Ripley Industries, Inc.

MISSOURI HEEL CO. 481 Missouri Heel Company, a Division of Ripley Indus- tries, Inc. and District No. 9, International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and Mold Making Shop Committee, Party in Interest. Case 14-CA-7206 March 8, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On August 20, 1973, Administrative Law Judge James V. Constantine issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, both Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 finds ment in certain of Respondent's exceptions. Accordingly, we adopt only so much of the Administrative Law Judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as is consistent with our Decision and Order herein. The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon- dent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by various conduct, and had not violated Section 8(a)(2) by other conduct. We agree with his finding of no violation of Section 8(a)(2), but not with his findings of 8(a)(1) violations. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of plastic shoe heels and related products. For many years, its production and maintenance employees, except for mold shop employees, have been repre- sented for collective-bargaining purposes by a local of the Boot and Shoe Workers International Union. For 10 years, from 1961 to 1971, the mold shop employees were represented separately by a commit- tee of employees. The committee was formed in 1961 by a group of mold shop employees, including Santo Puglisi, after Puglisi had obtained permission from Carl Gendece, plant superintendent, to "form our own shop committee." The practice was for the committee annually to draw up proposals for wage and fringe benefits which were presented to Gen- dece, who transmitted them to Mr. Slosberg, Respon- dent's president. Slosberg would then make counter- proposals which the committee submitted to employ- ees for acceptance or rejection by secret ballot. If the vote were favorable, which was usually the case, Respondent would write up the accepted terms in a so-called "Statement of Policy," which Slosberg 209 NLRB No. 79 would sign on behalf of Respondent, and the committee would sign as representative of the employees. In November 1971, Gendece asked Puglisi if the committee were going to negotiate with Respondent for the coming year, 1972. Puglisi replied that the committee was no longer in existence inasmuch as no employee was willing to serve on it. Gendece said that Respondent would have to negotiate with the employees individually. Each employee was then asked to approve Respondent's proposals by signing the document embodying these proposals, and did so, after Respondent had explained to each employee that because of Phase II wage and price controls, Respondent was restricted in what it could offer employees in the way of improved wage and fringe benefits. In this manner the "Statement of Policy" for the period November- 15, 1971, through Decem- ber 31, 1972, was negotiated and approved by employees of the mold shop. In December 1972, Respondent negotiated a new collective-bargaining, contract with the Boot and Shoe Workers, effective from January 1, 1973, which included improved hospital, surgical, and pension plan benefits. On December 20, 1972, the Charging Party, District No. 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called District 9, filed a representation petition seeking to represent a unit of all production and maintenance employees. Because of the penden- cy of this petition, Respondent was in doubt as to the legality of extending the improved benefits negotiat- ed with the Boot and Shoe Workers to the mold shop employees as had been its practice in the past. However, on December 29, 1972, District 9 withdrew its representation petition. Respondent received notice of the withdrawal on January 3, 1973. Thereupon Respondent consulted its counsel about putting into effect for mold shop employees the improved fringe benefits previously negotiated with the Boot and Shoe Workers. Counsel advised Respondent that the improved benefits should be granted because of past practice and the withdrawal of the petition. Thereupon, Mr. Slosberg assembled the mold shop employees, told them that District 9 had withdrawn its petition, and announced that the improved benefits which had been negotiated with the Boot and Shoe Workers would be placed into effect for mold shop employees. During the course of his talk to employees, Mr. Slosberg assured them that they had the right to be represented by District 9 or any other labor organization. Mr. Slosberg also said that he was willing to meet and negotiate with the employees through a committee, as had been done in the past, or individually, or through a union. On January 4, 1973, Superintendent Gendece 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD called the shop employees together and told them that Respondent was willing to offer each of them a 30-cent-per-hour wage increase in addition to the improved fringe benefits which Slosberg had granted the day before. Some of the employees, including Puglisi and Leroy Schmaltz, stated that they de- served a little more. Gendece replied that he had no authority to offer them more and they would have to talk to Slosberg if the wage offer he had made was unsatisfactory. Gendece then said that obviously all of them could not go in to see Slosberg; they would have to choose representatives. Schmaltz, who had been on the committee in previous years, and Winfred Stafford volunteered to meet with Slosberg, and employees Allen Payne, Ken Erickson, and Ed Cover consented to Schmaltz and Stafford represent- ing them. Puglisi also volunteered to meet with Slosberg, but only to represent himself. This group then proceeded to Slosberg's office, where they were joined by employee Caesar Tamburino, who volun- teered to represent the night shift. At the meeting in Slosberg's office, the men said that they wanted more than the 30-cent-an-hour wage increase previously offered them. Slosberg explained that he could not give a larger wage increase because of Government limitations. After some discussion, Slosberg agreed to Puglisi's proposal to add 5 cents an hour more for the last 2 months of the contract year to make up for the loss caused the employees by the 2 months' longer duration of the preceding contract. Tamburino then said that the proposals would have to be submitted to the employees for a vote. Tamburino conducted the vote among the night-shift employees, and Puglisi and Schmaltz among the day-shift employees. The vote was in favor of acceptance. On January 5, Puglisi and Schmaltz went to Slosberg's office, where Slosberg asked them to sign an addendum to the 1972 "Statement of Policy" embodying the new wages and fringe benefits effective for the 1973 contract year. Schmaltz signed, but Puglisi hesitated until Gendece explained that it was for Slosberg's personal files. Puglisi then signed. Later Tamburino and Stafford also signed. Meanwhile, on January 4, 1973, District No. 9 filed a new representation petition seeking to represent only the mold shop employees. However, Respon- dent did not learn of this petition until 2:30 p.m. on January 5, which was after the employees had accepted Respondent's contract proposals. On Janu- ary 10, Respondent put into effect the increased wage rates and benefits set forth in the addendum. The Administrative Law Judge's Findings of 8(a)(1) Violations A. Threatening Employees With Loss of Employment Employee Cover testified that on January 3, 1973, Mold Shop Foreman Svoboda came to him at his work place and in the course of a conversation said: "If the union gets in, we will all not be working here. Possibly you will. But I won't myself. I probably won't myself because Bobby Slosberg doesn't care where he gets his molds made." Employee Payne also testified that Svoboda had told him the same day that Slosberg was disappointed that the mold shop employees hadn't come to him first and that Slosberg didn't care where he had his molds made. Payne further testified that it was not unusual for Respon- dent to have its molds made elsewhere and that he did not consider Svoboda's remark to him a threat. The Administrative Law Judge found that Svoboda's statements to Cover and Payne constituted "a veiled threat to cause employees loss of work in order to discourage support or interest in unionism" and were therefore unlawful. We agree with this interpretation of the Svoboda statement to Cover. While the matter is close, since the reference to loss of employment did not refer directly to any loss of employment by Cover himself, there is nevertheless inherent in it a suggestion that the future employment of both supervisors and unit employees would be put in jeopardy. However, as the remark to Payne, unlike the remark to Cover, made no reference to and contained no reasonable implication of any possible loss of employment, we do not agree that Svoboda's statement to Payne standing alone or in context attained the level of a "veiled threat" to employment in order to discourage support of a union. The Administrative Law Judge also found that at the meeting of January 4, Superintendent Gendece told the employees that if the wages of the mold shop employees "got too high" Respondent would replace them with machinists. He also considered this an unlawful threat violative of Section 8(a)(1). This finding is based on an inaccurate summary of the testimony of General Counsel witnesses Becquett and Payne. Becquett testified: He [Gendece] did make a point that the mold maintenance men, that if the rate got too high they would have to bring in a couple of machinists and let them do the work. [Emphasis supplied.] Payne testified: Q. Now, during this meeting with Gendece, didn't one of the mold changers say that he ought to get the same price as a machinist? [Emphasis MISSOURI HEEL CO. supplied.] A. Could you rephrase that? Q. I said during that meeting with Gendece, didn't one of the changers, mold changers say that he ought to get the same price or wage as the machinist got? [Emphasis supplied.] A. I think they were wanting a raise . .. . Q. . Do you remember Gendece saying at that meeting if he had to pay that same wage rate as machinists he would hire machinists because they could do other work? A. He said something to that effect, yes. Mold changer or mold maintenance man is a classification lower in skill than that of machinist, which is the other classification in the mold shop. The foregoing testimony of Becquett and Payne corroborates Gendece's testimony that when a mold changer asked him why a mold changer couldn't make as much money as a machinist, Gendece replied that if he had to pay a mold changer the wages of a machinist, he would rather hire a machinist since a machinist could also do tooling work. We find no unlawful threat in such statement by Gendece to a mold changer. It was a reasonable prediction based on objective economic fact and was therefore lawful. B. Offers and Promises of Benefits The Administrative Law Judge found that on January 5 Foreman Svoboda promised employee Carrigan a raise "around contract time" and that later the same day Superintendent Gendece granted Carrigan a 15-cent-an-hour raise every 45 days until July, but added that if a union got in he would be obliged to eliminate Carrigan's classification because Respondent could not pay a ridiculous salary. The Administrative Law Judge found that Svoboda had unlawfully promised a benefit, and that Gendece had unlawfully granted a benefit and unlawfully threat- ened a loss of employment if a union got in. The Administrative Law Judge's finding is based on a misreading of Carrigan's testimony. Carrigan testi- fied: Q. Mr. Carrigan, did you have a conversation with the mold shop foreman, William Svoboda, on January 5, 1973? A. Yes, I did. * * * * Q. Tell us, please, what was said? A. He came up to me and told me, "As you remember, I promised you a raise around con- tract time. Becquett was mistreating you by not giving you a raise." I said, "yes, I remember. I asked you about two months ago for a raise and you told me to wait until contract time was 483 coming up." I told him that was one of the reasons I would like to have a union because in a union, it would state in a union contract when I would be qualified for a raise and when I would get it. He told me that the union wouldn't have anything to do with the qualifications for a raise. That was about all that was said at that time. Carrigan's testimony thus shows that he had been promised a raise at least 2 months before January 5, at a time when there was unquestionably no union organizing activity. Carrigan further testified: Q. The same day, Mr. Carrigan, did you have a conversation with Mr. Gendece? A. Yes, I did. Q. Would you tell us, please, what was said? A. He showed me a slip of paper showing me where I would get a 15-cent raise from every month and a half starting from January until July then he told me that I would get-at vacation time he would talk to me again about bringing me up to top pay. Q. Was anything else said? A. He told me if the union did not get in now, but got in at a later date, he would have to eliminate my classification because he could not pay a ridiculous salary. Carrigan's testimony thus also shows that Gendece's grant of a wage increase was in accordance with the promise made to him 2 months earlier that he would receive a wage increase "around contract time." The implementing of this promise, made at a time when there was no union organizing activity, was therefore not unlawful. However, we do consider unlawful Gendece's statement that if the union got in later, he would have to eliminate Carrigan's classification because he could not pay a ridiculous salary. We find the threat to eliminate Carrigan's classification if the union came in to be violative of Section 8(a)(1), despite the "ridiculous salary" reference. The Administrative Law Judge found that Presi- dent Slosberg's January 3, 1973, explanation of the automatic benefits to which the mold shop employ- ees were entitled, i.e., life insurance , medical insur- ance, and pension benefits negotiated for the remainder of the plant employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) "in view of the fact that District No. 9 was contemporaneously conducting its organizational drive ...." There are at least two objections to this finding. In the first place, on January 3, Respondent 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had been informed that District No. 9 had with- drawn its representation petition seeking to represent the plant's production and maintenance employees. It was not until January 5 that Respondent became aware that District No. 9 had filed a new petition seeking to represent a unit limited this time to mold shop employees. There is no evidence that, despite the withdrawal of the first petition, Respondent was aware on January 3 that District No. 9 was engaged in a new organizing campaign among the mold shop employees. Accordingly, Respondent could not have been influenced in extending additional fringe benefits to mold shop employees by any contempora- neous organizing campaign among such employees. In the second place, in extending to mold shop employees the improved fringe benefits negotiated with the Boot and Shoe Workers for other pro- duction and maintenance employees, Respondent was merely following its past practice of putting into effect for the mold shop employees benefits previous- ly granted to other plant employees. In view of the foregoing, we find no violation of Section 8(a)(1) in President Slosberg's January 3 announcement of improved life insurance, medical insurance, and pension benefits for mold shop employees. Similarly, we reject the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Superintendent Gendece's offer of a 30- cent-an-hour wage increase to the mold shop employees on January 4 violated Section 8(a)(1). The Administrative Law Judge based this finding on the alleged fact that it "occurred at a time when District No. 9 was attempting to organize the mold shop employees . . . ." As set forth above, however, Respondent was not on notice, on January 4, that District No. 9 was engaged in an organizational campaign among the mold shop employees. Hence, this factor could not have influenced the decision to grant the 30-cent-an-hour wage increase. C. Grant of Benefits The Administrative Law Judge found that the wage increases granted to employees on January 4, 1973, were intended "to discourage interest in a union and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." The evidence does not justify the inference drawn by the Adminis- trative Law Judge. On January 4, Respondent was unaware that a question of representation existed which could be affected by the grant of wage increases. District No. 9's representation petition filed in December had been withdrawn to Respon- dent's knowledge. Respondent did not become aware of the filing of the more restricted representation petition until the afternoon of January 5. Respon- dent's wage increase offer was also consistent with its past practice. Under these circumstances, we reject the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the grant of the increase was intended to discourage interest in a union. Consequently, we find that the grant of these benefits was not unlawful. D. Urging Employees To Form Their Own Committee The Administrative Law Judge found that Presi- dent Slosberg's remark to employees in his January 3 speech, "If you would like to get a committee together like we have done in the past, come up with some proposals, we would be willing to listen to you," constituted an attempt to revive the committee and to "deter their interest in a union." However, just as in the case of our findings as to Respondent's promises, offers, and grants of benefits, we find that Slosberg's statement was in conformity with past practice and a practicable suggestion as to how to deal with the employees' wage and benefit problems. District No. 9 had withdrawn its representation petition, the organizational campaign had presuma- bly ceased, and Respondent was therefore free to bargain with the employees. Under these circum- stances, we find that Slosberg's suggestion was a reasonable and feasible method for negotiating with the employees, not an attempt to deter their interest in a union. It is significant in this connection that the Administrative Law Judge rejected the General Counsel's contention that Respondent assisted or dominated the committee in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that, by the foregoing statement of President Slosberg, Respon- dent did not violate Section 8(a)(1). The Administrative Law Judge also found that Superintendent Gendece's remark to employees on January 4 that, if they were dissatisfied with the 30- cent-an-hour wage increase he was proposing, they should form a committee to see Slosberg, violated Section 8(a)(1), because it was "interfering with the statutory right of employees to have a union represent them by practically forcing them to reanimate [sic] the old Committee. . . ." We find this remark of Gendece no more coercive or unlawful than President Slosberg's related statement on the same subject on the previous day and for the same reasons. E. Encouraging or Compelling Employees To Sign a Collective-Bargaining Agreement The Administrative Law Judge found, contrary to the contention of the General Counsel, that employ- ees Puglisi and Schmaltz voluntarily signed the "Statement of Policy" as requested by President Slosberg. However, he also found that Puglisi was induced to sign the statement "because it was MISSOURI HEEL CO. misrepresented to him that this instrument was for Slosberg's personal file." By resorting to such misrepresentation, the Administrative Law Judge concluded, "respondent at least interfered with Puglisi's right to decide whether he wished to be represented by a union to negotiate a collective bargaining contract for him." He found that by this conduct Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). We reject this finding. Schmaltz, Puglisi, and the rest of the employees had voted to accept the proposals embodied in the "Statement of Policy." Puglisi had signed similar statements in the past and knew their import. Hence, Respondent's misrepresentation was of slight, if any, significance. It certainly does not rise to the level of a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW 1. District No. 9 and the Committee are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By (a) threatening to cause employees to lose work and to eliminate the mold changer classifica- tion in order to discourage interest in or support of District No. 9 or any other labor organization and (b) by threatening to have its molds made elsewhere if the employees selected District No. 9, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices condemned by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The above-described unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not committed any other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Missouri Heel Company, a Division of Ripley Industries, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to cause employees to lose work 485 and to eliminate the mold changer classification in order to discourage interest in or support of District No. 9 or any other union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its premises at St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respon- dent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. I In the event that this 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten to cause employees to lose work and to eliminate the mold changer classification in order to discourage interest in or support of District No. 9, International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refuse to become or remain , members of District No. 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other union. 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MISSOURI HEEL COMPANY, A DIVISION OF RIPLEY INDUSTRIES, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulvard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE. CASE JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Administrative Law Judge: This is an unfair labor practice case brought under the provisions of Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, herein called the Act (29 U.S.C. 160(b). It was commenced by a complaint issued on February 27, and amended on March 20, 1973, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, through the Regional Director of Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), naming as Respondent Missouri Heel Company, a division of Ripley Industries, Inc. It also names, as Party in Interest, Mold Making Shop Commit- tee. Said complaint is based on a charge filed on January 13, 1973, by District No. 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called District No. 9. Essentially the complaint as amended alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2), and that such conduct affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7). of the Act. Respondent has answered admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying that it engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to due notice this case came on to be heard, and was tried before me, on May 22 and 23, 1973, at St. Louis, Missouri. All parties except the Party in Interest were represented at and participated in the trial, and had full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine and cross- examine witnesses, file briefs, and present oral argument. Certain motions of Respondent to dismiss were denied at the trial. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent. This case presents the issues of whether Respondent: (a) threatened employees with loss of employment to discour- age interest in or support of said District No. 9; (b) offered and promised benefits to employees to prevent union organization or to abandon union activities; (c) urged employees to form their own committee in order to discourage their union activities; (d) encouraged and compelled employees to sign a statement of policy purporting to be a collective-bargaining agreement in order to discourage their union activities; (e) granted benefits to employees to discourage their union activities; (f) threat- ened an employee with loss of employment if he supported District No. 9; and (g) assisted, dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of, Mold Making Shop Committee. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. AS TO JURISDICTION Missouri Heel Company, a division of Ripley Industries. Inc.,l a Delaware corporation, is engaged at St. Louis. Missouri, in manufacturing and nonretail selling of plastic shoe heels and related products. During the year 1972 it purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were delivered to it directly from points located outside the State of Missouri. I find that it is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over it in this proceeding. It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED District No. 9 and Mold Making Shop Committee each is a labor organization as defined by Section 2(5) of the Act. Said Mold Making Shop Committee is hereafter called the Committee. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. General Counsel's Evidence It was stipulated that in the past Respondent has dealt with the Committee for the mold shop employees. It was further stipulated that the Boot and Shoe Workers represents the remainder of the plant. Santo Puglisi, a toolmaker in Respondent's machine or mold shop, gave testimony which may be condensed substantially as follows. The Committee was first formed in 1961 by a group of mold shop employees, which included Puglisi, after he asked Carl Gendece, the plant superin- tendent, for and obtained permission to "form our own shop committee." Thereafter the Committee annually "drew up proposals" on wages and benefits which it presented to Gendece. Then Gendece brought such proposals to Vice President Slosberg. A few days later Slosberg informed the Committee what the Respondent was going to offer on such proposals. Then the Committee took a vote, by written ballot, among the mold shop employees to ascertain whether they desired to accept or reject the Company's offer. "Usually we would accept it." After the Company's offer was accepted it was written out in a so-called "statement of policy." I This is the name of Respondent as amended at the tnal MISSOURI HEEL CO. Such practice of the Company's dealing with the Committee has been continued since 1961. In November 1971, Gendece asked Puglisi if it would deal with the Company in the coming year. Puglisi replied that the Committee no longer existed because no one was willing to serve on it. This caused Gendece to remark, "I guess we will have to negotiate with each [employee] individually." Following this negotiations were made by the Company on an individual basis with each employee in the mold shop. Then each employee was asked to "initial a scratch piece of paper approving what the company's proposal was." Pughsi initialed it in November 1971. In the fall of 1972 the Machinists Union attempted to organize the mold shop employees and filed an RC petition. On January 4, 1973, William Svoboda, Respon- dent's mold shop foreman, showed Puglisi a letter from the NLRB stating that the Machinists Union had withdrawn its said RC petition to have an election to represent the mold shop employees. About 2 p.m., on the same day Superintendent Gendece spoke to the assembled mold shop employees offering them an increase in wages of 30 cents an hour and greater insurance benefits. Puglisi and Schmaltz each stated that he "deserved a little bit more." Thereupon Gendece replied that those not satisfied with his proposal would have to request a greater raise from Vice President Slosberg. Consequently, Puglisi, Schmaltz, and Stafford, another mold shop employee, asserted they would call upon Slosberg for a larger increase. About 3:50 p.m. on said January 4 Gendece told Puglisi to see Slosberg. However Gendece told the other mold shop employees that if Puglisi did so that the latter "is going to represent all of you." But when Puglisi insisted he was representing himself only Gendece agreed. Then Puglisi and employee Tamburino went to Slosberg's office. Slosberg told them his hands were tied and that he could not exceed the 5.5 percent frozen limit, and added that he desired to continue with an annual "statement of policy" as followed in the past. After some discussion Slosberg gave a 5-cent-an-hour increase to the mold shop employees but only for the previous 2 months. The next day, January 5, William Svoboda, the mold shop foreman, told Pughsi that the night shift in the mold shop had rejected the Company's offer mentioned above, but the night foreman accepted it. About 9 a.m. Svoboda asked Puglisi to go to Slosberg's office. When Puglisi arrived there he found employee Schmaltz already there. Slosberg told them that the insurance benefits had improved and suggested they telephone the insurance company to have these benefits explained. Puglisi did so. Then Slosberg made 10 written amendments to the Company's latest "statement of policy" and asked Puglisi and Schmaltz to sign such amended statement. Schmaltz signed but Puglisi refused. Soon thereafter Puglisi signed after being assured by Gendece that such statement was for Slosberg's "personal files." (See Joint Exh. 5.) On cross-examination Puglisi said that the benefits described by Slosberg at the meeting of January 1973 were companywide, that they had been "worked out for the Boot and Shoe Workers," and that whenever any improve- ments are negotiated with the Boot and Shoe Workers "they are tendered automatically to the machine shop." 487 This also occurred in 1973. He also conceded that he, Schmaltz, and Tamburino conducted the vote on the question of whether the first and second shift of the mold shop would accept the Company's 1973 proposals. Another witness for the General Counsel is Alphonsus Carrigan. An adequate synopsis of his testimony follows. Carrigan is a mold maintenance man on the first shift of the toolroom or the mold machine room. On January 5, 1973, his foreman, William Svoboda, mentioned to him that Carrigan had been promised a raise "around contract time." When Carrigan replied that it was desirable to have a union because the collective-bargaining contract would be explicit as to when he would qualify for a raise, Svoboda insisted "that the union wouldn't have anything to do with the qualifications for a raise." Later that day Plant Superintendent Gendece informed Carrigan that the latter would receive a 15-cent-an-hour raise every month and a half until July. However, Gendece added that "if the union got in at a later date he [Gendece] would have to eliminate my [Camgan's] classification because he could not pay a ridiculous salary." Gerard T. Becquett, a moldmaker in the machine shop or toolroom, also testified. His evidence may be abridged as follows. On January 3, 1973, Mold Shop Foreman Svoboda told him that District No. 9 of the Machinists had withdrawn its RC petition to represent the mold shop employees and that Slosberg, Respondent's vice president, would speak to such employees. Later that day Slosberg addressed said employees. Svoboda and Plant Superin- tendent Gendece were also present. After informing the men that District No. 9 had rescinded its RC petition, Slosberg said that he was "perfectly within our rights to talk to you" as a result of such recall. Continuing he told them that they were "already automatically covered" by an increase in the amount of insurance and pension benefits, the provisions of which he outlined to them, and suggested that "if you would like to get a committee together like we have done in the past, come up with some proposals, we would be willing to listen to you." He also stated that they were free to belong to District No. 9 or any union and "did have a right to representation." He also said they could "not select a union." Then some employees asked Slosberg questions concerning grievances. To them he answered that they could come to him about such matters but he preferred that "it went through channels, Mr. Svoboda and Mr. Gendece first." Slosberg also answered questions put to him about the insurance and pension benefits. The next day, January 4, Plant Superintendent Gendece spoke to the mold shop employees in a group. He told them that since no one had submitted any proposals on behalf of such employees he suggested that "Bobby's," i.e., Slosberg's, offer was a fair one. This offer comprised a 30- cent-an-hour increase in pay and increased insurance and pension benefits. Becquett, Puglisi, and Schmaltz said they would like to receive "more money." Following this Gendece inquired whether any of the men had any grievances. Some asserted that they had and made "demands." Finally, Gendece insisted that if the mold shop employees "got too high . . . a rate" Respondent would replace them with machinists to do the work. Later that day, January 4, Gendece again spoke to the 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mold shop employees, this time informing them that "somebody has to go in and talk to Bobby [Slosberg]. Somebody has to represent the people." Becquett replied that he would not have anything to do with such representation. At this point Gendece said to employees Stafford and Puglisi that "someone would have to go in and talk to Mr. Slosberg." Puglisi responded that he "would go in, but strictly for" himself. Soon thereafter employees Schmaltz, Stafford, Puglisi, and Tambunno "headed for the office" of Slosberg, but no employees commented on this. A conspectus of the testimony of Edward Cover, a machinist in Respondent's mold making shop, is set forth at this point. On January 3, 1973, Mold Shop Foreman Svoboda told Cover that District No. 9 of the Machinists Union had withdrawn its RC petition, and that, as a consequence, Svoboda was free to talk to the employees. Continuing, Svoboda commented that "if the union gets in we will all not be working here. Possibly you will . . . I won't, myself . . . because Bobby Slosberg doesn't care where he gets his molds made." Later that day Vice President Slosberg spoke to the assembled moldmaking shop employees. Among other things he described to them the enhanced benefits they would receive from the Company's improved hospitaliza- tion and pension programs. Plant Superintendent Gendece then told the men that if they harbored any grievances they should "consult with him first" concerning them "and then go up the ladder . . . in the office" of Vice President Slosberg. Finally, Gendece closed by saying "Let's get together and get this settled because Bobby [Slosberg] has to leave town in a few days." Gendece again spoke to the assembled mold shop employees the next day, January 4. On this occasion he announced that Slosberg offered to give a 30-cent-an-hour raise and requested the men to "get together and settle [this] before Bobby [Slosberg] had to leave town." Then Gendece asked the men to select a committee to call on Slosberg. Puglisi stated he would see Slosberg for himself but not as a member of a committee. Later that afternoon Cover observed employees Puglisi, Tambunno, and Schmaltz proceed "towards the office" of Slosberg. Another meeting of the moldmaking shop men was called by Gendece. Addressing them he requested that they vote on Slosberg's offer of a 30-cent-an-hour augment in wages. A vote was then taken and it resulted in a decision to accept said offer. This increase was reflected in Cover's next paycheck. Another witness for the General Counsel is James Payne, a moldmaker in the machine shop, also known as the mold shop or toolroom, of Respondent. His testimony may be adequately condensed as follows. On January 3, 1973, Mold Shop Foreman William Svoboda told Payne that Respondent's vice president, Slosberg, was disappointed that the mold shop employees "didn't come to him [Slosberg] first," but that "Slosberg didn't care where he got molds made." Svoboda also mentioned that District No. 9 had withdrawn its RC petition. Payne testified it was not unusual for Respondent to have molds made else- where. Later that day Slosberg addressed the mold shop employees. Mold Shop Foreman Svoboda and Plant Superintendent Gendece were also present. After relating that District No. 9 of the Machinists Union had withdrawn its RC petition he declared that he would not pay a "fantastic price to keep the union out." He also assured the men that they were free to have a union or none and that he could not stop them from getting one if they so desired. In addition he told them he would be willing to deal with them individually or with their committee. Next he announced that the Company's pension and hospitaliza- tion plans would provide for increased benefits and described such increases. Then Gendece suggested that the employees form a committee to make known to Slosberg "what they wanted." The next day, January 4, Gendece addressed the mold shop employees. Foreman Svoboda also attended on this occasion. Although Gendece notified the employees that Slosberg would offer them a 30-cent-an-hour raise, "the men didn't seem to be satisfied with this . . . and some of them wanted 35 cents or more on the hour," according to Payne. Continuing, Gendece suggested that the employees "get a committee together and present it to Mr. Slosberg if we wanted more money, because he [Gendece] couldn't do it." Employee Stafford and some others then said that each "would go in" for himself, and employee Erickson stated that Stafford was authorized to speak for him. (Sometime later Payne and the other mold shop employees received a wage increase.) Finally, Gendece stated that if he had to pay the men the same wage rate as a machinist he would hire machinists to replace them because machinists could do other work. Leroy Schmaltz, a moldmaker in Respondent's machine shop, and the General Counsel's concluding witness, testified substantially as follows. On January 3, 1973, mold shop foreman William Svoboda spoke to Schmaltz and employee Payne. After telling them that District No. 9 had rescinded its RC petition he "mentioned something about $11 union dues" and that the petition could be "refiled at a later date." Early in the afternoon of said January 3 Vice President Slosberg spoke to the mold shop employees, including Schmaltz. Plant Superintendent Gendece and Mold Shop Foreman Svoboda also attended this meeting. After making known to them that District No. 9 had withdrawn its RC petition, Slosberg observed that he "realized that there had been some cards signed to take a vote on having District 9 represent" the employees. Then he "emphasized the fact" that employees had the right to be represented by a union; "his attorneys were not adviseable on this"; and the RC petition could be refiled. Following this he described the Company's enhanced insurance benefits and improvements in the retirement plan. Slosberg concluded by assuring them that they could always "approach" him with their grievances "but take it through a committee and use your foreman and your supervisor approach." The ensuing day, January 4, Plant Superintendent Gendece spoke to the mold shop employees, one of whom was Schmaltz. Also attending was Mold Shop Foreman Svoboda. Gendece "talked about" a 30-cent-an-hour raise in pay which he claimed "was under the 5.5 wage rate." When the men expressed dissatisfaction with this "offer," MISSOURI HEEL CO. Gendece advised them to see Slosberg if they sought a larger increase. Thereupon employees Schmaltz, Puglisi, and Stafford "went towards Slosberg's office ... on the way Tambunno came in." On January 5 Schmaltz, accompanied by employee Pughsi, went to Slosberg's office. There they met Slosberg and Plant Superintendent Gendece. Soon Schmaltz and Puglisi were "put on a telephone to listen to Mr. Tambunno agree to what the wage agreement was." Then Slosberg asked Schmaltz and Pughsi to sign some docu- ment for his and Gendece's "record." Schmaltz "signed three of them." Schmaltz characterized said document as "a policy statement on what the whole issue was all about, the hospitalization, the wages . . . it was the statement which contained improvements and benefits to be given the group." Slosberg had signed it ahead of Schmaltz. B. Respondent's Defense Robert Slosberg is president and treasurer of Ripley Industries, Inc. A division of said Ripley is Missouri Heel Company (the Respondent herein). It is alleged in the complaint, and the answer admits, that Slosberg is vice president of Respondent. An adequate abridgment of his testimony follows. Respondent's "Statement of Policy of Mold Making Shop" for the period 1970 - 1971 expired the first Monday of November 1971. Thereafter "the employ- ees felt that they had no basic room for negotiations .. . due to the wage-price controls that were in effect at the time . . . and could not get a committee together, did not want a committee." Respondent also felt there was no need for negotiations for a wage increase "because of the limitations of the wage-price controls." However, "all employees were talked to" and were requested to "sign and acknowledge" a new "statement of policy" because of a change in dates and time length of "contract" (normally 12 months but now a 13-1/2 month "contract"). The new mold shop contract was executed for 13-1/2 months to expire on the anniversary date of the existing pension and health benefits and the expiration date of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union contract. Said benefits were negotiated with the Boot and Shoe Workers Union and were incorporated into the contract with it. Employees in the mold shop were then asked to sign the new mold shop "contract" which is designated as "Statement of Policy of Mold Making Shop." (See Joint Exh. 5.) Sixteen employees did sign it. This occurred after District No. 9 of the Machinists had withdrawn its RC petition. Further, Slosberg denied that, when he spoke to mold shop employees on January 3, 1973, that he told them that the RC petition which had been withdrawn could be "resubmitted" later. But he acknowledged that he in- formed the employees that said petition had been with- drawn "without prejudice." He added that he also told them that "they still had a right to representation by a labor union"; that he was not going to deny them that right; and they could "elect" not to have a union. Additionally, he denies that at said meeting he stated that "The question is what it would take to keep the union out, but I am not going to say that." Rather, he claims that he told them, "I have lived with unions and I have lived without unions and I have no objection to them." 489 Although he denies that he requested the employees on this occasion to "get a committee together and come in to see me," he admits that he told them that he was willing "to meet with them in any way they so wished and if they wished it without union representation [he] would meet with them individually, a committee as a whole, or a committee representing the employees as we had in the past." Moreover, Slosberg insisted that neither Plant Superintendent Gendece nor mold shop foreman Svoboda said anything at this meeting on January 3. Continuing, Slosberg denied that at said meeting he remarked that he "would not pay a fantastic price to keep the union out, or words to that effect ." Then Slosberg pointed out that Respondent has recognized and bargained with Boot and Shoe Workers, AFL-CIO, since 1948 or 1950 for all employees at the plant other than those in the mold shop. Slosberg's version of what occurred on January 5 is as follows. Having with him "multiple copies of the statement for signature," he asked, without making any comments to them, employees Puglisi and Schmaltz "to read and approve." Immediately thereafter Slosberg "signed and passed them to Mr. Schmaltz and Mr. Puglisi for their signatures." These two employees did sign without uttering any statements to Slosberg. Respondent's superintendent, Carl L. Gendece, testified substantially as follows. At a meeting held on January 4, 1973, for the mold making shop employees, he told them that he was authorized to proffer them an increase in pay of 30 cents an hour, but that if they desired a larger amount than that they would have to seek it from Vice President Slosberg . However he also pointed out to them, "It is obvious we can't all go in. Who will go in and talk to Mr. Slosberg?" Thereupon employee Schmaltz stated he "would go in and speak to Mr . Slosberg," and employee Payne said that Schmaltz "could talk for him." When employee Stafford said he "would go in" employees Erickson and Cover stated that Stafford could speak for them . Then employee Puglisi said he "would go in." At this point Gendece received a telephone call which took him away from the meeting for between 5 and 10 minutes. (On rebuttal employee Becquett testified for the General Counsel "that at no time did Mr. Gendece answer or have any telephone conversation " during this meeting. Rather, Becquett insisted that "after the first meeting . . . I saw [Gendece] leave the shop [for] . . . five to seven minutes.") When he returned to the employees he asked them, "Are you ready to go?" Then Gendece , Schmaltz, Puglisi, and Stafford walked towards Slosberg 's office. Soon Tamburino approached Gendece and asked for permission to "go in and talk for the night shift." But the latter replied that he "had no authority, it would be up to the men if they wanted [Tambunno ] to represent them." Shortly after this Gendece, Schmaltz, Stafford, and Pughsi entered Slosberg's office, and about 3 minutes later Tambunno joined them there. Gendece denies that on January 5 he told Puglisi that Tamburino was on the telephone or let Puglisi talk to Tambunno on the telephone. In fact Gendece never spoke to anyone on the night shift about "the negotiations or a vote " And Gendece denies (a) that he called Don Shipp on January 5 concerning "some problem about the vote," 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and (b) that he said he would call the night shift to "explain the settlement or something to that effect." Gendece admits that on January 10 (but not earlier in January) he discussed with employee Carrigan, in the presence of Foreman Svoboda, increases for Carrigan every month and a half until July. He also admits that on January 4 he told Carrigan that he "wouldn't pay a certain amount, but could pay some other rate," and that if he had to pay mold changers a machinists' wages he would rather have machinists, so that when mold work was slack he could assign the machinists to perform tooling work. (Mold changers are rated, according to Gendece, at a lower "skilled classification" than machinists.) But he denies that he warned Carrigan that if the Union got in Gendece would be forced to eliminate Carrigan's job because Gendece would not pay a ridiculous amount in wages. Further, Gendece denies that he held two meetings of employees on January 4, claiming there was only one; he did not address the employees after the telephone call on January 4; neither on January 5 or any other day did he ask the first shift in the mold shop to vote on Slosberg's offer of a 30-cent-an-hour increase in wages; at the meeting of January 3 Slosberg, but not he, spoke to the assembled employees; and he was not present in Slosberg's office when the employees came to an agreement on a wage and benefits increase. Concluding his testimony, Gendece stated that when Schmaltz, Stafford, Puglisi, and Tamburino were in Slosberg's office, as above mentioned, Slosberg agreed to give them 5 cents an hour in addition to the 30 cents already tendered to them, at the end of 2 months, but that Tamburmo insisted it would have to be voted on by the men. On this occasion Stafford commented that if he had known "it had to be taken back for a vote" he "wouldn't have come in." Slosberg replied that it was "perfectly all right" for the employees in his office "to take it back to the men to do what they wished on it. They had plenty of time to do it." C. Concluding Findings and Discussion In arriving at the findings made below I have been guided by the following well-established principles of law. They are so basic that citation of authority thereon would be superfluous. (a) The burden of proving the allegations of the complaint rests upon the General Counsel, so that the Respondent is not obliged to disprove any of said averments. (b) The noncrediting of some of Respondent's evidence, or the failure of Respondent to establish one or more of its defenses, does not amount to affirmative evidence which will contribute towards sustaining the General Counsel's case. Such so-called "negative evidence" cannot supply the proof necessary to establish the allegations of the complaint. From 1961 to 1971 Respondent's mold shop employees were represented by their own committee, known as the Mold Making Shop Committee. Annually said Committee negotiated collective-bargaining contracts, designated as Statements of Policy, with Respondent. (See Joint Exh. 4 and pp. 14-15 of the tr.) In the fall of 1971 the employees terminated said Committee because they lost interest in it, and Respondent then entered into negotiations with the mold shop employees on an individual basis. (See Joint Exh. 5.) In late 1972 District No. 9, the Charging Party herein, instituted a campaign to organize said mold making shop and on December 20 of the same year filed an RC petition. (See Joint Exh. 1.) Said petition was withdrawn on December 29. (See Joint Exh. 2.) A new petition was filed on January 4, 1973, and was received by Respondent the next day. (See Joint Exh. 3.) Certain conduct of Respon- dent in early January 1973 is alleged to constitute unfair labor practices. 1. Threatening employees with loss of employment On January 3, 1973, Mold Shop Foreman Svoboda told employee Cover "if the union gets in we will not all be working here. Possibly you will. I won't myself .. . because Bobby Slosberg doesn't care where he gets his molds made." I find this is a threat to discharge employees, in order to discourage interest in or support of District No. 9, forbidden by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The coercive characteristic of this threat is not neutralized by the fact, which I find, that Slosberg at times in the past did subcontract some of the making of molds to outsiders. On the same day Svoboda told employee Payne that Vice President Slosberg was disappointed that the mold shop employees hadn't come to Slosberg first, and that Slosberg didn't care where he had his molds made. I find this is a veiled threat to cause employees loss of work in order to discourage support or interest in unionism and, as such, violates Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. And at the meeting of January 4 Superintendent Gendece announced that if the wages of the mold shop employees "got too high" Respondent would replace them with machinists to do the work. Gendece's contrary testimony is not credited. I find that this is a threat to discharge mold shop employees if they insisted on having a union to obtain higher wages for them, and that it violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Offers and promises of benefits On January 3, 1973, Slosberg told mold shop employees that District No. 9 had withdrawn its RC petition and that said Union might refile said petition. He also added that "I guess the thing to say would be what it would take to keep the union out" and that he was not going to pay a fantastic price to keep the Union out. Testimony of Slosberg inconsistent with the above is not credited. But I find that said statements do not contain a promise or offer of benefit and, therefore. do not transgress the Act. On January 5 Foreman Svoboda promised employee Carrigan a raise "around contract time." Upon Carrigan's mentioning that a union would aid him in obtaining a raise Svoboda rejoined that a union would not help him to qualify for a raise. Later that day Superintendent Gendece granted Carrigan a 15-cent-an-hour raise every 45 days until July, but added that if a union got in he would be obliged to eliminate Carrigan's classification because Gendece could not pay a ridiculous salary. I credit Carrigan on this aspect of the case. And I find that said statements by Svoboda and Gendece amount to an unlawful promise (as to Svoboda) and a grant (as to MISSOURI HEEL CO. Gendece) of a benefit and also (as to both) a threat of loss of employment by Carrigan if a union got in. In this January 3 speech Slosberg also explained the automatic benefits to which they were entitled; i.e., they would receive the same benefits , such as life insurance, medical insurance, and pensions, negotiated for the remainder of the plant . In effect he was informing the mold shop employees that he was offering them benefits without the need of a union to negotiate for such on their behalf. I find that such offer of benefits, in view of the fact that District No. 9 was contemporaneously conducting its organizational drive , violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On January 4 Superintendent Carl Gendece told the mold shop employees that Respondent was offering them a raise of 30 cents an hour and augmented insurance benefits. At the same time Gendece asked them to mention their grievances. Since this occurred at a time when District No. 9 was attempting to organize the mold shop employ- ees, I find that it constituted a promise of benefits tending to undermine that union, and is forbidden by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. Grants of benefits When employees Schmaltz, Stafford, Puglisi, and Tam- burino, following Gendece's attempt to induce them to act as a committee for the mold shop employees, called on Vice President Slosberg, the latter gave the employees an additional 5 cents an hour for 2 months over and above the 30 cents offered to them by Gendece. Also many employees received a 30-cent-an-hour raise. This is a grant of benefits to discourage interest in a union and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find. 4. Urging employees to form their own committee When he spoke to the mold shop employees on January 3, 1973, Vice President Slosberg, among other things, told them, "If you would like to get a committee together like we have done in the past, come up with some proposals, we would be willing to listen to you." It is true that in this same speech Slosberg also stated that they were free to belong to a union and "did have a right to representation." But I find that by urging them to deal with him through a committee "like we have done in the past," when coupled with his statements at the same time concerning improved insurance and pension benefits, persuades me, and I find, that he was attempting to revive the Committee and sought to deter their interest in a union . I further find that this utterance contravenes Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. At the meeting of January 4 Superintendent Gendece told the employees that if 30-cent-an-hour increase was not adequate that the employees would have to seek a greater amount from Vice President Slosberg. But Gendece insisted that "when these fellows go in. they are going to represent all of you . . . somebody has to represent the people." Gendece also asked the men to select a committee to call on Slosberg if they wanted more money because Gendece was powerless to offer them more than an increase of 30 cents an hour . Patently Gendece was interfering with the statutory right of the employees to have a union represent them by practically forcing them to 491 reactivate the old Committee, and I so find. I further find that this transgresses Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On the morning of January 5 Gendece requested the mold shop employees to take a vote on Slosberg's offer of a 30-cent-an-hour increase in wages . The General Counsel contends this request for a vote "unlawfully urged the employees to bargain through the Committee and abandon the Union." (See p. 7 of his br.) But I find that this request does not have the purpose suggested by the General Counsel. However, I do find the 30-cent offer, as noted elsewhere herein, is a promise of benefit to sway employees against a union , and, as such, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. Encouraging or compelling employees to sign a collective-bargaining agreement On January 5 employees Puglisi and Schmaltz were sent to Vice President Slosberg's office. While in the office Slosberg told them that the insurance benefits had been improved and had Puglisi telephone the insurance compa- ny to ascertain what they were. Then Slosberg asked these two employees to sign the new statement of policy. Schmaltz complied but Puglisi balked. Then Puglisi signed when Gendece, the plant superintendent, who was also present, insisted the document was for Slosberg's "personal files." Said statement of policy was in fact a collective- bargaining agreement. (See Joint Exh. 5.) Initially I find that neither Schmaltz nor Puglisi was compelled to sign this statement of policy but that each signed voluntarily . It is true, and I find, not crediting any evidence inconsistent with such finding, that Puglisi was induced to sign because it was misrepresented to him that this instrument was for Slosberg 's personal files. However, by resorting to such misrepresentation Respondent at least interfered with Puglisi 's right to decide whether he wished to be represented by a union to negotiate a collective- bargaining contract for him. Hence I find that by this action Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. 8(a)(2) violations Although the Committee functioned from 1961 to the fall of 1971, nothing in the record warrants the conclusion that Respondent either dominated or assisted it during this period. And I further find that the Committee did not operate after the fall of 1971 because the employees felt it was not needed in view of the wage freeze . Yet the General Counsel argues that, since the record is silent "that the Respondent specifically communicated this position to the employees or that the employees told Respondent that this was their feeling," that this, coupled with the evidence recited above in this Decision, "establishes that the Respondent by its conduct controlled this Committee." (See pp. II and 12 of the G.C. br.) Insofar as this contention is addressed to conduct of the employer more than 6 months before the filing of the charge on January 17, 1973, it is barred from consideration by the statute of limitations. See Section 10(b) of the Act. To the extent that said contention is based on the conduct of the Respondent occurring during the 6 months immediately preceding January 17, 1973, 1 find that such 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conduct is not clothed with those qualities amounting to control or domination of the Committee. Hence I find that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Nevertheless I have found elsewhere above that some of such conduct was condemned by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On this issue I find that Respondent did not on January 4, 1973, as urged by the General Counsel on pp. 11 and 12 of his brief, choose "the officers and representatives of this Committee . . . then . . . the Respondent . . . told the other employees that this chosen Committee or group of representatives would in fact represent all of the mold shop employees." Rather I find that Respondent did no more than suggest that the employees select a small group to represent them but that the employees expressly rejected this proposal. It is my opinion, and I find, that this suggestion contravenes Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, but, because it neither assists nor dominates the Committee, it does not compass results transgressing Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. In my opinion, University of Chicago Library, 205 NLRB No. 44, does not require a finding that Section 8(a)(2) was violated. Accordingly, I recommend that this branch of the complaint should be dismissed for failure to prove it. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Those activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with its operation described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY As Respondent has been found to have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take specific action, as set forth below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Such affirmative action consists of the posting of an appropriate notice the form of which is related in the Appendix, infra. As the record does not disclose that Respondent exhibited a general hostility to the Act, I conclude that a broad remedial order against it is not warranted. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. District No. 9 and the Committee each is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and is engaged in commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By (a) threatening to discharge employees and threatening to cause them to lose work in order to discourage interest in or support of District No. 9 or any other union; (b) threatening to discharge employees if a union represented them in the mold making shop; (c) promising and also granting employees increases in wages and other benefits in order to discourage interest in or support of Distnct No. 9 or any other union; (d) urging employees in the mold shop to revive the Committee in order to discourage their interest in an outside union; (e) misrepresenting facts to induce an employee to sign a statement of policy which was a collective-bargaining agreement; and (f) suggesting to moldmaking shop employees to select a small group of such employees to represent them rather than be represented by an outside union; Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices condemned by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The above-described unfair labor practices affect commerce within the contemplation of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not committed any other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]