Pontotoc Wire Products Co.

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pontotoc Wire Products Company and United Rub- ber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Ameri- ca, Afl' L-CIIO. Cases 26-CA-5289 and 26-CA-5319 September 15, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On March 25, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a 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 proceeding 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 all rulings,' findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge with the exeption of those below discussed, and to adopt his recommended Order as hereafter modified. 1. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Company through the statements on September 27, 1974, of Tommy Morris, the third-shift supervisor, unlawfully threatened employees with the loss of tak- ing break privileges in his office because they had given testimony to a Board agent. We find, however, that the circumstances of import to an evaluation of Morris' statement do not support finding it to be in violation of the Act. The undisputed evidence clearly shows that the Union's organizational campaign was full of "dirty tricks." At the hearing, some of the union supporter employees admitted that two of the three present in Morris' office on September 27 had engaged in a concerted effort to entrap Morris into making unlawful statements. These same union sup- ' The Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's refusal to admit into evidence a copy of a letter which Respondent mailed to its em- ployees for the purpose of disavowing and retracting certain threats which Respondent allegedly made. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the letter was not a complete disavowal and was an insuffi- cient legal retraction of certain conduct which we have found violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. Nevertheless, we think the better practice in this situation would have been to admit the letter into evidence. In any event, we have considered the letter and rejected Respondent's contention concerning it. Thus, no prejudice has been sustained by Respondent because of the ruling by the Administrative Law Judge. 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence 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. porters also admitted that they had submitted to the Board perjured affidavits which falsely accused Mor- ris of making illegal statements. Thus, in the af- ternoon of September 27, at a time he normally would have been sleeping, Morris spent several hours responding to the inquiries of a Board investigator regarding statements which the affidavits falsely al- leged that he had made. Therefore, Morris testified that when he began work that evening he was both "tired and mad." He was "mad" because, as he put it, the employees had been "lying" about him and he did not like it. In his anger, he told the employees who gathered in his office that evening that in the future they should take their breaks in the appointed break area and not in his office, and that if they needed to come into his office to see him they should come in one at a time. However, according to the credited testimony, despite Morris' statement, the employees have continued to gather and take their breaks in Morris' office. In the above factual context, we are unwilling to conclude that Morris' statements to the employees represented anything more than an understandable display of anger provoked by his belief-well found- ed as the events of the hearing proved-that one or more of those who used his office for their breaks had lied about him to the Board. We therefore find no 8(a)(1) violation. 2. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the validi- ty of that part of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision as predicates 8(a)(1) findings on the facts that Supervisor Horton asked employee Davis what he thought about the Union, and Supervisor Fergu- son asked employee Putte how he thought the Union was going. In light of other facts establishing 8(a)(1) violations, including unlawful interrogation of other employees concerning union activities, our dispos- tion of exceptions taken by Respondent to the find- ings would neither add to, nor detract from, the terms of our remedial order herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pon- totoc Wire Products Company, Pontotoc, Mississip- pi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) the phrase "and threatening employees with the loss of break periods in the office because they give testimony to an agent 220 NLRB No. 41 PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY of the National Labor Relations Board." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees concerning their union activities and what they think about the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that should they select the Union as their bargaining representative, the Company would be harder on them and would restrict their breaks. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that should they vote the Union in it would not get a contract and the employees would not get any more from the Company than they already have. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees they cannot get a job anywhere in Pontotoc, Missis- sippi, because they sign union handbills. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Pontotoc , Mississippi, on January 13 through 16, 1975, pursuant to a charge filed on September 9, 1974,1 by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plas- tic Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Union), in Case 26-CA-5289 and a first amended charge 2 filed on October 24 by the Union in Case 26- CA-5319 and a consolidated complaint issued on Novem- ber 7. The consolidated complaint alleged 3 that Pontotoc Wire i All dates referred to are in 1974 unless otherwise stated. 2 The original charge in Case 26-CA-5319 was filed on September 30 3 Certain other allegations were either withdrawn or dismissed at the hearing. Further, the testimonies of Rodney Russell and Larry Mooneyhan, 277 Products Company (herein referred to as the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union memberships, activities, and desires and about what they wanted from the Respondent; threatened those employees for the Union they did not know what they were getting into and the Respondent would be harder on them and restrict their breaktime benefits if the Union came into the plant; threatened employees the Union would not get a contract and they would not get any more than they al- ready had, that those employees who had signed the union handbill were being blackballed at other Pontotoc plants, and the Union would be out if a contract was not negotiat- ed within 12 months; threatened employees with the loss of break privileges in the office because employees had given testimony to the Board; announced more stringent en- forcement of plant rules because of employees' union ac- tivities; ° informed an employee his wife was was not al- lowed to come into the plant because of his union activities; threatened an employee that wearing union in- signia meant the employee was mad at a supervisor; and by issuing a reprimand to employee Joseph Payne and an oral warning to employee Roger Davis and refusing to res- cind them because of their union or concerted activities. Respondent in its answer filed on November 29 denied having violated the Act. The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-exam- ine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Upon the entire record 5 in this case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent,' I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a corporation, has an office and place of business located at'Pontotoc, Mississippi, where it is en- gaged in the business of manufacturing magnetic wire and related products. During the 12-month period preceding November 7, 1974, Respondent in the operation of its Pon- totoc plant purchased and received products valued in ex- cess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Mississippi and sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Pontotoc plant directly to points located outside the State of Mississippi. Respondent admitted, and I find, that it is an employer who were discredited as witnesses, have not been considered for those rea- sons given at the hearing ° This announcement as set forth in the General Counsel's more definite statement allegedly occurred when Respondent's supervisor, Tommy Mor- ris, told Respondent's employees "he was going to have to start enforcing a list of plant rules which he read to or discussed with the employees " 5 The General Counsel's opposed motion to correct the record is hereby granted except for those corrections urged on p 19, 17, and on p 444, 1 21, where the words "multiplex" and "plan" have already been corrected by the court reporter. Respondent's proposed corrections are granted 6 The Charging Party did not submit a brief 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admitted, and I find, that the United Rub- ber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent operates a plant located at Pontotoc, Missis- sippi, where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing magnetic wire and related products. Included among its supervisory personnel are Plant Manager Donald Stephan, Shift Supervisor Tommy Morris, Quality Control Supervi- sor Van Horton, and Plant Superintendent Billy Ferguson? The Union began an organizing campaign among Respondent's employees. On July 15 it filed a representa- tion petition seeking to represent the Respondent's produc- tion and maintenance employees. An election was held on August 16 which the Union won. However, pursuant to a stipulation, the election was set aside and a second election was held on December 6 in which a majority of the ballots were cast against the Union and the results of that election were certified on December 16. These proceedings arose out of that organizational cam- paign. B. Interference With and Restraint and Coercion of Respondent's Employees The General Counsel presented a number of witnesses who testified to certain conduct engaged in by Respondent's supervisory personnel which, except for cer- tain incidents, they denied. Roger Davis, an alleged discriminatee, testified about July 26, Quality Control Supervisor Horton accompanied him in his automobile to look at a tractor. During the re- turn trip Davis stated Horton asked him what he thought about the Union, whereupon he replied he didn't know. Horton then commented it was getting pretty serious. Af- terwards they both laughed. Quality Control Supervisor Horton admitted having asked Davis what he thought about the union deal they had going at the plant whereupon Davis told him he didn't know and sort of shrugged it off. Based upon both their testimonies I find Quality Control Supervisor Horton interrogated Davis concerning what he thought about the Union. Douglas Putte testified in August while at a service sta- tion he had a conversation with the Plant Superintendent Ferguson who was also there. During the conversation Putte stated Ferguson asked him how he thought the Union was going to go whereupon he told Ferguson he r Respondent admitted, and I find, that these four individuals were super- visors within the meaning of the Act. didn't know and it could go either way but he didn't think they had anything to worry about. Plant Superintendent Ferguson acknowledged having asked Putte about how the Union was going down there. According to Ferguson when Putte replied he didn't know but hoped it didn't come in, he informed Putte it was left up to the employees. Based upon both their testimonies I find Plant Superin- tendent Ferguson interrogated Putte concerning what he thought about the Union. David Hattox stated on July 30 after returning to work following an accident he asked Plant Superintendent Fer- guson about some union buttons which he had observed the employees wearing. Hattox did not recall Ferguson's answer but stated Ferguson then made the statement he dust hoped they knew what they were doing and asked him if he knew what they wanted. After replying he guessed more money, Hattox returned to work. Under cross-exami- nation Hattox said Ferguson also told him the employees had their rights and they could do what they wanted. Hat- tox, who had previously engaged in union activities at the plant and started wearing a union button that same eve- ning, acknowledged he suspected what the union buttons were when he asked Ferguson. Plant Superintendent Ferguson not only denied the re- marks attributed to him by Hattox but denied ever having a conversation with him concerning the Union. According to Ferguson, Hattox had not only been off work for medi- cal reasons but had been suspended for being late for work and on the same day he had returned to work he was again late and was sent home before being recalled later that day.8 I credit the testimony of Plant Superintendent Ferguson rather than Hattox who, I find, was a less credible witness. On August 21 Polly Britt visited her husband employee Jerry Britt in the production area of the plant. While there she was introduced by him to Plant Manager Stephan. Ac- cording to Jerry Britt, who wore a union button from July to September, shortly after she had left Plant Superinten- dent Ferguson accompanied by Britt's supervisor Shift Su- pervisor Shirley Grisham 9 asked him if his wife had been there. Upon replying she had Ferguson told him there were no hard feelings but for him to ask her not to come into the plant anymore because their insurance did not cover her if she got hurt. Britt stated on three or four occasions previously his wife had visited him in the plant without any foreman ever tell- ing him she could not come into the plant. Among other nonemployees Britt stated he had observed in the plant were Charles Waldron's mother, H. D. Grisham' s wife, and Tommy Morris' children. Under cross-examination Britt stated Ferguson told him if his wife came in again she should wait in the lobby until someone could get him so he could talk to her. Britt further acknowledged he had previously heard there was a rule that only employees were supposed to be in the plant and with respect to those occasions when he had seen other 8 Respondent's records show Ferguson had been off work both for medi- cal and disciplinary reasons 9 The evidence did not establish whether Shirley Grisham was a supervi- sor within the meaning of the Act. PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY nonemployees in the plant he did not know whether any supervisors had observed them. Britt further acknowledged he had recently observed Shift Supervisor Grisham ask Bill Carlisle, an employee on military leave, to leave the plant.1° Polly Britt, a former employee, testified she had visited her husband on two or three occasions previously and no one had ever told her she could not come into the plant. According to her on two occasions she had spoken to Shift Supervisor Grisham as well as two of her aunts who worked there, one of whom was Shift Supervisor Grisham's wife. Polly Britt stated on one occasion which had oc- curred 6 or 8 months before her August 21 visit Shift Su- pervisor Grisham had also spoken to her while she was in the plant. Plant Superintendent Ferguson testified after Plant Manager Stephan had informed him Jerry Britt's wife had been in the plant 11 he informed Britt in the presence of Shift Supervisor Grisham that he would appreciate if Britt would tell his wife to wait out in the lobby the next time and some of them would get him so he could talk to her because for insurance purposes they weren 't allowed to have anyone there." Plant Superintendent Ferguson, Shift Supervisor Gris- ham, and Shift Supervisor Morris, in addition to employees H. D. Grisham and Charles Waldron, all testified Respondent's rules prohibited nonemployees from being in the production areas. According to Plant Superintendent Ferguson those persons can see employees in the lobby. Both Shift Supervisor Grisham and Plant Superintendent Ferguson testified this rule was enforced. H. D. Grisham, whose testimony was corroborated by his brother, Shift Supervisor Shirley Grisham, stated that about January when his wife came into the plant to see him Shift Supervisor Grisham sent her back to the lounge and informed him his wife was not supposed to be in the plant. According to H. D. Grisham, on another occasion in No- vember when his wife came into the plant he took her out himself. However, there was no evidence any of the super- visors had seen her on that occasion. Charles Waldron testified when his mother came into the plant in September he took her to the lobby himself and did not know whether any supervisors had seen her. Shift Supervisor Grisham stated although during the last 3 years he has seen Polly Britt who is his wife's niece in the production area of the plant about three times, the last of which occurred about 2 years ago, he has asked her on each occasion to leave the plant or go into the lobby. Shift Supervisor Tommy Morris acknowledged on one occasion he had had his children in the plant to show them where he worked. However, on that occasion they were cleaning up and the machines were off. Contrary to the General Counsel's contention that Jerry Britt was informed his wife was not to come into the plant because of his union activities, I find she was only prohib- 10 Shift Supervisor Grisham stated he had asked Carlisle to wait in the lobby. 11 Plant Manager Stephan stated after seeing Mrs Britt in the plant he informed Plant Superintendent Ferguson to talk to her husband about her being there. 12 Shift Supervisor Grisham corroborated Plant Superintendent Ferguson's statement about the insurance requirements 279 ited from coming into the production area of the plant because of the rule which the evidence established was en- forced with respect to other nonemployees like Polly Britt which kept them from the production areas of the plant, and not because of any union activities on his behalf. Joseph Payne, an alleged discriminatee, testified about the first week in June 13 he talked to Plant Manager Ste- phan about a cut in pay which he had taken as a result of changing his job from a multiplex operator to an inspector's job.14 During this conversation Payne stated Stephan asked him how he stood on the union issue. Upon replying he was for better job security, seniority rights, and working conditions, Stephen told him if he was not telling him the truth he would find it out later anyway. Plant Manager Stephan denied he had ever had any con- versations with Payne about the union and denied having made such statements to him. I credit the testimony of Plant Manager Stephan who, I find, was a more credible witness than Payne. Apart from my observations of the witnesses, Payne throughout his tes- timony contradicted himself on numerous occasions which exhibited more than mere confusion about such matters. Estelle Waldo testified about the week of July 15 follow- ing her return to work after a 2-day suspension she had a conversation with Plant Manager Stephan who had partici- pated in her suspension. According to Waldo, who was wearing a union button at the time, Stephan told her he knew she was mad at him but didn't think she was that mad. She responded by telling him to look around and he might see some more surprises. Waldo did not recall whether she had worn a union but- ton previously and did not know whether Stephan had looked at her union button on that occasion. Under cross-examination Waldo stated this was her first conversation with Stephan after her return to work and that he made it a practice of talking to those employees returning from their suspensions. She acknowledged Ste- phan did not say anything about the union button. Plant Manager Stephan stated when Waldo returned to work after her suspension he had a conversation with her to find out whether she was angry with him for having been laid off. Although Stephan could not recall what was said on that occasion he denied he had ever discussed the Union with her. Stephan stated he did not know whether Waldo had a union button on although he was aware she wore one except he did not know when she started wearing it. Waldo's own version of the conversation failed to estab- lish that Plant Manager Stephan's comments denied by him had reference to her union button rather than about her feelings concerning her suspension. Accordingly, I do not find Stephan threatened Waldo for wearing a union button as alleged. Roy Gray testified about 3 weeks before the first election which was held on September 13, Plant Manager Stephan made the comment to him during a conversation that it looked like he was on the wrong side and glanced at the union button which he was wearing. Gray's response was, 13 Under cross-examination Payne acknowledged the conversation may have occurred in May. 14 The change in pay was not alleged to have been discriminatory. 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD yes, he guessed so. Gray could not recall what else was discussed but stated near the end of the conversation Ste- phan told him he was just joking. According to Gray he had been wearing a union button for I to 2 weeks prior to their conversation and on that occasion he understood Ste- phan to be kidding. Plant Manager Stephan stated prior to the first election he mentioned to Roy Gray it looked like he was on the wrong side or words to that effect . However, Stephan stat- ed as soon as he said it, he knew it wasn't the best thing to say so he indicated to Gray he was just joking. Stephan also stated, which was undenied by Gray, that he told Gray he was an individual, had individual rights, and, whatever way he felt about any of the issues, he had a perfect right to feel that way. Although Stephan acknowledged Gray wore a union button he did not know when he started wearing it. Under these circumstances, I do not find Stephan's re- marks to Gray constituted an unlawful interrogation as al- leged. Ruth Garrett stated about late July while she and anoth- er employee Rodney Russell and Shift Supervisor Morris were talking, Morris asked Russell if he knew what URW stood for. After Russell laughed and replied he didn't she asked Morris what it stood for whereupon he replied "you run wire." Garrett stated after Russell left Morris asked her if she knew what she was getting into . Upon replying she thought she did, Morris asked her why she was getting into it. After Garrett mentioned she didn't know how to com- pute her checks, Morris informed her if the Union got in they wouldn't be able to help because they had a big book in the office which would take a long time for anybody to understand and he doubted if anyone in the office could sit down and teach them how to do that. Shift Supervisor Morris testified although he had talked to Garrett on a number of occasions about her checks, he denied ever asking Garrett if she knew what she was get- ting into or why and denied ever discussing the Union with her. I credit Garrett rather than Shift Supervisor Morris whom I discredit and find that Morris interrogated Garrett concerning her union activities. Besides my observations of the witnesses and the evasiveness of Morris' testimony such conduct is consistent with other unlawful conduct herein found engaged in by Morris. Edward Powell testified about August 28 after getting dizzy while working, he and Shift Supervisor Morris went out on the docks. Powell stated while there Morris began talking about the Union and wanted his support for the "vote no" committee. Morris told him if the Union came in it would be hard on the employees and they wouldn't be able to have breaks like they used to but would have to be at their machines the full 8-hour shift, and they wouldn't be allowed to enter his office to smoke like they used to. Powell stated he informed Morris he was in support of the "vote no" committee. Morris also told him the people who voted for the Union didn't know what they were getting into. Shift Supervisor Morris denied ever discussing the Union with Powell or making the statements attributed to him by Powell. According to Morris the only conversation he had with Powell on the dock occurred sometime in Sep- tember when he took Powell out on the dock to get some air after Powell had complained he was choking. Later that same evening he found Powell asleep in the break area with his machines broken and sent him home . Powell was subse- quently written up for this and other instances and trans- ferred to the second shift.15 I credit the testimony of Powell rather than Shift Super- visor Morris who I previously discredited and find that Morris threatened Powell that if the Union came in the plant, the Respondent would be harder on its employees and would restrict their breaks. Mamon Morris stated about the week of September 15 he went into Shift Supervisor Morris' office where Morris and employees Ricky Clowers and Larry Mooneyhan were discussing scrap. After Shift Supervisor Morris mentioned that during the past month the Company had lost $25,000 in scrap he told them if it continued they would all be without a job. He also told them Phelps Dodge, which was their main source of copper supply, was on strike and they had to switch to South Wire mentioning that's what the Union was good for such as causing shutdowns, layoffs, and just causing trou- ble. Morris stated Shift Supervisor Morris also told them he did not believe they would ever get a contract or any more than they had out of the Company with the union they had voted in. Morris stated during the conversation although he could not recall how it came up Shift Supervi- sor Morris told them it was a mighty stupid thing for them to sign the handbill 16 and they should have enough sense to know every plant in Pontotoc would have a copy of it and they couldn't get a job anywhere in Pontotoc. Under cross-examination Morris acknowledged there was a lot of scrap at the time of the conversation and Mor- ris' remark about they would all be looking for a job did not refer to the Union. Morris also stated when Shift Su- pervisor Morris made the statement he didn't believe they would ever get a contract or any more than they already had, the reason he gave was because the Jena plant had voted in a union 8 or 9 months earlier and although they had been in negotiations they had held out and not given a contract or anything. Ricky Clowers testified concerning a conversation be- tween Shift Supervisor Morris, Larry Mooneyhan, and himself which occurred about September 25. 17 According to Clowers, Shift Supervisor Morris told him they were stu- pid for signing the handbill since probably every plant in Pontotoc could have one and see their names on it. Morris told them it was possible they couldn't get a job because they had signed the handbill and were pushing the Union and everybody knew it. During the conversation, after Morris had mentioned that last month the Company had lost $25,000 in scrap, Clowers asked him if the plant would close if the Union came in. Morris' response was the plant did not have to have a union to close because if the scrap 15 Respondent's records reflect this sleeping incident occurred on Septem- ber 24 16 the Union distributed a handbill which contained the signatures of approximately 39 employees. 7 The record does not establish this was the same conversation about which Mamon Morris testified PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY 281 business did not get better it could close any time it wanted to and it didn't have to be because of the Union. Morris told them Jim Royce had been let down by the way the vote went on the day shift and the people had let him down and stated he didn't think Royce would give the people on the day shift toilet paper without a strike. Clowers stated Morris further told them it would be hard to get a contract signed because they had a contract in Jena, Louisiana, and all they had asked for was 3 weeks' vacation after 5 years and did not get it. According to Clowers when Morris was asked whether they would get a cost-of-living clause, Mor- ris told them they wouldn't. Morris also told them if they didn't get a contract within 12 months it was possible the Union was automatically out. Under cross-examination Clowers stated Morris' state- ment about the handbill occurred after Mooneyhan had asked Morris why the people who had signed a union handbill were mad at the Union for passing it out when they knew it was going to be passed out. Clowers further stated Morris also told them it would be illegal for other companies not to hire a person just because they had signed the union handbill. Clowers acknowledged Morris had also made the statement they couldn't tell what would be in the contract. Shift Supervisor Morris testified he had several different conversations with employees concerning contracts and negotiations in the event the Union came in the plant. Ac- cording to him during these conversations he told the em- ployees that if the Union was certified the Company would have to negotiate a contract and nobody knew what they would get. Morris told them the Company felt they were paying fair wages and benefits. Morris stated the only thing he ever said about the Union being out was that if they did not reach a contract within 12 months he under- stood the employees would have an opportunity to vote it out. Morris did not think he had made any statement about Jim Royce being so mad at the first shift he would not give them toilet paper and did not recall mentioning a cost-of-living clause or discussing whether the Company would give 3 weeks' vacation after 5 years at Jena. Morris did recall telling someone he understood the Union had been voted in at Jena in November 1973 and in September 1974 had never reached a contract. Morris specifically de- nied telling any employees the Union would not get a con- tract from the Company nor get any more than they al- ready had. Shift Supervisor Morris recalled on one occasion when he was talking to employees about a scrap problem at which Maroon Morris may have been present he told them they had lost $25,000 last month on scrap and could not continue to lose like that or they were all going to be out of a job. Morris stated on several occasions he had talked to Maroon Morris about South Wire and Phelps Dodge and had mentioned they had been running Phelps Dodge rods for the last year which ran good but the last couple of months Phelps Dodge had been on strike and they had been running South Wire which was not as good. Morris stated he could have told Maroon Morris • that Phelps Dodge was still on strike and they didn't know when they would get any more Phelps Dodge rods because the last word he had heard they had never reached a contract. Upon considering the above evidence I discredit Glow- ers' testimony in its entirety. Apart from my observations of the witnesses Clowers not only testified in an evasive manner and professed an inability to recall matters reason- ably within his own knowledge but admitted being un- truthful about his sworn statements given to the Board agent concerning those same matters about which he testi- fied. His explanation for having made such untrue state- ments was to obtain another election in the event the union lost the first election.ts With respect to the testimonies of Maroon Morris and Shift Supervisor Morris I credit the testimony of Maroon Morris whom I find to be a more credible witness than Shift Supervisor Morris, whom I have previously discredit- ed. Having credited Maroon Morris' testimony I find Shift Supervisor Morris threatened employees Maroon Morris and those other employees present that if the Union was voted in it would not get a contract and the employees would not get any more from the Company than they al- ready had. Shift Supervisor Morris further threatened them that they couldn't get a job anywhere in Pontotoc because they had signed the union handbill. On September 26 Board Attorney Jack McCarthy inter- viewed Shift Supervisor Morris at the plant in connection with the investigation of the unfair labor practice charges. Maroon Morris testified on September 27 during a con- versation in Shift Supervisor Morris' office with employees Larry Mooneyhan and Ricky Clowers present, Shift Super- visor Morris informed them he had spent about 2 hours going over things with the man from the Labor Board and from then on he did not want but one employee at a time in his office. 19 Shift Supervisor Morris told them he felt the things they had talked about there had been said among friends and he did not think his friends should do him that way and go to the Labor Board and file charges against things he had said. He gave as an example the remarks he had made about Phelps Dodge saying he did not mean that the Union would close the plant down. Morris denied Shift Supervisor Morris had mentioned anyone had been telling lies on him. Shift Supervisor Morris testified that night after having met for about 2 hours with Board Attorney McCarthy sev- eral employees, Ricky Clowers, Larry Mooneyhan, Rod- ney Russell, and Maroon Morris, were in his office. Morris stated he told them they were going to have to quit taking their breaks in there and to start taking their cigarette breaks in the break area. When one of the employees asked him why he first said it was because they had too many breaks in there. When Russell then asked if it could be because of his meeting with the NLRB man he acknowl- edged saying that it possibly could be. Morris stated after mentioning that the questions the man had asked him usu- ally referred to statements which had occurred in his office he told them apparently someone was lying on him and he 19 Having completely discredited Clowers' testimony those other matters about which he also testified will not be considered 19 According to Morris although since that conversation there has not been much change insofar as taking breaks in Shift Supervisor Morris' of- fice is concerned and he has observed more than one employee at a time in there, if he himself saw someone else in the office he would go on by. 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD did not know who or want to know who and didn't care for them telling anyone what he said but when they started lying he didn't like it. Morris then told them they were going to take their breaks in the break area and if they needed to come in there and see him to come one at a time. Morris who stated he was a little hot at the time admitted he discontinued cigarette breaks in his office for a couple of nights although now the employees still come in there and smoke. Based upon the testimony of Maroon Morris which I credit and Shift Supervisor Morris' admissions, I find that Morris threatened Maroon Morris and those other employ- ees present with the loss of break privileges in his office because employees had given testimony to an agent of the National Labor Relations Board 20 Fred McWhorter testified about October 3 Shift Super- visor Morris showed him a list of work rules stating he was going to have to start enforcing some of them a little strict- er although most of them did not pertain to him and he had never had any trouble following plant rules. Morris made no mention of the union. Several of the rules which were underlined pertained to taking breaks or eating in the lobby rather than remaining there only long enough to get something to eat and returning to their work areas; limiting the number of employees to two or three in the smoking area at a time; and prohibiting the AG operators and mul- tiplex operators from taking breaks in the foreman 's office or in front of his office which was reserved for the process control employees and inspectors.21 Under cross-examination McWhorter acknowledged these plant rules were common rules and had been in exis- tence since at least last June without any change except he had never seen them in writing before. Shift Supervisor Morris acknowledged having shown employees some written rules. Those pertaining to the AG operators were also underlined. Morris stated the purpose in showing them the rules was to get the scrap down and he may have told them they were going to have to tighten down to get the scrap down or they would all get in trouble over it. Plant Manager Stephan corroborated Morris' testimony that the rules were related to the scrap problem and this action was taken in October when the scrap had reached an all-time high.22 Both Morris and Stephan denied this action had anything to do with union activities. Inasmuch as the announcement of the more stringent enforcement of plant rules related to rules already in exis- tence and occurred at a time when the undisputed evidence 20 The consolidated complaint did not allege such break periods were actually terminated . Accordingly, no finding will be made . General Counsel's motion, first raised in its brief, to amend the consolidated com- plaint to allege that the discontinuance of the employee breaks in the office violated Sec. 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act is hereby denied. Apart from the motion being untimely the charges herein did not allege a violation of Sec. 8(aX4). Moreover, the evidence established the break privileges were only temporarily discontinued and have since been resumed. 2 According to McWhorter, since October 3 he has taken breaks in the foreman's office and has observed multiplex operators and AG operators taking breaks there and has observed employees eating and drinking in the lobby and more than two or three people in the smoking area. 22 The General Counsel's witness Marron Moms, as discussed, supra, also admitted scrap was high in September established a scrap problem existed I am not persuaded the evidence is sufficient to prove such action was taken be- cause of the employees' union activities, as the consolidat- ed complaint alleged, rather than to eliminate the scrap problem, as both Plant Manager Stephan and Shift Super- visor Morris so testified. C. The Alleged Discrimination Against Roger Davis and Joseph Payne The General Counsel contended Roger Davis was issued an oral warning and Joseph Payne a reprimand for dis- criminatory reasons. Roger Davis, employed by the Respondent for approxi- mately 6 years, worked as a rod mill operator on the first shift under the supervision of Plant Superintendent Fergu- son. His union activities consisted of wearing a union but- ton and handbilling at the plant entrances prior to the first election. Ferguson testified about August 5 or 6 after his shift had ended and the bell rang but before he had punched out upon going to his locker he remembered he had left his pliers in his work area. When he went back in the plant, Plant Superintendent Ferguson stopped him and asked him where he was going. Davis, who was wearing a union button told Ferguson he was going back to get his pliers whereupon he went to his work area, got his pliers and, as he came back, Ferguson told him from then on when the 3 o'clock buzzer rang he wanted to see him out of there. Davis then went to his locker, put his pliers up, punched out, and left. Davis stated on a prior occasion around the first of the year or in 1973 he had gone back in the plant to borrow something from Harold Watts. Unable to find it, upon ask- ing Plant Superintendent Ferguson, Ferguson told him he would still have to see Harold Watts. However, Davis could not remember whether on that occasion Ferguson had said anything about getting out when the buzzer rang. Under cross-examination Davis acknowledged there was a plant rule employees were not supposed to be bothering other employees while they were working and, unlike the prior occasion when he went back into the plant, he ac- knowledged he had not told Plant Superintendent Fergu- son or any of the supervisors on August 5 or 6 he was going back into the plant or the reason. Davis admitted Ferguson did not tell him he was getting a warning and had no knowledge whether a warning had been put in his file. Plant Superintendent Ferguson's version was after seeing Davis coming back out of the lobby and then at his work station, which is the same for the second shift, he asked Davis what he was doing. When Davis told him he had left his glasses or pliers and had gone back after them, Fergu- son stated he told Davis it was okay but he would appreci- ate it if he wouldn't hinder the operators whereupon Davis' response was he wasn't hindering the operators. Ferguson denied giving Davis any kind of a warning or reprimand on that occasion, or that his discussion with Davis was because of his union activities. According to Ferguson any time he had observed employees in the plant after they had clocked out he either asked them to leave or what they were doing. Ferguson stated on August 9 he wrote up em- PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY ployee Carol Morris, who was the wife of Shift Supervisor Tommy Morris, for remaining in the plant talking at the work station of another employee after she had previously been warned by him.23 Shift Supervisor Ferguson testified it was a rule employ- ees were supposed to leave the production area whenever they punched out and the rule which was enforced had been in existence as long as the plant had been there. Joseph Payne, except for a few months, was employed by the Respondent from late 1969 to December 1974. The last position he held was as a multiplex inspector on the second shift under the supervision of Quality Control Su- pervisor Horton. His activities on behalf of the Union,24 which began about May, consisted of contacting the union 's representa- tives, soliciting employees to sign union authorization cards, wearing a union button , and on several occasions distributing union handbills at the plant entrances in addi- tion to serving as a union observer in the Board election held on September 13. Payne testified on one occasion 25 when his shift ended at 11 p.m. and after the buzzer had sounded, he stopped and talked to another employee, Larry Mooneyhan who was coming to work. This conversation .initiated by Payne concerned a debt owed by Mooneyhan and lasted about 4 minutes 26 During the conversation which occurred in front of the foreman's office , Payne observed Shift Supervisor Morris, who was in the foreman 's office and was Mooneyhan's supervisor, looking at him. Payne stated the following afternoon Quality Control Supervisor Horton asked him whether he had stayed over the previous night talking to Mooneyhan and asked what they had been talking about. According to Payne when he told Horton, Horton replied it was all right but said Plant Manager Stephan wanted to see him in the office. After they went into Plant Manager Stephan's office Payne stat- ed he observed a written reprimand on the desk whereupon Stephan told him Horton had informed him that he had been hanging around the plant talking to Mooneyhan who was supposed to be working . Upon explaining his conver- sation with Mooneyhan , Stephan's response was he wasn't supposed to be staying on the company premises after duty hours. Payne stated he felt this was the first time the rule had been enforced and mentioned another employee on the second shift, Judy Stenson, had stayed from 10 to 20 minutes talking to her husband , Glenn Stenson, an em- ployee on the third shift. Stephan's response was he wasn't aware of what had happened and had only taken over the job recently. Payne then mentioned he wasn't breaking any company policy because the black handbook in the foreman's office stated employees were suppose to leave the company's premises after duty hours when they clocked out and he had not clocked out. Payne testified 23 Respondent's record shows Carol Morris was written up on August 9 for staying over on the first shift after work. 24 Payne had previously engaged in union activities on behalf of the Teamsters Union during 1973 and had served as a union observer in an election. 25 Payne was uncertain whether this incident occurred about June 10, July 30, or August 14. 6 Payne's timecard showed he punched out at 11 :08 p.m. on June 10. 283 although Stephan told him he was going to have to give him a writeup, after telling Stephan he thought under the company's rules he was suppose to get an oral warning first, Stephan changed it to a verbal or oral warning telling him the next time he did anything he would have to step on him a little harder. Under cross-examination Payne acknowledged his con- versation with Mooneyhan had been broken up by Shift Supervisor Morris, who told Mooneyhan it was time for him to get to his machine. Contrary to Payne's testimony on direct examination he admitted it was Quality Control Supervisor Horton who had first given him the written warning but after calling Horton at his home that evening and complaining, they met with Plant Manager Stephan the following day whereupon Stephan changed it from a written warning to an oral or verbal warning. Quality Control Supervisor Horton testified following a report from a third shift supervisor 27 he gave Payne a writ- ten reprimand for staying over on the next shift talking to employees and hindering them from their jobs. However, that evening when Payne contacted him at home complain- ing he had been too hard on him and suggesting he change it, he informed Payne he would present the matter the next day to the plant manager. According to Horton the follow- ing day upon meeting with Plant Manager Stephan and informing him what Payne had said, Stephan agreed it was too rough and changed it in Payne's presence to an oral reprimand .21 Plant Manager Stephan's version was after Payne had admitted he had stayed over after the shift ended to talk to Mooneyhan and that the writeup was true upon asking Payne whether he thought it was right to take the company time, Payne informed him it wasn't but felt it was too stiff a reprimand for a first offense. Stephan agreed and changed it to an oral warning. Stephan testified the only reason the reprimand was given was because Payne had interfered with Mooneyhan and stated it was a plant rule not to interfere with other workers when they were going into the plant to work. According to Payne the only other employee he had ob- served remaining in the plant after shift change besides Judy Stenson 29 occurred on August 14 and involved H. D. Grisham and Donald Brown. Payne stated on that date as he was leaving he observed Grisham walk up to Brown by the foreman's office and appeared to be leaning up against a forklift as he left. Payne who neither overheard their con- versation or saw Grisham's timecard stated after being told by another employee Rodney Russell that Grisham had punched out at 11:05, he informed Horton of the matter complaining that he had been written up. Horton left but later returned and again asked what time Grisham had punched out. Payne stated upon telling Horton that Rus- sell had told him 11:05 p.m. Horton's response was Gris- 27 Shift Supervisor Morris stated he had reported to Payne's supervisor that he should have Payne punch out and not hang around with the opera- tors. 28 The written reprimand dated June I1 and referring to the incident which had occurred on June 10 shows it was changed to an oral warning instead 29 No dates were established when Judy Stenson had remained in the plant and no evidence was offered to establish whether any supervisors had observed her. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ham had punched out at 11:03 30 and told Payne he thought he was just trying to start trouble and wasn't noth- ing but a damn liar and as far as he was concerned the matter was dropped. Under cross-examination, however, Payne acknowl- edged both Gnsham and Brown were shift inspectors and admitted that shift inspectors were responsible for inform- ing each other of problems which conversations normally occurred at the shift change. Payne further stated he had probably observed them talking about every night. H. D. Grisham an inspector on the second shift could not recall a particular conversation with Brown on August 14, but testified he frequently had conversations with Brown, who was a third shift inspector, when the shift changed, concerning those matters which should be passed on. According to Grisham the company rule is that em- ployees are supposed to leave when the buzzer sounds. Shift Supervisor Morris corroborated his testimony that shift inspectors are responsible for relaying any informa- tion to each other about their work. Plant Manager Stephan testified an oral warning and a written warning had been given to Carol Morris and a writ- ten warning to Charles Waldron for similar offenses. Charles Waldron, who had never been active in the Union, stated after having received an oral warning previously he received a written warning on August 2 for punching out late after his shift had ended. Respondent's records corrob- orated his testimony. D. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contended while the Respondent denied that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating and threatening its employees with respect to their union activities; threaten- ing employees with the loss of break privileges because em- ployees had given testimony on the Board; announcing more stringent enforcement of plant rules ; and prohibiting an employee's wife from coming into the plant because of union activities ; and discriminatorily issued a reprimand to Joseph Payne and an oral warning to Roger Davis and refused to rescind them because of their union or concerted activities. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer .. . by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment to encour- age or discourage membership in any labor organization Based upon my findings, supra, Quality Control Supervi- sor Horton interrogated Roger Davis concerning what he thought about the Union; Plant Manager Ferguson inter- rogated Douglas Putte concerning what he thought about the Union; Shift Supervisor Morris interrogated Ruth Gar- rett concerning her union activities; Shift Supervisor Mor- 30 Gnsham's timecard shows he punched out at 11 .05 p.m. on August 14. ris threatened Edward Powell that if the Union came in the plant the Respondent would be harder on the employees and would restrict their breaks; Shift Supervisor Morris threatened Maroon Morris and other employees present that if the Union was voted in, it would not get a contract and the employees would not get any more from the Com- pany than they already had and they could not get a job anywhere in Pontotoc because they had signed the union handbill; and Shift Supervisor Morris threatened Maroon Morris and other employees present with the loss of break privileges in his office because employees had given testi- mony to an agent of the National Labor Relations Board.31 I hereby find such conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced those employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. With respect to the findings of unlawful interrogations the Board has held that where selected employees are ques- tioned about their union sympathies without any legitimate reason therefor and given assurances against reprisals such conduct by its very nature tends to inhibit employees in the exercise of their right to organize and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Engineered Steel Products, Inc., 188 NLRB 298 (1971).. The remaining issues are whether the Respondent dis- criminatorily issued a reprimand to Joseph Payne and an oral warning to Roger Davis and refused to rescind them because of their union or concerted activities. With respect to the alleged discrimination against Roger Davis, based upon his own testimony as well as that of Plant Superintendent Ferguson, the evidence failed to es- tablish Davis was actually issued an oral warning on that occasion. However, to the extent Plant Superintendent Ferguson's statements to Davis about leaving the plant when the buzzer rang might possibly be construed other- wise, inasmuch as such conduct admittedly engaged in by Davis was prohibited by plant rules which the evidence established were enforced against other employees with no showing of a disparity of treatment in their enforcement directed against Davis, I find the evidence was not suffi- cient to establish such statements were made because of any union or protected concerted activities engaged in by Davis notwithstanding Davis had been active in the union and had previously been unlawfully interrogated by Qual- ity Control Supervisor Horton. Joseph Payne, a known union adherent, was issued a reprimand following an incident where he had admittedly remained after his shift change to talk to another employ- ee, Mooneyhan, keeping him from his work. Contrary to Payne's contention, the evidence established that plant rules not only prohibited such conduct but were enforced against other employees. The evidence involving a conver- sation between Shift Inspectors H. D. Grisham and Don- 31 While Shift Supervisor Morris in announcing the discontinuance of these breaks had also mentioned employees had gone to the Board and filed charges against things he had said, protection under the Act also covers employees involved in the investigative stages of the Board 's processes. N.L R B v. Robert Scrivener, d/b/a A A Electric Company, 405 U.S. 117 (1972). The fact their charges or testimony may be false does not constitute a valid defense for discriminating against them . See Richmond Home Tele- phone Company, 70 NLRB 452, 455 (1947), The Kramer Company, et at, 29 NLRB 921, 935 (1941). PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY aid Brown, offered to show a disparity of treatment to- wards Payne, was refuted by Payne's own admission, which was consistent with the company 's practices, that shift supervisors were responsible for conferring with one another at shift change about any problems . The only other example given by Payne, involving Judy Stenson, not only failed to establish when such alleged incidents oc- curred but whether Respondent had observed such inci- dents. Having found that Payne had violated company rules by interfering with Mooneyhan while Mooneyhan was sup- posed to be working, which was the reason given to Payne for the reprimand, and absent evidence of any disparity of treatment directed against Payne in the enforcement of such rules which the evidence established were enforced against other employees, I find the evidence insufficient to establish Payne was given such reprimand because of his union or protected concerted activities. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent de- scribed in section I , above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow there- of. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Pontotoc Wire Products Company is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities and what they thought about the Union ; threatening an employee if the Union came into the plant, Respondent would be harder on the employees and would restrict their breaks ; threatening the employees if the Union was voted in, it would not get a contract and the employees would not get any more from the Company than they already had, and could not get a job anywhere in Pontotoc because they had signed the union handbill; and by threatening employees with the loss of break privileges in the office because employees had given testimony to an agent of the National Labor Relations Board, Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily issuing a reprimand to Joseph Payne or an oral warning to Roger Davis and refusing to rescind them, as alleged. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY 285 Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to ef- fectuate 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: ORDER32 Respondent, Pontotoc Wire Products Company, Ponto- toc, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employ- ees by coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities and what they think about the Union; threatening employees if the Union comes into the plant Respondent would be harder on the employees and would restrict their breaks; threatening employees if the Union is voted in, it would not get a contract and the employees would not get any more from the Company than they al- ready have; threatening employees they can not get a job anywhere in Pontotoc because they signed union hand- bills; and threatening employees with the loss of break pe- riods in the office because they give testimony to an agent of the National Labor Relations Board. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the Unit- ed Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any or such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its place of business located at Pontotoc, Mississippi, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 33 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respon- dent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- 32 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 33 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 " 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees are customarily posted . Respondent shall take rea- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps sonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, have been taken to comply herewith. defaced, or covered by any other material. IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated complaint be (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writ- and hereby is dismissed insofar as it alleged unfair labor practices not specifically found herein.