Robotron Corp.

396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Robotron Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Cases 7-CA-10884 and 7-RC-12005 January 30, 1975 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION 3 It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of all the employees, in the unit herein involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. By MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On September 27, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Thomas S. Wilson issued the attached Decision and Report on Objections in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a support- ing brief; and the Respondent filed an answering brief, cross-exceptions, and a supporting brief. 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 and Report on Objections in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Robotron Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a): "(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, by coercively interrogating its employees about their union sympathies; systematically solicit- ing gripes, grievances, and complaints from its employees; maintaining and repromulgating its illegal no-solicitation and no-distribution rules; and unilaterally making changes and improvements for the correction and improvement of the gripes, grievances, and complaints voiced by its employees." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. 216 NLRB No. 79 i In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the Respondent's no-solicitation and no-distribution rules are in violation of the Act, we note our respective positions set forth in Essex International,, Inc, 211 NLRB 749 (1974). 2 Although the Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees, he inadvertently omitted reference thereto in his recommended Order , and we shall amend the Order in this regard. 3 The Administrative Law Judge recommended in Case 7-RC-12005 that the Union's objection to the rerun election of January 17, 1974, be overruled . On January 8, 1975, the Union filed with the Board a request to withdraw its objection to that election and, thereafter, the General Counsel requested withdrawal of his exceptions to the disposition of that objection in the reprepentation case by the Administrative Law Judge. These requests are hereby granted . Accordingly, we need not rule on the recommendation relating to the Union 's election objection. However, as a majority of the valid ballots were not cast for the Union in the election of January 17, 1974, we shall issue a certification of the results of that election APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we, Robotron Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, violated the National Labor Relations Act and ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: The law gives you the right: To form, join, or help unions To choose a union to represent you in bargaining with us To act together for your common interest or protection To refuse to participate in any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you about your union sympathies. WE WILL NOT interfere with these rights. WE WILL NOT systematically solicit your gripes, grievances, and complaints in order to discourage union membership and activities. WE WILL NOT unilaterally make changes and improvements for the purpose of correcting or improving the gripes, grievances, and complaints ROBOTRON CORPORATION you have voiced to us at our solicitation for the purpose of discouraging membership and activi- ties on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW, or any other union of your choice. We hereby notify you that we have rescinded our illegal no-solicitation and no-distribution rules. WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees for the purposes of interfering with the rights of the employees to engage in union activities as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. ROBOTRON CORPORATION DECISION AND REPORT ON OBJECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge duly filed on February 4, 1974, by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, herein referred to as the Union or UAW, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the General Counsels and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated March 22, 1974, against Robotron Corporation, herein referred to as the Respondent or the Company. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. Included in this complaint and consolidated therewith "for the purpose of hearing, ruling and decision by an Administrative Law Judge" is the Union's objection to the results of the rerun election held on January 16, 1974, which objection is also included in the complaint herein as one of the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing on such issues was held before me in Detroit, Michigan, on May 23, 1974. All parties were represented by counsel or representative and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence and material pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, oral argument was waived. Briefs were received from General Counsel and Respondent on July 8, 1974. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: I This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing. 2 All dates are in the year 1973 unless otherwise specified. Sparschu FINDINGS OF FACT I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT 397 The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I, therefore, find that: Robotron Corporation is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under,. and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan. At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained its only office and place of business at 21300 West 8-Mile Road, in the city of Southville, and State of Michigan, herein called the Southville plant. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the design and manufacture, sale, and distribution of electronic welding controls and induction heating machines and related products. Respondent's plant located at Southville, Michi- gan, is the only facility involved in this proceeding. During the year ending December 31, 1973, which period is representative of its operations during all times material hereto, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased and caused to be transport- ed and delivered at its Southville plant goods and materials valued in excess of $1 million of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its plant in Southville, Michigan, directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. Accordingly, I find that Respondent is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts On June 27, 1973, Respondent and its assistant general manager, Thomas M. Sparschu, learned that there was union organizational activity among Respondent's employ- ees. Respondent wasted no time. Immediately thereafter in July 1973,2 Sparschu, accompanied by other high corpo- rate officials, began systematically holding meetings with various small groups of employees by departments. About these meetings Sparschu testified as follows: A. The purpose of the meetings was we had heard at that point and [of ] time unofficially that there was a potential union activity in the plant; that our employ- ees were dissatisfied with something. None of them had come forward through the complaint procedure or suggestion box or any petitions at that time. So we called a group of employees together at that time, small testified that these meetings occurred in "June and July" but Respondent's written announcements of the time refer only to July. 398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD groups, usually departmental groups and we indicated that we were aware that there apparently was union activity going on ; that we were making no promises and no threats, and that the purpose of our meeting was simply to inquire of them what they thought Robotron could do better in virtually all areas. And we received from them suggestions from fixing water fountains, doubling my wages, firing my superior, and 215 comments covering all areas . And during these meetings we virtually listened only unless somebody put a specific question to us about clarification of a policy, such as, 'Mr. Sparschu, what is the overtime policy,' and that type of thing. But basically we listed - we listened and recorded the comments of the employees and we ended each meeting again with the statement there were no promises, no threats implied or otherwise. So we were basically listening to employees' suggestions about what could be done to improve the situation at Robotron. Thus from the complaints, gripes, grievances, and suggestions expressed during these systematic meetings, Respondent received and recorded no less than 215 criticisms of all sorts and varieties from the employees. Thereafter management considered these matters in private. Although Respondent's beef suggests that the employees "volunteered" the above information , Sparschu ended his testimony by admitting : "We solicited comments and suggestions from all employees in the corporation." In a Robotroniques news release to all Respondent's employees dated September 6 Respondent announced: Working hour regulations New working hour rules and regulations effective October 1, 1973, will be published in the very near future. The final details of these new rules are now being developed; however, in order to provide suffi- cient time for review and analysis by our employees, we are hereby releasing the broad principles of these anticipated new rules. 1. Tardiness will be measured from the exact shift's starting time ; however, a 3 minute grace period will be allowed before any wages are docked. 2. A compromise compulsory and voluntary over- time system will be included to provide employees with working hour flexibility. 3. All Saturday working hours will be paid at time and one-half. 4. Lunch period will be increased to 42 minutes for all departments except sales which will continue to have 1 hour. 5. All employees will be allowed to prepare for lunch or to stop work at the appropriate 5-minute signals as required, but all employees will be required to remain at Robotron until the correct lunch or quitting time. 6. Coffee and other liquid refreshments may be obtained and consumed at any time during the day. This issue of Robotroniques ended as follows: Employee - Management meetings "A new series of Employee - Management meetings will be held early in October to assess Robotron's progress in resolving the many employee complaints which were registered during our July Employee- Management meetings." As luck would have it, the next day, September 7, the Union filed its representation petition for an election in the appropriate unit described as follows: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, shipping-receiving employees, truckdrivers, including electricians and toolmakers employed at the employer's two buildings commonly known as 21300 W. 8-Mile Road, Southville, Michigan, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, draftsmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. At the hearing the parties stipulated and, therefore, I find that "during the month of October, 1973, but before the election of October 24, [admitted supervisor ] Roger Dean asked Marcia Rich, Sue Devore and Sun Lewis , employees of Robotron at the time, whether they were for or against the Union, the charging party herein, in the upcoming election." On October 1, as a result of the meetings with employees, Respondent published its newly revised "work rules and regulations." In this document under a section entitled "rules of conduct" Respondent repromulgated, or repub- 1 ished, the following rules, among others: 11. Unauthorized soliciting or collecting contrib- utions during working hours. 12. Unauthorized distribution of literature on company property.3 On October 3 Sparschu for Respondent issued, in his phraseology, "a tabulation of some changes, or improve- ment that were made in the general situation at Robotron" which were distributed to a number of the employees. The first paragraph of this document reads as follows: Employment/Management meetings were held in July, 1973, during which 210 employee complaints were registered. Since that time the following 33 items have been completed which had corrected or improved 97 of the 210 complaints. Among other improvements mentioned in the above documents were the following: 1. Vacation plan revised and improved. 3. Absenteeism and tardiness system simplified and made more flexible. 3 It was stipulated at the hearing that "Robotron Corporation did not take any action to enforce said rules." ROBOTRON CORPORATION 399 4. Attendance award installed. s • r s s 12. Saturday overtime pay. / R • i ► 19. Tardiness grace period established. w r s s s 24. Refreshments allowed at any time. 25. Approximately 30 personal problems have been reviewed by management and/or Al Koehler. 26. Second tier wage levels published which affect approximately 27 employees. Among the other improvements mentioned therein were the purchase of some six pieces of machinery and certain environmental improvements which were made, especially to the water fountain and to the upstairs ladies' restroom. On October 24 the scheduled representation election was conducted among Respondent's employees resulting in a vote of 60 to 51 against union representation. On October 29 the Union filed objections to the conduct of this election based in large part on the matters mentioned heretofore. November 28 proved to be a busy day. Through a Robotroniques dated that day Respondent notified its employees as follows: Wage Adjustment We have completed our analysis of Robotron's wage structure and will put a general increase for all employees into effect on December 3, 1973 (paycheck issued December 12, 1973). Historically many factors influenced our decision on the magnitude of this wage increase. It has evolved into a truly general increase inasmuch as we have given consideration to all of the following items. 1. Government Anti-Inflation Program. 2. Cost of Living. 3. Productivity 4. Competitive Wage Conditions. 5. Robotron's Financial Condition.4 Also on that same day the Regional Director issued and had served on Respondent an order sustaining Union's Objection I to the election of October 24, i.e., that Respondent's no-solicitation and no-distribution rules were illegal and inhibited the employee's freedom of choice in the representation election , so that he recommended that said election be set aside. In pertinent part the Regional Director held: This objections [sic] contends that the Employer's rules prohibiting solicitation and distribution of litera- ture are unlawful. These rules, which had been in effect for a substantial period of time and were repromulgat- ed effective October 1, 1973, during the preelection period and, inter alia, prohibiting certain conduct are verbatim as follows: 11. Unauthorized soliciting or collecting contributions during working hours. 12. Unauthorized distribution of literature on company property. Violation of these rules subject an employee to a four-step disciplinary action procedure, culminating in discharge. The evidence is undisputed that these rules were maintained by the Employer during the preelection period. Moreover, these rules were repromulgated effective October 1, 1973, so that the employees would know that they were still in effect. Under Board precedent, any rule of this nature is presumptively invalid. Campbell Soup Company, 159 NLRB 71, 81-82 (1966); Southern Electronics Co., Inc., 175 NLRB 69, 72 (1969); Avon Convalescent Center, 200 NLRB 702 (1973). The Ohio Masonic Home, 205 NLRB 357 (1973). The Board has held that the mere existence of an unlawful no-solicitation or distribution rule, irrespec- tive of enforcement, warrants a new election as its mere existence chills freedom of permissible conduct. P. R. Mallory & Co., 167 NLRB 647, 648 (1967); Edmont, Inc., 139 NLRB 1528 (1962); Sterling Faucet Company, Texas Division, 203 NLRB 1031 (1973). The Employer avers that the phrase "working hours" was understood by employees not to apply to their own time such as coffee breaks and lunch time; yet the term "working hours" has been held presumptively invalid on its face and the rules mere existence has a hampering impact on legitimate organizational activi- ties. ESB, Inc., Exide Alkaline Battery Div., 177 NLRB 778, 785 (1969). Rex Disposables Division of DHJ Industries Inc., 201 NLRB 727 (1973). Accordingly, it is recommended that Petitioner's Objection No. 1 be sustained. As of December 4 Respondent- supplied its supervisors with a list of wage increases for each employee under that supervisor's supervision. The supervisors then informed the employees under them individually as to the wage increase each had received. These December 4 wage increases which Respondent granted consisted of a 21-cent cost-of-living increase plus a 4-percent wage increase to each of its employees which totaled around 40 cents per hour per employee, the largest wage increase Respondent had ever granted.5 This 1973 wage increase was first reflected in the paychecks received by its employees on December 13, 1973. On December 21 a Board panel consisting of Chairman Miller and Members Fanning and Penello approved, in the absence of exceptions, the Regional Director's decision of November 2, and ordered the October 24 election set aside and a second election to be held. The payroll eligibility date for voters in the rerun election was December 23, 4 The above announcement was a verbatim copy of an announcement Respondent made to its employees in a Robotroniques dated November 29, 1972. 5 The December 1972 wage increase had been between 12-14 cents per hour, the 1971 increase had been a 3 -percent wage increase and in 1970 it had been 15 cents per hour. 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1973.6 The second election was held on January 17, 1974. This time the vote was 64 to 55 against representation. On January 22, 1974, the Union filed its objections to the rerun election. On March 20, 1974, the Union withdrew all its objections to that election except the one pertaining to the December 4, 1973, wage increases. On March 22 the instant complaint together with the objections to the rerun election was issued by the Region. B. Conclusions Thus the facts here prove that in July 1973, immediately upon the Respondent's discovery of the union organizing campaign among its employees, Respondent for the first time in its history solicited from all its employees through a systematic series of meetings held by and with Sparschu and other top echelon management personnel all the gripes, grievances, and/or suggested improvements for Respondent that they had or could think of. In all Respondent received-and recorded-210 or 215 of these suggestions. Of course, as Sparschu testified, Respondent was careful to begin and conclude each of the systematic inquiry meetings by stating that "we are making no promises and no threats." Despite their reiteration these words must be classed solely as pure rhetoric. Few, if any, employees would be so naive as to believe that Respondent was soliciting their gripes, grievances, etc. at these systematic meetings and at the cost of production just for the fun of it or to waste time. This is particularly so in view of the timing of these systematic meetings followed so immediately after the beginning of the Union's organizational drive. Despite Sparschu's statements, the implication from these meetings that the Respondent intended to satisfy such grievances and thus block the Union's organizational drive is so clear as to be unmistaka- ble. Remove the dissatisfactions and there would be no need for a uiiion. Under the circumstances here Respondent's systematic solicitation of employees' dissatisfactions immediately on learning of the organizational drive constitutes interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion of its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.7 It is so found. If there could be any doubt remaining about the implications ansing as to the purposes of the employee- management meetings , that doubt was resolved by Spar- schu's announcement of September 6 of the "New Working Hour Rules and Regulations effective October 1. 1973."8 The implicit had thus become explicit. This, of course, was followed on October 3 with the announcement of the 33 unilaterally made changes in wages, hours, and working conditions which Respondent announced "im- proved or corrected 97 of the 210 complaints" received from the employees. Once again the timing of these announcements alone proved the interconnection between the benefits promised and the union organizing campaign. As the possibility existed that these 33 changes might prove insufficient for Respondent 's purposes , Respondent had carefully in its September 6 announcement presented the employees with yet another "carrot" by announcing that further employee-management meetings would be held "early in October." The election, of course, was scheduled for October 24. The facts require, and therefore I find, that the benefits so conferred by Respondent on its employees on October 1, 1973, were conferred for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by thereby purportedly eliminating the necessity or reason for union representation in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act. See N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964). Finally as to events prior to the first election of October 24, based upon the stipulation, I must find that Respond- ent interrogated three of its then employees as to whether they were for or against the Union in the upcoming election. This is such a well-known violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as not to require any citation of authority. On October 1 Respondent republished or repromulgated its existing no-solicitation rule prohibiting unauthorized solicitations "during working hours" and its no-distribu- tion rule prohibiting unauthorized distributions without time limitation. As of that time, as the Regional Director found, Board law was settled that such rules were ambiguous as to time, were to be interpreted against the maker thereof and were illegal as constituting interference, restraint , and coercion of the employees by depriving them of the rights guaran- teed them in Section 7 of the Act thus violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Regional Director's November 28 ruling was a correct exposition of the then settled Board law. If perchance his ruling was not correct, then the Board was remiss in its December 21 affirmance thereof even in the absence of exceptions thereto. However, recently certain members of the Board have begun to perceive a purported distinction between the use of the words "company time," "work time," and "working time" in these rules in that the first two were ambiguous as to time because the break periods, lunchtime, and time in the restrooms were not specifically excluded from the prohibition of the rule. These Board members appeared to believe that the phrase "working time " or "while people are working" 9 was not ambiguous apparently because the legally trained mind recognized that one was not "work- 6 If the Regional Director's citation of the law applicable to the no- solicitation and no-distribution rules of Respondent had been incorrect as of that time, it would appear that even in the absence of exceptions it was incumbent upon the Board to correct the Regional Director. r Landis Tool Co, Div. of Litton Industries v. N.LR.B., 460 F.2d 23 (C.A. 3, 1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 915 (1972). N.LR.B. v. Tom Wood Pontiac, Inc., 447 F.2d 383 (C.A. 7, 1971). N.LR.B. v. Delight Bakery, Inc., 353 F.2d 344 (C.A. 5, 1965). 8 The following day, September 7, the Union filed its petition for representation. 8 In Litho Press of San Antonio, 211 NLRB 1014 (1974), the Board held: The above rule while containing some ambiguity in its first sentence reference to "company time" goes on to make clear that it was intended to restrict union solicitation only "while people are working" and thus leaves the employees free to engage in union solicitation during the employees' nonworking time. Accordingly as it is clear from the context that the rule does not apply to nonworking time, we find that the rule does not violate Section 8(ax1) of the Act. ROBOTRON CORPORATION 401 ing" while on breaks , at lunch, or in the restroom. The trouble with this, of course, is that this rule was made applicable to employees, very few, if any, of whom have been trained in such sophisticated legal technicalities. Rules covering employees should be phrased so as to be understandable to the employees to whom they are applicable. I find the phrase in Respondent's no-solicitation "during working hours" to be ambiguous in that this phrase may include all the hours from the beginning of work to the end of the workday and thus includes at least break periods, lunches, and visits to the restrooms, if not the lunch period. As the phrase is thus ambiguous as to time, the rule must be interpreted against the party promulgating the same in accordance with the rule of law settled during the early days of the English common law.10 Hence I find that both Respondent's republished no- solicitation and no-distribution rules violate Section 8(aXl) of the Act. Even if perchance I am wrong on the no-solicitation rule containing the words "during working hours," the no- distribution rule without any stated time limitation is still in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. Respondent spends only 8 out of 26 pages in its brief on the three unfair labor practices found above. It argues that Respondent has always encouraged employees to present grievances and has corrected them in the past . But never before in its history has Respondent ever held systematic meetings with all its employees actively soliciting their grievances. The brief also argues that there is no proof of any "antiunion attitude" on Respondent's part "through its action." But the brief also acknowledges that "the knowledge of possible organization activity caused the meeting [the July series of employee-management meet- ings ] to be held at that time." Hence Respondent knew that something was "bothering" its employees and creating interest in union representation which Respondent wanted to know about-and correct, as it did-before the election. Respondent's brief also argues that Respondent's no- solicitation and no-distribution rules were so buried in Respondent's 72 pages of rules and regulations that they could not have bothered the employees. But Respondent forgets that on October 1, just before the election, it reduced those 72 pages of rules into 3 pages of which the illegal rules were numbers 11 and 12 so that they were no longer buried. The brief also argues that after the Regional Director's decision it eliminated those rules . That was too late. Respondent's brief further claims that on September 6 when Sparschu announced the new rules effective as of October 1, Respondent thought the union activity had come to an end. But the next day the Union filed its R petition. The brief excuses Dean's illegal interrogation of Hence, finding no ambiguity, the Board did not interpret the rule against the maker thereof, the respondent-employer. ie In Coleman Co., 212 NLRB 927 (1974), a majority of the Board consisting of Chairman Miller and Members Kennedy and Penello, arguing that "but even assuming that the requirement of an application for charter membership is susceptible of that interpretation, that is not the only construction that is permissible; and therein lies the difficulty with the dissent," held as follows: We think that the requirement in the case before us of an application for charter membership is at least equally ambiguous and just as susceptible of an interpretation by the employees as it is to their benefit three employees on the ground that supervisors had been cautioned not to do this and that the interrogation was an "isolated event." One might agree on this last point if the other violations were not there. Finally, Respondent's brief suggests that "any wrongdoing on the part of the employer as it relates to those areas which were the subject matter of the first objection to the conduct of the election were remedied by the holding of a new election and the campaign period preceding the second election was unfettered with any like activities." While it is true that the Regional Director and the Board ordered a rerun election because of the illegal no-solicitation and no-distribution rules, neither did anything to "remedy" any of these three unfair labor practices nor could they as this was only an objection to election case. Nor in the light of the December 4 wage increases can one say that the "campaign period preceding the second election was unfettered with any like activities." Thus the facts here do not appear to justify the last part of the above-quoted sentence from Respondent's brief. At this point of time the Union had lost the election of October 24, had filed objections to that election and was awaiting a ruling thereon so that the possibility of a rerun election was still present. By a decision dated November 28 the Regional Director, as noted above, considered one objection, sustained it, and recommended a rerun election which was subsequently approved by the Board on December 21. Hence from October 29 on , a rerun election was a distinct possibility and from December 21 on, such rerun election was definite. By a Robotroniques dated "11-29-73" Respondent announced that Respondent would "put a general wage increase for all employees into effect on December 4, 1973 (paycheck issued December 13, 1973)." It is true that at least since 1969 Respondent had annually announced a general wage increase for its employees during the month of November. In fact the 1972 increase had been accounced in a Robotroniques dated "11-28-72" in identical terms with the announcement made in 1973. So that in 1973 Respondent was merely following- the established custom of several years' standing. Hence Respondent cannot be faulted for following its regular custom as to the pay increase in 1973 even with a rerun election in the offing. On "11-24-73" 11 Sparschu worked out four different options for figuring the 1973 wage increases: (1) a straight 41-cent per hour increase; (2) a 26-cent cost-of-living increase plus 3-percent increase of wages; (3) 21 cents for cost of living plus 4 percent of wages; and (4) 26 cents or 8 percent of wages. Thereafter Respondent chose option number 3 which resulted roughly in a 40-cent per hour increase per to make a union comnuttment before the election , and thereby "come in at the ground floor," to avoid paying the initiation fee. If the letter was not intended to be thus read , it was petitioner's duty, as explained in Inland Shoe Manufacturing Co., Inc., to clarify that ambiguity or settle whatever consequences might attach to employees ' possible interpretations of the ambiguity. ' In my opinion "working hours" is also susceptible of at least two different interpretations so the Coleman rule should be applied both in Litho and the instant case. 11 Sparschu's work sheets are so dated. 402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee figured as a 31-cent per hour or 11.8-percent increase for the low paid employees, 41 cent per hour for the medium paid and 50 cents per hour or 6.9 percent for the higher paid employees. The increase was applicable to all employees, supervisors, and officers of Respondent except its president, Sparschu, and one other. It is undisputed that this 1973 increase was the largest ever granted by Respondent as the 1972 increase was 12 - 14 cents per hour, the 1971 increase was 3 percent of wages and the 1970 increase was 15 cents per hour. On December 4 Respondent supplied each of its supervisors with a paper showing the wage increase for each employee under his supervision which the supervisor then took to the individual employee and notified him of his own individual increase. This record does not indicate that this method was not the customary method by which the individual employee learned of his annual increase so that, in the absence of any such evidence, it must be here assumed that this method of notification also was custom- ary. Under the economic conditions then existing the employees were surprised, gratified, and grateful when they received the December 13 checks containing the increase thus granted. As noted, the vote on January 17 was 64 to 55 against representation which was just about the same margin as in the October 24 election. Under these facts General Counsel in his brief argues: Effective December 3, 1973, Respondent granted to its employees a wage increase that averaged 40 cents per hour per employee. The General Counsel does not contend that the timing of the wage increase is suspect, as it has been Respondent's practice to give a yearly plant-wide wage increase in November or December. However, Respondent took advantage of its past practice to give its employees an increase much larger than they had ever before received in order to induce them to vote against the charging party. On the other hand Respondent argues in its brief that the December 4 increase "was rooted in historical pattern and traditions" of Respondent. I agree that the facts show this to be true both as to timing and factors considered. Respondent argues that the increase was economically required because at that time Respondent's wage rates had fallen so far out of line with area wage standards as not to be competitive in the job market especially with its rival Weltronics. It cites the fact that its turnover rate "doub- led." It fails to cite the facts that its employment complement in 1973 increased rather dramatically and that most of the turnover occurred among new hires which fails to confirm Respondent's contention. Respondent also cites the fact that in two departments it was having trouble in hiring or so Sparschu testified. This argument is weakened by the fact that Respondent made "wage adjustments" in these two departments in May 1973 which, of course, was supposed to correct that situation. Finally, it is argued in Respondent's brief that there is no showing in this record that Respondent had "an antiunion attitude through its actions" nor was there any antiunion motivation for the wage increases of December 4. To the contrary Respondent's antiunion attitude was clearly demonstrated by the systematic solicitation of grievances immediately upon its learning of the union organizational campaign and because of that campaign. Respondent's correction of 97 of the 210 grievances received through the solicitation thereof proves the same antiunion motivation on Respondent's part. No doubt because of the anticipated rerun election, Respondent was not at all sorry to be able to grant its employees the largest wage increase ever prior to the holding of the anticipated election. In the absence of the past history of Respondent's policy of giving raises in November and December, Respondent's antiunion moti- vation here could hardly have been clearer. But here that past history of annual November - December raises required that Respondent give raises as usual even with the knowledge of the forthcoming election. Under the circum- stances it seems quite clear that Respondent gave thanks for the past history in November - December 1973. That leaves only what General Counsel refers to as "the unusually large general wage increase" of December. As noted, this December 4 increase was admittedly the largest by far Respondent had ever granted its employees. If that increase was out of line then it appears that Respondent thereby was clearly attempting to induce the employees to vote against representation in the coming election. The sockdolager here is the fact that in September 1973, this same Union had negotiated a wage increase with Weltronic, Respondent's rival, located a mile or so away, under its contract with Weltronic. According to the undisputed evidence here, that negotiated wage increase at Weltronic amounted to 25 cents for cost of living plus 35 cents per hour or 60 cents per hour in total. In the light of this how can Respondent's 40 cents per hour increase be considered out of line particularly after enjoying a profitable year in 1973? These figures, however, raise a bothersome question. Sparschu's testimony here indicates that in 1973 Respond- ent's wages had fallen so far behind those of Weltronic that Respondent's were not competitive. Yet even after Wel- tronic's 60-cent wage increase, according to Sparschu, Respondent's 40-cent increase once again made Respond- ent's wage rates competitive. Taken at face value these figures would appear to put Respondent's wages another 20 cents per hour lower, or less competitive, than those of Weltronic's. General Counsel's brief fails to mention this apparent discrepancy and I fail to find anything in this record to explain this phenomenon. However, under the testimony in this record, while suspicious, I can only. fmd that Respondent's December 4 wage increase under the circumstances was economically justified and hence I recommend the dismissal of this allegation of the complaint. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, and occurring in connection with Respondent's operation described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to ROBOTRON CORPORATION 403 labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY 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: Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent argues and General Counsel's brief, as I read it, appears to agree that the three unfair labor practices found above, to wit, the systematic solicitation of gripes, grievances, and complaints from its employees, the no-solicitation and no-distribution rules, and the 33 announced improvements made unilaterally by Respond- ent as a result of the 215 solicited employees' suggestions, were "remedied" by the holding of the rerun election on January 17, 1974. I cannot agree. The Regional Director merely had objections to the election of October 24 before him, not unfair labor practices. He had no authority to find unfair labor practice violations and made no such findings. Hence he found no unfair labor practices and, therefore, corrected none. The three unfair labor practices mentioned heretofore are consequently still unremedied. Because of the timing, the type, and extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, it is clear that Respondent has an opposition to the policies of the Act in general, and, therefore, I deem it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with the rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record herein, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Robotron Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space, Agricultural Workers of America, UAW, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By systematically soliciting the gripes, grievances, and complaints from its employees, by maintaining and repromulgating its illegal no-solicitation and no-distribu- tion rules, and by unilaterally making changes and improvements intended to correct or improve the gripes, grievances, and complaints voiced by its employees in order to discourage union membership and activities among its employees, Respondent ir}terfered with, re- strained, and coerced in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act. 4. By granting the December 4, 1973, wage increase to all its employees, Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 12 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. ORDER 12 Respondent, Robotron Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from (a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employ- ees in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act by: systematically soliciting gripes, grievances, and com- plaints from its employees: maintaining and repromulgat- ing its illegal no-solicitation and no-distribution rules; and unilaterally making changes and improvements for the correction and improvement of the gripes, grievances, and complaints voiced by its employees. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify the employees that Respondent has rescinded its illegal no-solicitation and no-distribution rules. (b) Post at its Detroit, Michigan, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is hereby found that the only objection to the election of January 17, 1974, to wit, the wage increase granted by Respondent on December 4, 1973, be, and the same is, hereby overruled. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless Respondent notified said Regional Director within 20 days from the receipt hereof that it will take the action here ordered, the Board issue an Order directing Respondent to take the action here ordered. 13 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."