PBM Industries, Inc.

PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE DIVISION OF PBM INDUSTRIES Professional Building Maintenance Division of PBM Industries, Inc. and Local 208, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases' 25- CA-6248, 25--CA-6248-Z-_ and 25-CA-6248-3 March 27, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On December 20, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Thomas F. Maher issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex- ceptions and supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this preceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings,2 conclusions,3 and recommendations of the Adminis- trative Law Judge with the following modifications. 1. The Administrative Law Judge found that al- though the curtailment in overtime, which occurred in early 1974, was motivated by economic considerations, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Vice President Bowman's acquiescence in a statement made to employee Carrigan that the reduction in hours was due to resistance to Local 67. In addition, in his Remedy section, the Administrative Law Judge states, perhaps inadvertently, that "Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) . . . (3). . . ." The General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to find specifically that Respondent's cut in overtime con- stituted a violation of Section 8(a)(3). We conclude that I In fn. 4 of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, he refuses to accept an offer of proof by Respondent because it is contrary to the testimony of a witness whom he credits. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's ruling, but on the grounds that Respondent's offer of proof was not a proper one because no evidence had been excluded at the time the offer was made, See Rule 43(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; McCormick, Evidence § 51 (2d ed. 1972). 2\'91e note that in sec. II, in the Order, and in the notice of the Administra- tive Law Judge's Decision, he erroneously refers to Maintenance, Service and Production Workers Union, Local No. 67, as Local 67, Service Em- ployees International Union, AFL-CIO. In addition, his reference in sec. III, A, par. 2, to Local 67 as "another constitutent local" is incorrect because it is an independent union and not an affiliate of the AFL-CIO We also note that, through apparent inadvertence, the Administrative Law Judge erroneously refers to employee Rose Bushwty and Mrs Beasley in sec. III, A, par. 4 of his Decision. Mrs. Beasley's testimony is summarized in pars. 12 and 13 of the same section. 3 The General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to find and conclude and to receive and report the evidence showing that Respondent committed certain alleged additional violations of Sec 8(a)( l) and (2). We find it unnecessary to pass on these allegations, as they would be essentially cumulative 127 Respondent's conduct in regard to this matter violated neither Section 8(a)(3) nor (1) of the Act. On the basis of the undisputed testimony of two witnesses, the Administrative Law Judge found that the reduction in hours was in fact motivated solely by economic and not antiunion considerations. Therefore, it is elementary that Respondent's action was not viola- tive of Section 8(a)(3). In regard to the 8(a)(1), the record does not support the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Vice President Bowman acquiesced in a statement made to Carrigan that the cut was made because of resistance to Local 67. In fact, the record reveals that Williams did telephone Carrigan while Vice President Bowman was present, but that Williams did not discuss the sub- ject to curtailed overtime; rather, Williams tolk Carri- gan of the economic benefits of Local 67 membership. At this point, Carrigan commented that the way Re- spondent "was moving the people around . . . causing trouble with the people . . . they would be out of busi- ness by `75." The telephone conversation ended shortly thereafter. About a week later, Bowman told Carrigan his overtime was cut because of his statement that the Company would be out of business in 1975. It is thus obvious that Carrigan's comment was unrelated to union activities and Bowman's reference to that com- ment was equally unrelated to the exercise of Section 7 rights. Accordingly, Bowman's statement was not violative of Section 8(a)(1). 2. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- spondent did not refuse to bargain with Local 208 in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and recom- mended dismissal of the portion of the complaint. We agree, but so find because there is no evidence in the record of a request to, and/or a refusal by, Respondent to bargain with Local 208. We specifically disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's application of the Midway Piping doctrine4 herein. Thus, in the fourth paragraph of sec. III, B, of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, he concludes that, under the Midwest Piping doctrine, Re- spondent has obligated to maintain a position of strict neutrality during the pendency of the representation petition filed by Local 67. However, inasmuch as Re- spondent unlawfully assisted Local 67 prior to Febru- ary 28, 1974, the filing of the petition on that date did not raise a real question concerning representation' and therefore the neutrality principle of Midwest Piping did not come into operation. 3. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Local 208 enjoys a presumption of majority status and that Respondent's obligation to bargain continues de- spite the dismissal of the 8(a)(5) allegation, but he found it unnecessary to include a remedial bargaining 4 Midwest Piping and Supply Company, Inc., 63 NLRB 1060 (1945). 217 NLRB No. 28 / 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD order. However, in the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to order that Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 208 in order to restore the parties' bargaining relationship to that which existed prior to Respondent's commission of un- fair labor practices. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Professional Building Maintenance Division of PBM Industries, Inc., is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. , 2. Local -208, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, and Maintenance, Service and Pro- duction Workers Union, Local No. 67, are labor organ- izations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent-has engaged in conduct pro, scribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By , assisting and contributing to the support of Maintenance, Service and Production Workers Union, Local No. 67, Respondent has -engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondent did not violate the Act in the other respects alleged in the complaint. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Laobr Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Professional Building Maintenance Division of PBM Industries, Inc., Valparaiso, Indiana, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Rendering unlawful aid, assistance, or support to Maintenance, Service and Production Workers Union, Local No. 67, or any other labor organization. (b) Interrogating its employees unlawfully with re- spect to their union meetings and activities and their union preferences. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with Local 208, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the unit described below, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. The' unit is: All custodial employees employed by the Em- ployer at its Indiana and Illinois facilities , includ- ing janitors; floor waxers; routemen, window cleaning, belt and above; three section laddermen; and apprentices; but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Post at its facilities throughout Illinois and In- diana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.i5 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to in- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- with. 'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. 5 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 WILL NOT render unlawful aid, assistance, or support to Maintenance, Service and Production Workers Union, Local No. 67, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our em- ployees with respect to their union meetings and activities and their union preferences. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with Local 208, Service Employees In- ternational Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the 'unit described below, and embody in a` signed agreement any understanding reached. The unit is: PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE DIVISION OF PBM INDUSTRIES All custodial employees employed at our In- diana and Illinois facilities, including janitors; floor waxers; routemen, window cleaning, belt and abore; three section laddermen; and ap- prentices; but excluding all office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE DIVISION OF PBM INDUSTRIES, INC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS F. MAHER, Administrative Law Judge: Upon charges filed on April 18 and 22 and May 31, 1970, by Local 208, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local 208, against Professional Building Maintenance Division of PBM Industries, Inc., Respondent herein, the Regional Director for Region 25 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board on June 28, 1974, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 etseq.), herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent, while admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Valparaiso, In- diana, where all parties were present, represented, and pro- vided full opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses, to make oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed with me by both counsel for the General Counsel and the Re- spondent on September 18, and 24, 1974, respectively. Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, and specifically upon my observations of witnesses appearing before me,t I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. THE NATURE OF THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS Professional Building Maintenance Division of PBM In- dustries, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its principal office and place of business in Valparaiso, Indiana, where it is engaged in the business of providing and performing build- ing maintenance, custodial, janitorial, and related services to various industrial and commercial facilities both within and outside the State of Indiana. Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchases, transfers, and delivers to its Indiana facilities goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are transferred to said facilities di- I Bishop and Malco, 159 NLRB 1159 (1966). 129 rectly from States other than the State of Indiana. During the same period it performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of Indiana. Upon the foregoing facts, admitted by Respondent in its pleadings, I conclude and find it to be an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted in the pleadings and I accordingly conclude and find that Local 208 and Local 67, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts In 1962 a majority of the Respondent's employees selected Local 208, the Charging Union herein, as their bargaining representative in a union, admittedly appropriate for bargain- ing purposes, as follows: All custodial employees of the Respondent, including janitors; floor waxers; routemen; window cleaning, belt and above; three section laddermen; and apprentice em- ployees of the Respondent employed at its Indiana and Illinois facilities, exclusive of all office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervi- sors as defined in the Act. Since 1962 the Respondent and Local 208 have engaged in collective bargaining and have executed consecutive collec- tive agreements covering the employees in the foregoing unit. Beginning in February 1974 considerable interest deve- loped among a number of Respondent's supervisors and offi- cials in Local 67, another constituent local of Maintenance, Service and Production Workers Union. This local, it ap- pears, was headquartered at 30 East 42nd Street, New York, New York, and its only address in the vicinity of Respon- dent's operations was Holiday Inn, in nearby Portage, Indiana.' On February 28 Local 67 filed with the Regional Director a petition for an election in Case 25-RC-5639 among the Respondent's employees in the foregoing bargaining unit. The Regional Director issued his Decision and Direction of Election on April 5, 1974. Thereafter, following the filing of the charge in the instant proceeding he issued, on July 15, an order withdrawing decision and direction and notification of dismissal of petition without prejudice. In early February two of Respondent's employees, L. C. Ballenger and Rose Bushwty, both assigned to the cleaning detail at the General Telephone building in Valaparaso, had a conversation relating to union representation with their supervisor, Paul Matthews. As credibly described by each, they were on a coffeebreak in the cafeteria and Matthews approached and asked to join them. In the course of conversa- tion Matthews told them that they would be visited by two 2 The pleadings indicate that the New York headquarters address of Local 76 is also the address of its designated attorney, Christopher McGrath, Esq., and acknowledgments of documents have been signed in the firm's name, McGrath and Cohen, at the same address 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD men from "another union." He disclaimed any knowledge of whom they were and stated that he was not supposed to know anything about it. He then told the two employees that Bob Oakley, one of Respondent's employees on the day shift in the General Telephone Building, would be bringing the two union men around. Several evenings later Supervisor Mat- thews returned and brought Oakley with him. On this occa- sion, according to Mrs. Beasley who questioned him sharply on the purpose of the meeting, Matthews told the two em- ployees that Oakley had "a man from the union with him," without identifying which union. Matthews then stated that he had been instructed to give Oakley the keys to the building and get lost. Oakley then proceeded to proclaim in detail the virtues of Local 67 and give each of the two employees union authorization cards to sign. He also stated that because of the tight security in the building it was impossible to bring a union representative in with him, but that if they wished to discuss matters further the gentleman would be waiting for them outside the gate in Respondent's van. Upon taking his leave Oakley announced that his next visit would be at the Porter County Court House where Respondent also has a cleaning contract. Neither Matthews nor Oakley were called to refute the conduct and statements attributed to them. Employee Fred Harris, floorman employed by Respondent at the Bethlehem Steel plant, credibly described a visitor he had while at work sometime in February. After having re- ceived two or three letters urging his support of Local 67, Harris was visited at the plant by a gentleman who intro- duced himself as a representative of Local 67 and gave him a Local 67 authorization card to sign. The representative was observed by Harris to have driven up to the plant in a van owned by the Respondent. This visitor was joined by two other men who also identi- fied themselves as being from Local 67. All three spent con- siderable time urging Harris to sign the card and upon his insistent refusal stated that they had to move on and get more signatures.- Several days after this incident Harris had a conversation with his foreman, Roger Russell. Russell inquired of him how the Local 208 meeting held on the previous evening, February 22, had gone. Russell then stated that as far as he was con- cerned "the best bet would be a company union."' That Respondent's participation in Local 67's campaign was not merely the expression of the individual sentiments and actions of several of its minor supervisors was illustrated by the credited testimony of Fred Baker, Respondent's opera- tions manager in Gary, Indiana, at this particular time. Thus Baker described how in early February his supervisor, Johnny R. Garmon, Respondent's area manager for Lake County, Indiana, instructed him to remain in his office to meet two union officials, "from another union." Baker's in- structions from Garmon were to take one of these officials to the American Bridge plant where Respondent had a contract, and "show him around." He was then to take the representa- tive to Scot Lad, a food distribution account in Lansing, Illinois, where Respondent also had a cleaning contract. With respect to the second union representative, Garmon in- structed Baker to call a Mr. Ed Greer at American Oil (pre- sumably as employee or supervisor of Respondent at the 3 Russell was not called to testify. plant), and have him come pick up the gentleman and bring him back to the American Oil plant. When Baker suggested to Germon that what he was being asked to do was not permissible under the security regulations of the respective accounts Germon replied that that was a matter between Bowman, Respondent's vice president of operations, and the accounts concerned. He was further instructed not to men- tion anything about this to the supervisors under his direc- tion. When Baker called Greer to arrange for the picking up of the union representative Greek stated that he needed no help in getting to the American Oil plant as he had been there the night before. The union man agreed and went to the plant by himself. The second union representative was driven by Baker to the American Bridge plant, turned over to Supervi- sor Louis Mann at the gate, and the two of them were ob- served by Baker to have passed through the security gate and on into the plant. All of the foregoing activity consumed so much time that evening that no one ever did get to the Scot Lad facility. Upon further questioning Baker stated that the purpose of these visits by the union representatives was to talk to Respon- dent's employees who worked there concerning the benefits to be derived by joining Local 67, and that Garmon had so informed him. Shortly thereafter Baker was discharged from Respon- dent's employ. On the occasion of his discharge Area Manager Garmon was in telephonic conversation with Vice President Bowman. Garmon actually repeated a statement made over the telephone by Bowman, stating, according, to Baker's credited testimony, "You're not reliable, and didn't do like you were told with the Union men. I told you to take them around, not the supervisor."4 In further support of his contention that Respondent was actively assisting Local 67's efforts to solicit membership among its employees, counsel for the General Counsel offered the testimony of Esther Beasley, which I consider to be more significant. Mrs. Beasley testified to the correct spelling of her given name as E-S-T-H-E-R, and to the fact that her pay checks are habitually made out to her incorrectly spelled, thus: E-S-T-E-R, and that her name appears so misspelled on Respondent's personnel records. In support of this latter tes- timony computer printouts of Respondent's "Active Em- ployee Report" shows her Social Security number and name, thus: "317-208-893 BEASLEY ESTER." Counsel for the General Counsel then introduced into evidence an envelope received in the mail by Mrs. Beasley, with the return address as follows: Maintenance, Service and Production Workers Union, Local 67 National Headquarters 30 East 42d Street, New York, New York 10017 This and a like envelope also received by her at a later date were postmarked at Michigan City, Indiana. Each envelope 4 I do not accept Respondent counsel's offer of-proof that if Germon were called as a witness he would deny the statement attributed to him Upon my observation of him I am satisfied that Baker is a credible witness. Bowman was not called as a witness to deny the statement and conduct attributed to him. PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE DIVISION OF PBM INDUSTRIES received was addressed to: "Ester Beasley." The obvious in- ference to be drawn from the identical misspellings herein, and the inference which I do draw, is that Local 67 was supplied the employees' names by the Respondent from its official lists, including the misspelled name of Mrs. Beasley. It appears also that in a conversation with Supervisor Larry Adams on May 4 Adams asked Mrs. Beasley to sup- port and vote for Local 67 . In view of Mrs. Beasley's further testimony that it was she who had sought out Adams and asked him what he thought about Local 67 I shall not con- sider this conversation as evidence of Respondent's efforts in Local 67's behalf. Finally we come to the experiences of James Carrigan, a floorman in Respondent 's employ. In late February 1974, according to a synthesis of all the testimony in the record, overtime was curtailed generally throughout the operations. Carrigan received a telephone call from employee Cleo Wil- liams, assigned to an account of Respondent in Gary, and was told by him that the reason the hours were being cut was because of resistance to Local 67 . Carrigna further testified credibly that Vice President Al Bowman told him that he, Bowman, was present with Williams when he was making the phone call to Carrigan from Gary. Quite apart from the statements attributed to Williams, which I find to have been heard by Bowman, the subject of curtailed overtime has aspects which deserve reasonable ex- planation. Apart from Carrigan's second-hand information about the curtailment of the overtime , Fred Baker, the former operations manager called as a witness by General Counsel, credibly testified that he had had many arguments with higher management over the cutting of hours in January and indicated that although this was for the purpose of "balancing accounts" he never thought "the accounts could stand it," and he so argued. This comports with the testimony of Re- spondent's board chairman, Harold Mitchell, to the effect that in the renegotiation of a contract with Bethlehem Steel about that time 200 hours were cut. It is to be emphasized at this point, however, that regardless of the economic motiva- tion for the cut in overtime the credible evidence is still before me that Vice President Bowman acquiesced in a statement made to Carrigan that the cut was being made because of resistance to Local 67. Analysis and Conclusions A consideration of the foregoing findings, based as they are upon the testimony of credible witnesses, clearly discloses that the Respondent had a intense interest in the successful outcome of Local 67's campaign to represent the employees. It provided the persuasive assistance of its supervisors, who not only spoke in behalf of Local 67 but interrogated the employees concerning their personal perferences and the ac- tivities of the incumbent union, Local 208 . It used an economically motivated cut in overtime hours as an instru- ment of persuasion . It transported Local 67 representatives from one account to another for the purpose of soliciting employees and provided the names for these individuals to pass through otherwise impenetrable security precautions, and then made escorts available as they visited among the employees. And all of this with little or no effort to conceal its mission. And finally, they provided Local 67 , an organiza- 131 tion of doubtful heritage, with a list of their rank-and-file personnel. Section 8(a)(2) of the Act deems it to be a unfair labor practice for an employer "to dominate or interfere wtih the formation of administration of any labor organization or con- tribute financial or other support to it." Citation of authority is hardly necessary to equate the findings I have made herein with these specific proscriptions. On these findings I would accordingly conclude that the assistance rendered to Local 67, as detailed above, is precisely the conduct which the cited provision of the Act precludes. At each step of the way Re- spondent's officials and supervisors intruded themselves into an area of its employees' affairs where it had no legitimate concern, and by this conduct clearly curtailed the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Act. By this conduct, therefore, I conclude and find that Respondent has assisted Local 67 and has contributed to its support in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, and by the same conduct as well as by the interro- gation of its employees and the threats implicit in its explana- tion of the reduction of overtime, it has interfered with its employees in the exercise of their statutory rights, thus violat- ing Section 8(a)(1). It is further alleged that by the foregoing conduct Re- spondent has unlawfully refused to bargain with Local 208 in violation of Section (a)(5) of the Act. At the outset it is to be noted that there is no independent evidence of an overt refusal by Respondent to bargain with Local 208. On the contrary, the filing of the petition for an election on February 28 and the subsequent issuance of a decision and direction of election which found a question of representation to exist makes it clear that bargaining with any one during this period would be at Respondent 's peril. Indeed it was Respondent's obligation throughout the pendency of this petition to maintain a strict neutrality ,' which I have already found it has failed to do. It goes without saying that this obligation of neutrality is equally applicable to Respon- dent's relationship with Local 208, regardless of its certified representative status prior to the filing of the petition in 25-RC-5639 . I will recommend , therefore, that so much of the complaint as relates to the allegation that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) be dismissed. The findings I have made herein have , of course, effectively established that the question of representation first found by the Regional Director in 25-RC-5639 does not, in fact, exist. The Regional Director anticipated this eventuality in July 1974, after the complaint herein had been issued , when he withdrew his Decision and Direction of Election and dis- missed the petition. Implicit in this action is the continuance of the bargaining relationship between Respondent and Local 208 as it existed prior to the filing of the petition . Accord- ingly, nothing in my decision, including my recommendation that the Section 8(a)(5) allegations be dismissed , is to be construed as suggesting any change in the Respondent's bar- gaining relationship prior to February 28, 1974. Presump- tively Local 208 continues to represent Respondent's em- ployees in the bargaining unit and Respondent 's obligation to 5 Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060, William Penn Broadcasting Co., 93 NLRB 1104 (1951) 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargain with it continues undiminished' and without need of further order of direction. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth 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 labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 6 NLRB. v Ray Brooks, 248 U.S. 96 V THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by rendering unlawful assistance and support to Local 67, interrogating its employees , threatening them with respect to-the curtailing of overtime, and explaining this cur- tailment in a discriminatory fashion , I shall recommend that an Order issue requiring that it cease and desist therefrom and from any like or related manner interfering with its em- ployees in the exercise of their statutory rights. Affirmatively I shall recommend that notice of compliance with such Order be posted. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]