General Telephone Directory Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Telephone Directory Company and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, Local Union No. 2139. Cases 21-CA-14168 and 21-RC-14286 November 14, 1977 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On August 23, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recom- mended Order. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent on several occasions violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to withhold a promised wage increase in the advent of union organization and that a second election must be directed. In our judgment, however, Respondent committed an additional 8(a)(1) violation when District Sales Manager Lynn Lott threatened em- ployees with loss of pay increases if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. Respondent announced that employees would be receiving a pay increase in January 1976. In response to inquiries about the scheduled raise during the course of the union organizational campaign, Gener- al Manager Fick told the employees that negotiations "start with a blank piece of paper." Similarly, District Telephone Sales Manager Fendholt told employee Steve Milton "if the Union were to be voted in, that every item was a negotiable item, and that you [sic] would start out with a blank sheet of paper, and if the wages were a negotiable item, then it would affect the increase." Both statements have I The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence 233 NLRB No. 72 already been found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1). At a coffeebreak, Lott told employees Christopher Elliott and Anthony Spivack that the scheduled raise would probably be an item to negotiate if the Union "gets in." Lott stated unequivocally that the previ- ously scheduled raises were no longer "automatic." In our view, there is no significant difference between the unlawful threats made by Fick and Fendholt and the statement by Lott. It is well established that during a union organizational campaign an employer must continue on whatever course it had set prior to the appearance of the Union. In this case, making the raise negotiable if the Union were selected, when it previously had been scheduled unconditionally, is plainly a threat of reprisal and clearly violative of Section 8(a)(l). Furthermore, viewed in a context in which Respon- dent violated the Act in several other respects, there can be no doubt that Lott's statement was coercive in nature. The Coca Cola Company, Foods Division, 196 NLRB 892 (1972); Peterson Builders, Inc., 215 NLRB 161 (1974); North Electric Company, 225 NLRB 1114 (1976). We agree, however, with the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of the complaint's allegation that Lott unlawfully threatened employees with dis- charge. But, unlike the Administrative Law Judge, we find the absence of evidence that Respondent took subsequent disciplinary action or other reprisals against the employees allegedly threatened to be of no significance whatever. Instead, we rely solely on credibility factors. The only evidence tending to support the allegation was testimony by employee Spivack to the effect that, during a conversation with Lott, the latter threatened to discharge employees Seale and Cohen, both of whom were active union advocates. Lott categorically denied making the alleged threat. And the Administrative Law Judge-with particular reference to testimonial conflicts between Lott and Spivack-generally credited Lott, finding him to be "a candid and straight-forward witness," while characterizing Spivack's testimony with respect to another incident as "reluctant and evasive." Accord- ingly, we find that the supporting evidence on this issue is not sufficient to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act with respect thereto. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 422 GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY COMPANY ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, General Tele- phone Directory Company, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the representation election conducted on November 7, 1975, in Case 21-RC-14286 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 21-RC-14286 be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 21 for the purpose of conducting a new election. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARTIN S. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard at Los Angeles, California, on April 6 and 7, 1976. The complaint, issued January 22, 1976, and based upon a charge filed November 21, 1975, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, Local Union No. 2139, herein the Union, alleges that Respondent General Telephone Directory Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Consolidated with the foregoing was a hearing on objections to an election conducted on November 7, 1975, in Case 21-RC-14286 pursuant to a petition filed August 4, 1975, for a unit of Respondent's premise sales, street address directory sales and telephone sales employees in its western region, with the customary exclusions. These are known as yellow sales personnel. Of 111 eligible voters, 110 cast ballots; 53 were in favor of the Union: 56 were against union representation; and one ballot not involved herein was challenged. Briefs have been submitted by the Union and Respondent, and the General Counsel orally argued his case. I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT General Telephone Directory Company, a Division of General Telephone and Electronics Corporation, is en- gaged in the compilation, printing, and sale of telephone numbers and street addresses with sales offices throughout the United States and Canada; these include sales division offices in its western region, including West Los Angeles and nearby communities. Respondent purchases and receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 per annum directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I Although the record, which is vague in many respects, frequently refers to a blanket increase of S2,000. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, Local Union No. 2139, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction, the Issues On August 4, 1975, the Union filed a petition in Case 21- RC-14286 for an election in the above-described unit of Respondent's employees. As noted, of 111 eligibles, 110 ballots were cast on November 7, 1975, and the Union lost the election by a vote of 56 to 53, with one challenged ballot not involved herein. Of the 19 objections to the election filed by the Union, 6 of these were deemed by the Regional Director to merit a hearing. Consolidated with same by the Regional Director were allegations of violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, these purportedly and specifically involving "the same evidence." Respondent is engaged in the compilation and sale of telephone numbers and street address directories for its parent corporation, General Telephone and Electronics Corporation and other independent companies. Based in Illinois, it is divided into four geographic regions with a general manager (GM) in charge of each. Respondent's western region consists of the States of California, Nevada, and Arizona, including eight separate sales division offices, and this region is the only one involved herein. Each sales division is headed by a district sales manager (DSM) who customarily supervises the activities of approx- imately four sales representatives. Above him is a division manager (DM) who, according to Respondent, supervises the activities of some 25 to 30 employees, these including the employees involved herein, clericals, and the district sales managers. The gravamen of the instant case is the following. It is undisputed that prior to the commencement of the union organizational campaign, Respondent had advised its sales representatives that wage increases had been budgeted by Respondent for the start of the year 1976. More specifical- ly, premise sales representatives were advised that they were to be given an increase in base pay of $2,000 and telephone sales representatives were to receive an increase of $1,500 per annum.1 B. Sequence of Events Robert Katsch, formerly a premise salesman, attributed certain remarks to Edward Jordan, executive vice president of Respondent, who is based in Illinois. Of Respondent's four geographical divisions, each is headed by a general manager who reports to Jordan. The latter annually makes two or three trips to the western region of Respondent, the only territory involved herein. Katsch, based in Los Angeles, was hired in August 1973 and was terminated in January 1976. He testified that late in October 1975, about 2 weeks before the election held on November 7, he attended a meeting at the Ramada Inn in 423 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Culver City which was conducted by Jordan. He further testified that Jordan announced to 12 or 15 salesmen present that if the Union were voted in, negotiations would commence from a blank sheet of paper. One of those present asked about the $2,000 raise previously promised to be effective in January 1976, and Jordan allegedly replied that this was a matter to be negotiated with the Union. Jordan did make reference to certain management prob- lems, not specified by the witness, and Jordan stated Respondent would cope with them. Katsch did recall that Jordan stated he could make no promises, that Respondent had to bargain in good faith with the Union and that Respondent was aware of problems with lower echelons of management. He repeated that Jordan stated the $2,000 pay raise was negotiable in arriving at a contract with the Union if the latter were voted in. Jordan, a straightforward and most impressive witness, testified concerning a number of meetings. More specifical- ly, he testified that at the Culver City meetings, he promised no benefits and threatened no reprisals. He denied referring to the $2,000 raise at two meetings held at the Ramada Inn in Culver City on October 28. He also denied stating that negotiations would start with a "blank" piece of paper "at ground zero." He admitted that he had no recollection of the $2,000 raise being brought up on this occasion. Jordan impressed me as a candid, objective, and intelligent witness. True, he was not disinterested, but neither was Katsch. Moreover, Respondent was represented and advised at the time by skilled labor relations counsel. I also note that Personnel Manager Robert Wenzel of Respondent's western region, an impressive witness, fully corroborated Jordan as to what took place at the meetings held in Culver City on October 28, 1975. He testified that Jordan opined that sales representatives should have better communications with first and second levels of supervisors and flatly denied that the topic of the $2,000 pay raise was brought up by Jordan or by any employee at these Culver City meetings. I so find. On balance, I credit Jordan's version of the incident and find that the evidence does not preponderate in favor of the General Counsel in this instance. The next witness for the General Counsel was one Steven Milton, who worked for Respondent from June through October 1975. In my observation and appraisal, his testimony can best be described as marked by obstruse generalities and as being extremely vague concerning the sequence of events. This was particularly true concerning the order of meetings upon which the General Counsel relies. Milton testified that he was advised, upon hire, by his supervisor, Sherrie Fendholt, a district telephone sales manager in charge of district telephone sales, that, in January 1976, the employees would receive a salary increase of $1,500 to $2,000 per annum. Milton allegedly recalled that during the union organiza- tional campaign, Fendholt discussed this subject early in October in response to a question from a named employee as to the imminence of the raise and in the presence of two 2 He also testified that in Jul) 1975, Van Ry told him that there would be a raise of $2,000 granted in "the new )'ear." other employees. None of these testified herein. Fendholt allegedly replied that the raise would be forthcoming in January 1976, "pending extenuating circumstances." Mil- ton, as indicated, was not a very objective witness. Milton claimed that he asked Fendholt what she intended by her reference to "extenuating circumstances." Milton then volunteered the question whether this meant "Like if the Union gets in?" and Fendholt allegedly replied in the affirmative. Milton later conceded that he met with Fendholt about two times weekly in October 1975. He also conceded that on one or two occasions, she stated that if the Union entered the picture, Respondent would bargain in good faith on any issue and that the "pay plan . . . might be a bargaining item." Fendholt, no longer with Respondent, however, recalled a meeting where General Manager Richard Fick, in August, advised the clerical employees that they would receive the (January 1976) wage increase. She returned to her unit and discussed this with those in it. Milton then asked if the $2,000 raise would be forthcoming, union or not. She replied that this would be so, absent extenuating circumstances. Milton pressed her, and she replied that if the Union was voted in, all items would be negotiable from a blank sheet of paper and that if wages were negotiable, "it would affect the increase." Milton then became agitated and queried the assemblage whether they had heard the remarks of Fendholt. I hereinafter rely upon the admitted remarks of Fendholt. Christopher Elliott has been employed as a premise sales representative by Respondent at Camarillo, California, since February 1973. The General Counsel relies on certain statements attributed by him to Northern California Division Manager Barry Van Ry. Elliott testified about a sales meeting held by Respondent at the Pierpont Inn at Ventura, California, with 9 or 10 premise sales representa- tives in attendance, as well as 4 to 5 telephone sales personnel, in August 1975.2 His testimony, as is typical in this case of the testimony for the General Counsel, is somewhat garbled. The conduct under consideration is attributed in the complaint to Van Ry, but the General Counsel specifically relies on a statement allegedly made by one Stayner, not named in the complaint, although ostensibly a supervisor, in the pres- ence of Van Ry. The testimony of Elliott left much to be desired. It would seem, in the posture most favorable to the General Counsel, that Stayner was asked by someone what would happen during collective bargaining. Stayner, who did not testify, allegedly held up a blank piece of paper and stated that the parties would negotiate therefrom. It would seem that this purported remark, according to the stated theory of the General Counsel, was made in the presence of Van Ry. But, significantly, Elliott did not recall whether Van Ry was present at the time, ostensibly a coffeebreak, although Van Ry was present at the basic meeting. Indeed, Elliott recalled only that Van Ry had attended the meeting, but he was unable to recall whether Van Ry was near the table when Stayner spoke up as described above. Indeed, Van Ry denied hearing the statement. I find that there is a 424 GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY COMPANY lack of substantial evidence to support the premise of the General Counsel that Van Ry authorized, ratified, or failed to repudiate the remarks by Stayner on this occasion. This also bears upon the alleged testimony of Elliott that Stayner then stated, while holding up a clean sheet of paper, that all negotiations began with same. Here as well, the General Counsel has relied on the ostensible ratifica- tion by Van Ry of this act, and the record, in my judgment, does not support such a finding. Elliott also attributed a statement to District Sales Manager Lynn Lott, of the Northern California Division and admittedly a supervisor, on another occasion in Santa Barbara, when Lott stated, "I would imagine that orga- nizing was going on."3 Elliott questioned Lott concerning the prospective raise and as to whether it would be automatic. Lott, according to Elliott, responded that it was something that "perhaps will be bargained for... in that it was not automatic. "(Emphasis supplied.) Anthony Spivack, an employee of Respondent at Camarillo, testified about attending a meeting at Las Vegas, Nevada, addressed by Jordan on October 28. 4 Jordan then decreed, according to Spivack, that Respon- dent had a problem with first- and second-line manage- ment and was working on the problem. Employees Robert Minnis and Elliott Cohen, in essence, testified to the same effect. I see nothing adverse to Respondent in this area. Spivack also testified about a conversation in Las Vegas around the same time with Lott. He claimed that while accompanied by Sales Representative Gene Roberts, who did not testify herein, Lott stated that employees Bob Seale and Elliott Cohen, sales representatives in his division, "would be history." The record demonstrates that these two were active advocates on behalf of the Union Lott's version was that he recalled conversations with Elliott and Spivack. They questioned him in July and in August about the prospective $2,000 raise. According to Lott, he was asked if the $2,000 raise was still in order, and Lott responded that it probably was an item "to negotiate." The topic was brought up regularly by the two employees, and Lott regularly responded, consistent with instructions from top management, and so testified that he was "careful" to respond" as he did. I credit Lott, in my observation, as a candid and straightforward witness. Spivack also testified in a reluctant and evasive manner about another incident. He denied attending a meeting at the Pierpont Inn at Ventura. Shown his affidavit, he admitted that it showed him attending a meeting at this location, but he added, "I don't remember that, honestly." He ultimately recalled that someone asked General Manager Fick of the western division and Stayner about the $2,000 raise about I month before the election. Fick responded that "it would start from a clean piece of paper." Spivack dated the occasion in late August and also testified that he did not recall the month. He placed Fick and various management personnel on the scene, and Fick allegedly stated that they would start from "ground zero" and that matters would have to be negotiated. He also set 3 As with some other witnesses for the General Counsel. Elliott impressed me by his questions in response to questions by counsel as an unlikely person to be objectively coerced or influenced by any statements made to him by a representative of Respondent. Fick's statements at a later meeting in October at another location. Fick, in turn, recalled a meeting at the Pierpont Inn in August which was primarily a training meeting. He also recalled a meeting at the Holiday Inn in Ventura in October at which a labor relations specialist, Dr. van de Water, who did not testify, explained the various rights of the parties in an organizational context. An employee asked a question about the promised $2,000 raise. Fick testified that he, Fick, then told the assemblage that the $2,000 raise had previously been budgeted for January 1976 and that, if economic conditions were the same, it would be granted. But he went on to state that if Respondent were negotiating with the Union, all wages, benefits, and working conditions would become negotiable items. The situation would be as though they started with a blank piece of paper with a certain amount of horse trading in all areas; he gave, as an example, a request by the Union for a dental plan which could affect the economic picture. Fick did recall that at a dinner at the Pierpont Inn at Ventura, apparently in August, two individuals privately asked him about the $2,000 raise, and he replied that it was predicated on certain economic conditions, that it was not automatic, and that it could be negotiated just like all other benefits. He did recall the meeting at the Holiday Inn at Ventura in October, about 2 weeks before the election. At the latter, a question was asked about the $2,000 raise. He denied stating that the raise was not automatic, but did state that if Respondent was negotiating with the Union, all wages, benefits, and working conditions, including the $2,000 raise, were negotiable items, as Respondent did not know what the entire economic package would be. Over the objection of Respondent, I permitted the Charging Party to develop some evidence by a witness, Minnis, concerning a meeting at San Bernardino which was not attacked by the complaint where Fick allegedly made reference to starting negotiations from a blank piece of paper. Respondent presented no specific denials in response thereto. Not only was Minnis a most vague witness in this area, but I deem the issue not before me as it was not litigated, and I base no adverse findings thereon. Elliott Cohen, a voluble witness, testified that he was present at two meetings with Division Manager Van Ry and his testimony, to some extent, entwined the events of these occasions. After a lunch in Montecito, there was a discussion in the parking lot by a small group. Van Ry urged the group to try to work on their problems themselves without an outside party, and Cohen testified, "I believe" he mentioned the Union. Cohen later added that he recalled no promises being made by Van Ry. Cohen also recalled a later meeting at a restaurant in Santa Barbara. One of those present asked Van Ry if and when the $2,000 raise would be paid. Van Ry allegedly responded that the employees would not receive it, but that it was something to be negotiated, if the Union entered the scene, from "ground zero." 4 This perforce would be the same date of the meetings addressed b) Jordan, treated above, at Culver City, California. 425 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cohen also attributed a statement to District Sales Manager Robert Willey, in response to a question at a meeting approximately in August at Santa Barbara, that if the Union entered the picture, Respondent did not have to grant the promised $2,000 raise. He later testified, after considerable rambling, that Willey stated that if the Union "came in" the $2,000 raise would not be paid. According to Van Ry, he recalled the meeting in Santa Barbara on June 27. Either Cohen or employee Seale asked what would happen to the $2,000 if the Union entered the picture. He responded that he did not know, as "all items were negotiable." Again, on August 22, he told the two men in response to a question that all items were negotiable. Still later, on September 18, the two men asked Van Ry about the imminence of the $2,000 pay raise. In effect, Van Ry drew an analogy as to variations realized in commissions when selling advertising to a client and I credit him. Willey, in turn, recalled the talk at Santa Barbara. One of those present asked about the $2,000 raise. Willey respond- ed that this sum had been budgeted for the following year and that Respondent would live up to this if economic conditions continued on the same plane. He added that the raise might not be given at the base salary because the Union might opt to have the money or part of it expended in other areas. He made no reference to starting at "ground zero" or with "a blank piece of paper." He also denied threatening employees with the loss of the pay increase during the union campaign. Willey's version is far more logical than the drastic rambling one, under the conversa- tions attributed to him by Cohen, and he is credited herein. C. Concluding Findings To sum up: (1) I have rejected the testimony of Robert Katsch as to the remarks he attributed to Executive Vice President Jordan of Respondent, and have credited the testimony of the latter. (2) Steven Milton, found above to be an improbable witness, attributed various remarks to former District Sales Manager Sherrie Fendholt. I rely herein solely upon the testimony of the latter that Milton asked whether the $2,000 raise would be forthcoming, Union or not. She responded that this was so, absent extenuating circum- stances and, further, that if the Union was voted in, all items would be negotiable from a blank sheet of paper, and that if changes were negotiable this "would affect the increase." I find that the foregoing remarks support the allegations of the complaint. (3) The case in this area having been heard upon a specific theory that Northern California Division Manager Van Ry ratified or failed to disavow the remarks of Stayner, I do not, as indicated, base any adverse findings thereon, particularly due to the absence of any evidence that Van Ry was on the scene at the time. (4) Christopher Elliott attributed certain statements to District Sales Manager Lott. I have credited the testimony of Lott that he was careful to state that the $2,000 raise was probably an item to negotiate. I deem this as rather close to the line, believe that this was not tantamount to a threat to abandon same, and base no adverse findings thereon. (5) I1 have previously found and repeat that I see nothing amiss in statements attributed to Vice President Jordan by employees Spivack, Minnis, and Cohen that Respondent was working on problems it had encountered with the first and second lines of management. (6) 1 have previously credited the testimony of Lott as to a conversation with Spivack in the presence of Roberts, who did not testify. Lott allegedly stated that employees Seale and Cohen "would be history." There is no evidence of discipline or reprisals against either. I repeat this resolution and base no adverse findings thereon. (7) Spivack attributed other statements to Fick in this same area. I rely solely on the testimony of the latter, and in response to a question, Fick stated that the raise had been budgeted for January 1976 and that it would be granted if economic conditions were unchanged. He did, however, go on to state that in the advent of union negotiations, all aspects of working conditions would become negotiable items, starting with a blank piece of paper; he cited, as an example which perforce would lead to horse trading, a union request for a dental plan. Fick, in essence, repeated this at a later meeting, stating that all aspects of working conditions, including the $2,000 raise, were negotiable as Respondent would not know what the entire economic package would be. I find that this exceeded statements protected under Section 8(c) of the Act. (8) I have previously set forth remarks attributed to Van Ry by Cohen. Van Ry testified herein, in response to a question about the $2,000 raise, that all items were "negotiable." On balance, I do not believe that this constituted a threat of withholding a wage benefit. (9) Cohen attributed a statement to District Sales Manager Willey, in response to a question, after consider- able rambling on his part. Cohen claimed that Willey threatened to withhold the $2,000 raise if the Union "came in." I have credited Willey's denial that he referred to starting negotiations at "ground zero" or that a blank piece of paper would be a starting point or that he threatened any loss of pay. He stated, and I find, that the Union might opt to have money otherwise expended. I deem and find this to fall under the protection of Section 8(c) of the Act. It is axiomatic that an employer may not grant improvements in working conditions, not previously planned, in an organizational context. It is likewise true that he is free to proceed to grant wage improvements scheduled prior to the advent of an organizational campaign. In the instant case, salary increases of $1,500 to $2,000 per year had been scheduled prior to the advent of the union campaign. Respondent then saw fit, as detailed, to hedge at times and attempted to tailor its plans to potential union demands in the advent of a union victory in the impending election. While the concern of Respondent is understandable, I agree with the General Counsel that Respondent has gone too far. The salary increase would have been granted, barring drastic economic changes, but for the arrival of the Union upon the scene. Stated otherwise, Respondent, in part as least, reneged on its commitment because of the possibility of a union victory. This view was made clear to its employees on a number of occasions set forth above, 426 GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY COMPANY and I find that this conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Florida Steel Corp., 224 NLRB 587 (1976), enfd. 536 F.2d 1385 (C.A. 5). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. General Telephone Directory Company is an em- ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 2139, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening that a promised wage increase might be withheld in the advent of organization by a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 5 The Respondent, General Telephone Directory Compa- ny, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening that the promise of a wage increase might be withheld in the advent of organization by a labor organization. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(aX3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its places of business in its western region copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. I further find in the above context of a close election, lost by the Union by a vote of 53 to 56, that there is merit in the position of the Union that, on a preponderance of the conduct herein found to be violative of Section 8(a)(XI) of the Act, said conduct perforce affected the results of the election. I therefore recommend that the objections be sustained, that the election in Case 21-RC-14286 be set aside and that, as the General Counsel urges, that case be transferred to the Board for such additional action as it deems to be appropriate, including the conducting of a new election. s 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. 0 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 WILL NOT threaten our employees that the promise of a wage increase may be withdrawn in the advent of organization by a labor organization. WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of our employees to join International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 2139, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(aX3) of the Act. GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY COMPANY 427