Rabb,' Buggs, and Sylvester Harris gave testimony consistent with Brendler's as to the content of the meetings they attended: He told them he was new and asked them to give him a chance, to tell him their grievances, and he would try to straighten them out; and that they did not need a third party to settle their grievances. The above evidence clearly shows that the Respondent's i6 Rabb obviously was mistaken about the date of the meeting he attended, which he remembered as in May 1972 purported established policy of holding round-table meet- ings was more honored in the breach than otherwise prior to the advent of the Unions at thest two plants. Indeed, management officials conceded that the program was stepped up considerably at the time the Unions appeared on the scene. It is also clear, despite Ward's protest that he made no promises, that all these officials made both direct and implied promises to, and did, rectify many of the griev- ances voiced, some which employees had entertained for a considerable time. As for the Respondent's motives in stepping up the num- ber of meetings during this period, no legitimate business reason was advanced for doing so at the Reedsburg plant. Indeed, Works Manager Steinhauer conceded that his rea- son was to tell more employees that the Company was op- posed to the Union, and according to him he did so in no uncertain terms. Moreover, I do not credit the testimony by Ward that the sudden avalanche of meetings which fell on the Milwaukee plant was brought about by the impending retirement of Works Manager Schneider. Unlike the cir- cumstances surrounding the wage increases, found above to be lawful, it is undisputed that Ward and Jacobs combined their promises to rectify the grievances raised and to hold more round table meetings with the admonition that the employees did not need "third party interference" by a union when they could take their problems direct to man- agement. There was no precedent at all for Brendler's saturation program of meeting with practically every employee in the Milwaukee plant within the 7 working days immediately preceding the election there. Moreover, I do not credit his testimony that the impending election was not the motivat- ing force behind his conduct According to his own testimo- ny the subject of the Union and the election came up at every meeting, he as much as told the employees that the reason for the meetings was to discover why they considered it necessary to have a union and to persuade the employees that they could get their grievances resolved without third- party interference by bringing them directly to him if they would give him a chance. Accordingly, I conclude that a preponderance of the credible evidence establishes that the Respondent increased its solicitation of grievances and promised to, and did, recti- fy grievances raised for the express purpose of discouraging employees from designating a union representative, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in their exercise of a free choice in the elections held on June 9 and 14, 1972, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'7 B. Reedsburg only The following additional unfair labor practices are al- leged in paragraph 7 of the complaint as amended to have occurred at the Reedsburg plant. 7(a) and (h): On June 7, 1972, Plant Superintendent Brew 17 See Landis Tool Company, Division of Litton Industries v N L R B., 460 F 2d 23 (C A 3), cert denied 409 U S 915 (1972), NLRB v Tom Wood Pontiac, Inc, 447 F 2d 383 (C A 7, 1971), Texaco Inc v NLRB, 436 F 2d 520 (C A 7, 1971), Ring Metals Company, 198 NLRB No 143 ; Reliance Electric Company, Madison Plant Mechanical Drivers Division, 191 NLRB 44, Raytheon Company, 188 NLRB 311 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Newton, an admitted supervisor and agent of the Respon- dent, interrogated an employee about his union activities; and interrogated an employee about the union sympathies of other employees. In support of this allegation, Robert Walter testified that on the same day, June 7, on which he had earlier attended a round-table meeting with Steinhauer, Plant Superinten- dent Newton approached him on the job and "said he heard I was quite strong for the union"; when Walter did not answer, Newton professed not to care whether he was or not and did not want to know, but said "he didn't think we needed a third party to settle our differences, we had all been able to talk things over between the two of us." New- ton testified to substantially the same effect as Walter, ex- cept that he omitted reference to a "third party," and added that Walter complained about his long hours and Newton explained that the Respondent was training other employ- ees to share the overtime work. Employee Lawrence Yeager testified that Newton ap- proached him at his work station on an evening early in June 1972 and "casually" asked him what he thought the employees thought about the Union; and that Yeager did not reply, but started talking about social security. Newton substantially agreed with this testimony, adding that when Yeager switched to another subject, Newton realized he did not want to talk about the Union, so when Yeager finished his comments on social security, Newton left him. If Newton had engaged in only one of these incidents, it might well have been an inadvertence from which he learned a lesson based on the employee's lack of response. But when he did it twice, I am persuaded it was not mere inadvertence, but was designed to ferret out information regarding the employees' union activity. Accordingly, I con- clude that these statements constituted coercive interroga- tion and violated Section 8(a)(1). 7(b), (d), and (/9: On various dates in May and June before the election, Steinhauer interrogated an employee about his union activities ; and on two occasions during meetings with employees, Steinhauer threatened that the Respondent would not sign a contract if the Union won the election. In support of these allegations, employee Helms testified that on the Sunday evening before the election, Steinhauer came over to his work station and asked him, in the presence of the leadman, what Helms thought the outcome of the election would be. Employee Phillips testified, that at the round-table meet- ing he along with five to seven other employees attended some time in May, Steinhauer "kind of wondered about what the union activity was, if we'd heard anything about the union." Steinhauer did not deny this testimony by Helm and Phillips. Robert Walter testified that at a June 7 round-table meet- ing attended by 10 employees, Steinhauer said, in reference to the Union, that Bill Grede never had signed a contract and never would. Steinhauer said he told the employees at this round-table that Grede "had lost elections but had never signed a contract." I credit Helms and Phillips whose testimony was unde- med, and Walter as against Steinhauer, in these instances. Although I find that a statement attributed to Steinhauer by Seamans, that Grede had a union in another plant but never signed a contract, was not coercive, I find that those attn- buted by these other employees constituted coercive inter- rogation and an implied threat that the Respondent would not bargain in good faith even if the Union won the election, and I conclude that they were violative of Section 8(a)(1). 7(g): An admitted supervisor and agent, Iron-Pouring Foreman Arthur Swenink, on February 1, 1972, threatened an employee with reprisal if he did not cease talking about the Union. Employee Demaske testified that in late January or early February 1972, near the beginning of his shift, he had worked 5 or 10 minutes pouring a ladle of iron and then left his ladle to talk and kid around with a couple of employees while waiting for more iron to come up on deck as he does every once in a while, when Foreman Swenink apporached him and said, "OK, I don't want to hear anymore talk about the union, I'm warning you." Demaske replied that he had not said a word about the Union. When Demaske asked Swenink 10 or 15 minutes later whether someone was trying to get him fired, Swenink replied, "nobody's after your job." Swenink's version was similar to Demaske's, except that Swenink added that having been informed previously that Demaske was pushing the Union, he naturally assumed, when he saw Demaske going down the deck talking to dif- ferent individuals, that that was what he was doing. So Swenink "warned him to stop talking about the union for his own good. He was on the job and I didn't feel that that was the place for it." When Demaske said he had not been talking about the Union, Swenink told him, "Fine , Bill, if that is the case, then we'll drop the subject right here." On cross-examination of Swenink, the following colloquy took place. Q. Now, was your objection, Mr. Swenink, that he was talking about the union, or that he was away from his job? A. More or less away from his job. Q. Well, I think you testified that you told him to stop talking about the union for his own good? A. I did. Q. He said yes, he hadn't been talking about it, and you said if you haven't been talking about it, that's fine? A. Right. Q. Well, did you say, "Mr. Demaske, I still want you to be at your job"? A. No. It is clear from the above testimony, including the entire testimony of Swenink himself, that Swenink was motivated, in remonstrating with Demaske, solely with preventing De- maske from engaging in prounion activity during his down- time. Thus, Swenink did not tell Demaske he should have been working and, in any event, there was no work for Demaske to perform at the time; moreover, when Demaske denied that the Union was the subject of his conversations, Swenink immediately dropped the subject even though De- maske did not, as far as the record shows, return to work. I accordingly conclude that Swenink's "warning" restrained Demaske in the exercise of his right to engage in union GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. activity during his nonwork time, and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1).18 7(c): Lee Bureau, personnel manager and admitted agent of the Respondent, on May 20, 1972, engaged in surveil- lance of union activities at a union meeting. The following evidence is undisputed: UAW Representa- tive Christ Gerber, by notices mailed May 16, 1972, sum- moned the 12-member in-plant organization committee to a meeting at 8 p.m., May 20, 1972, in room 21 of the Motel Reedsburg; 8 to 12 attended. Personnel Manager Bureau's car was parked close by in the vicinity of room 21 when the employees arrived, and was visible from the room. The car was gone when the meeting ended. There is no evidence that any of the employees saw Bu- reau before or during the meeting, and two employees who attended (Robert Walter and Steven Johnson) testified they did not see Bureau at all that evening. Alden Helms testified that as he was getting into his car to leave the motel grounds, he observed Bureau's car drive into, through, and out of the motel grounds. On direct examination, Helms made no ref- erence to who was driving Bureau's car; on cross-examina- tion he indicated that Bureau was driving. Although the driver's side was away from him, Helms stated, "to the best of knowledge, I was positive it was Mr. Bureau"; "As close as I could tell, it was Mr. Lee Bureau." Bureau could not remember whether or not he was at the Motel Reedsburg that night, although he said he could have been in the vicinity. At that time a close friend and his family were living in a house next door to the motel, Bureau visited them frequently, and often parked his car at the spot where the employees saw it. He also testified that his friend sometimes borrowed his car. Bureau said he did not know about the committee meeting of May 20, and never saw any plant employees or Gerber at the motel. I had the distinct impression that Helms could not posi- tively identify Bureau as the driver of the car which passed through the motel grounds after the meeting was over. I therefore find that none of the employees saw Bureau on the evening of this meeting. I credit Bureau in this matter, and find that he did not know about the committee meeting, that his car was parked at the motel for reasons unrelated to the meeting, and I find that Bureau had no intention of putting the meeting under surveillance or creating the impression that he was doing so. The presence of his car was therefore mere happenstance, and more than that is required to estab- lish a violation of the Act. As this allegation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, I shall recommend that it be dismissed.19 7(e): At a meeting with employees at the Reedsburg plant on June 12, 1972, William Grede threatened that the Re- spondent would not sign a contract with the Union even if it won the election. is Contrary to the Respondent's contention, I find that this allegation, added to the complaint over the Respondent 's objection at the opening of the hearing, is not barred by Section 10(b) The charge in the Reedsburg case (30-CA-2024), alleged that the Respondent , by the specific conduct referred to therein , violated Section 8(a)( 1), (3), and (5), and by "these and other acts," interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7. In these circumstances , I find that the charge was broad enough to include this conduct, which occurred less than 6 months before the charge was filed 19 Textron, Inc (Telon Division), 199 NLRB No 17. 47 Grede made two speeches at Reedsburg that day. One was made in the morning to the first shift employees and the General Counsel concedes that no threat was made in that speech 20 In support of the allegation that Grede threatened not to sign a contract in his afternoon speech to the second and third shift employees, the General Counsel presented the following testimony by employees who attended the af- ternoon meeting. Employee Helms testified, on direct examination, that Grede told the employees, "Just remember in 26 years we've never signed a contract yet and we never will." On cross- examination, Helms could not recall whether he included the phrase, "and we never will," in the affidavit he gave a Board agent on July 5, 1972; he affirmed, however, that Grede made the statement, asserting that his recollection was "probably better today" than it was when he gave the affidavit. Robert Seamans testified that Grede mentioned this thing that I had heard from Woody about the fact that he had had a union in one of his plants and they drew up a contract but he wouldn't sign it because it didn't meet what he wanted. Employee Walter testified that Grede told the employees, "if the union got in, he would have to sit down and bargain with them, but he would not have to sign a contract." Steven Johnson stated that Grede said, "If the union election went through, all we'd receive is the right to bar- gain, that's all you received. I've never sat down and signed a contract before and I don't think I'm going to start now." On cross-examination, Johnson testified that Grede said "he wouldn't bargain with the union"; that Johnson asked him "if it wasn't law that he had to bargain"; and that Grede replied, "it's my company and I'll do with it as I see fit." I find that the above statements testified to by Seamans and Walter were not unlawful threats even if Grede made the statements. I discredit Johnson's testimony. He was so inconsistent about what Grede said about his obligation to bargain that I consider him unreliable as to what Grede said about not signing a contract. Helms struck me as unsure of himself when testifying on his matter, as opposed to matters on which I have credited him, and as he was unsupported except for the differently worded testimony by Johnson which I have in any event not credited, I descredit Helms here also. Although not necessary to resolution of this issue, I find that a tape recording was made of Grede's speech, and that it is the most reliable evidence of what Grede said. The tape, which was played at the hearing, contains none of the above statements attributed to Grede, as shown by the transcrip- tion thereof received in evidence upon agreement that it 20 At the hearing, the Respondent's objection to testimony regarding the contents of speechs made by Grede at the Milwaukee plant was sustained. The testimony, of which the General Counsel was permitted to make an offer of proof on the record, was offered by the General Counsel not to establish additional violations of the Act but only as "relevant background material" to show the Respondent's animus. The evidence was excluded as having insufficient probative value to justify the undue consumption of time re- quired in litigating whether or not Grede in fact made the statements attribut- ed to him in the offer of proof I find the General Counsel's exception to that ruling without merit, and I adhere to it Uniform Rules of Evidence, approved August 28, 1953, rule 45 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD accurately reflects what is on the tape, and therefore con- firms my conclusion that Grede did not threaten not to sign a contract even if the Union won the election. The General Counsel contends that the tape is inadmissa- ble on two grounds. First, he asserts that there is no evidence that the tape which was played at the hearing was the same tape as the one Personnel Director Bureau testified he made of this speech. However, I am satisfied, based on Bureau's identifi- cation, that the tape is one and the same. Second, the General Counsel suggests that the tape was altered by deleting certain statements. In support of this contention, the General Counsel relies on the testimony of Helms, Seamans, Walter, and Johnson, given before the tape was played, that Grede made the above, and other, statements which are not on the tape. In addition, the Gen- eral Counsel recalled Walter and Helms to the stand after they listened to the tape played in the hearing room, and they testified that certain statements, not including the ones set forth above alleged to be unlawful, had been deleted from the tape. On the other hand, Works Manager Steinhauer and Plant Superintendent Newton testified that the tape, which they also heard in the hearing room, accurately reflects without omission the speech, which they heard Grede make. After careful study of the testimony given by the General Counsel's witnesses and review of the transcription, I am convinced that the employee witnesses were mistaken. Thus, some of the statements not alleged to be unlawful which they testified were made by Grede but were not on the tape were, in fact, on it, some were subsequently con- ceded to have been made at a different meeting held after the election; and some statements, including those testified to by Seamans and Walter above, represented no-doubt unintentional distorted memories made up of mismatched things said by Grede, by employees during the question and answer period, and by others on different occasions. In these circumstances, I credit Steinhauer and Newton that there were no omissions or deletions from the tape and that it accurately reflects what Grede said in his speech. As the tape recording was thus properly identified and authen- ticated, it was admissible in evidence, and is the best proof of the words spoken zl As such, it provides substantial, pro- bative support from my recommendation that this allega- tion of the complaint be dismissed.22 III THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REEDSBURG ELECTION The conduct found above to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) which occurred between the date, April 17, 1972, 21 See N L R B v Tex-Tan, Inc, 318 F 2d 472 (C A 5, 1963) Although, as the General Counsel argues, the Board has spoken of the "mechanical possi- bility" of altering tapes, it has not excluded such evidence on a per se basis Fontaine Truck Equipment Company, 193 NLRB 190, Walton Manufacturing Company, 124 NLRB 1331, enfd in part 286 F 2d 26 (C A 5, 1961) Nor has the Board to my knowledge expressed disagreement with the rule stated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Tex-Tan, which I find is applica- ble in this case See also Hendrix Manufacturing Company, Inc v N L R B, 321 F 2d 100 (CA 5, 1963) 221 find no merit in the General Counsel's contention that additional violations of the Act, not alleged in the amended complaint, should be found, as those issues were not fully litigated when the petition was filed, and the date, June 14, 1972, when the election was held in Case 30-RC-1722 at the Reedsburg plant, consisted of announcing and withholding of insurance benefits extended to employees of other plants; conducting an increased number of round-table meetings to solicit, promise to rectify, and to rectify employee griev- ances; coercively interrogating employees; and threatening never to sign a contract. I find that this conduct at Reeds- burg fell within the scope Objections 3 and 6, and that those objections were sustained. The remaining objections should be overruled. I further find that the aforesaid unlawful con- duct interfered with the employees' free choice of represen- tatives and was of a sufficiently substantial nature to affect the results of the election and to require that the election be set aside and a new election held.23 THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the Respon- dent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and from like or related unfair labor practices. I shall also recommend that the Respondent take the affirmative action provided for in the recommended Order, below, which I find neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act, including reim- bursement of Milwaukee and Reedsburg employees for the health insurance premiums they paid between May 21, 1972, and the date the Respondent picked up the premiums for the employees at these two plants, plus interest at 6 percent per annum. 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: ORDER24 The Respondent, Grede Foundries, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Announcing the withholding of health insurance ben- efits, or withholding such benefits, granted to other employ- ees, because of union organizational efforts and forthcoming Board elections. (b) Increasing the number of grievance meetings to dis- courage employees from designating a union representative. (c) Coercively interrogating employees about their union activities and sympathies, or those of other employees. (d) Threatening to refuse to bargain in good faith even if a union becomes the employees' representative. (e) Warning employees not to talk about the Union dur- ing their nonwork time. 23 There is no merit in the Respondent's contention that no new election should be held because "There was a tainted solicitation of cards by the union in the first instance " Aside from other considerations, the Union polled more votes in the election than the number of cards required to justify holding an election 24 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, 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 GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Reimburse its Reedsburg and Milwaukee Steel em- ployees for health insurance premiums they paid as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at its Reedsburg and Milwaukee Steel plants, copies of the attached appropriate notices.25 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representatives, shall be posted by the Respon- dent immediatley upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted in Case 30-RC-1722 June 14, 1972, among the Reedsburg employ- ees in the appropriate unit be set aside and that a new election be conducted at such time as the Regional Director deems appropriate. 25 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT announce the withholding of insurance benefits, or withhold such benefits, granted to other employees, because of union organizational efforts or forthcoming Board elections. WE WILL NOT increase the number of round-table meetings to discourage employees from designating a union representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. WE WILL reimburse our Milwaukee Steel employees for health insurance premiums they paid between May 21 and June 19, 1972, with interest at 6 percent. 49 GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC (MIL- WAUKEE) (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, Commerce Building, 2d Floor, 744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-224-3861. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT announce the withholding of insurance benefits, or withhold such benefits, granted to other employees, because of union organizational efforts or forthcoming Board elections. WE WILL NOT increase the number of round-table meetings to discourage employees from designating a union representative. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees about their union activities or sympathies, or those of others. WE WILL NOT threaten to refuse to bargain in good faith even if a union becomes the employees' represen- tative. WE WILL NOT warn employees not to talk about a union, during their nonwork time. WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. WE WILL reimburse our Reedsburg employees for the health insurance premiums they paid between May 21 and July 10, 1972, with interest at 6 percent. GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC (REEDSBURG) (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 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, ed to the Board's Office, Commerce Building, 2d Floor, 744 or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- 414-224-3861.