Wesco Electrical Co.

WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY J. K. Electronics, Inc, d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), Local No. 259. Cases I-CA- 12404 and l-RC- 14745 September 28, 1977 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY On May 31, 1977, Administrative Law Judge John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Re- spondent Employer filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Both filed answering briefs and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings ' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 2 We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the group leaders herein are leadmen rather than supervisors. Contrary to the Administra- tive Law Judge, we find that the record reveals that group leaders do have the power to effectively recommend disciplinary action in the form of verbal and written warnings for such things as rule infractions and low production. While it is true, as the Administrative Law Judge indicates, that inde- pendent supervisory investigations are made, this is not true in all cases. The record contains, in our opinion, sufficient examples of effective recommen- dation by group leaders to make them supervisors. We also note in this record that in the vast majority of cases the written warning notices, whether recommended by the group leader or suggested by the production shift supervisor, are signed by the group leaders and usually delivered to the employee by the group leader. In his Decision the Administrative Law Judge sets out the job description for group leaders, the duties of which include, "make recommendations on all new personnel to the Shift Supervisors," "review I Both the Petitioner and the Respondent Employer have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Adrministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry W'all Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 232 NLRB No. 75 individual production tabulations . . . and report substandard totals to the Shift Supervisor," and report all "personnel and production problems," "incidents of insubordination," and "absences and tardiness" to the shift supervisor. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the duties outlined were those of a leadman. In our view, however, since the record is clear that these kinds of considerations often result in verbal and written warnings, the job description further supports our finding that group leaders have the power to effectively recommend disciplinary action. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, regular part-time employees, production control clerical employees, and shipping and receiving employees as J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company, 201 Munson Street, Green- field, Massachusetts, excluding office clerical employees, sales clericals, inside and outside salesmen, quality control technicians, profession- al employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. As all the challenges have been sustained, the tally shows that the Petitioner has obtained a majority of the valid ballots cast and we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company, Greenfield, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recom- mended Order, as so modified: Substitute the following for paragraph 1: "1. Cease and desist from: "(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees. "(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act." (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently omitted from his recommended Order the narrow language, "in an) like or related manner," for his findings of an 8(aXI) violation. We shall modify his recommended Order to conform to the language in his notice. 479 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), Local No 259, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit found appropriate herein for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge: United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), Local No. 259, herein called UE, the Union or Petitioner, filed a charge against J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company, herein called Wesco, the Company, or Respondent, on November 3, 1976,1 and an amended charge on November 22, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On November 24, the Regional Director issued a complaint and notice of hearing which alleged that Respondent had violated Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act by the questions and remarks of Company President Robert Kugell and Production Manager Brian Lowell during September and October. On December 10, Respon- dent filed a timely answer which admitted the jurisdictional and commerce allegations and the supervisory positions of Kugell and Lowell but denied that it had violated the Act in any manner. On January 27, 1977, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating cases and notice of hearing which consolidated the representation case with the unfair labor practice case for resolution of issues of challenged ballots and objections. The Union filed its representation petition on October 1, and the parties signed a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election on October 25, which was thereafter approved by the Regional Director. The election, conduct- ed on December 9, resulted in 56 votes for the Petitioner, 47 against, and 12 challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Union filed timely objections to the election. The unit found appropriate for Respondent's employees is: "all production and maintenance employees, group leaders, regular part-time employees, production control clerical employees, and shipping and receiving employees at J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company, located at 201 Munson Street, Greenfield, Massachusetts, but excluding office clerical employees, sales clericals, inside and outside salesmen, quality control technicians, professional employees, guards and supervisors and all others as defined in the Act." Of the 12 challenged ballots, 10 are group leaders who were challenged by the Union as being supervisors and Respondent challenged the eleventh group leader to keep the matter consistent. The twelfth I Unless specifically stated otherwise, the events in this case took place during 1976. person challenged is Rose Kugell, the mother of the president of the Company. The hearing in this matter was held on February 23 and 24, 1977, in Greenfield, Massachusetts, and the parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally. General Counsel, Respondent, and the Union have each filed briefs which have been fully considered. As to the complaint allegations, I have concluded that Production Manager Lowell did violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on or about September 22 by his statements to and questions of the employees, but that complaint allegations 8(c), (d), and (e) asserting alleged 8(aXI) violations by President Robert Kugell and Lowell were not sustained and therefore will be dismissed. In the representation case, I have determined that the challenge to Rose Kugell should be sustained but that the challenges to the I 11 group leaders should be dismissed since I do not find them to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Union, in its brief, moved to withdraw the objections in this case and that motion will be granted. On the entire record in this case, including both my evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based on the evidence received and my observations of their demeanor, and upon all the evidence received, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Greenfield, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of electrical components. During the past year, Respondent received materials shipped to its plant from points directly outside Massachusetts which were valued in excess of $50,000, and it shipped goods and materials directly to points located outside Massachusetts which were valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union herein is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. Background and Undisputed Facts The Company's basic production is electronic capacitors for which, according to the Company, there is a very small profit margin. The Company receives a sales order in the production control department and a flow ticket is written which goes to the warehouse where the materials are set aside for it since the flow ticket contains the specifications and a completion date. Materials and the ticket are then sent to the winding department where the capacitor is 480 WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY wound to a proper capacity. The capacitors in the order and the ticket are sent to the curing room where the capacitors are either heated or frozen, according to what is ordered, and then sent to the sorting section where they are tested for capacity tolerance. Each order contains a tolerance specification from the buyer as to what tolerance it will allow above or below the specification. From that department, capacitors go to the pinning bench where leads are attached and then to the taping section where mylar tape is wrapped around the capacitor. From there, they go to the potting department where the ends of the capacitors are filled with epoxy. The capacitors next go to the inspection department and quality control where they are inspected mechanically and for electric capacity. The sections in the plant follow one another in order so that production is in a straight line. In addition, there is an automotive section where metal shields are placed on the capacitors. Reporting to President Kugell are Robert Bialecki, the quality control manager, Brian Lowell, the production manager, and James DeSanty. the sales manager. Under Lowell are Guy Manners, the day-shift supervisor who is in overall charge of winding and sorting; Lorraine King, the day-shift supervisor on the production line, which consists of the remaining departments after winding; Lucy Hassay, the supervisor over the automobile section; Jeff Leveille, night-shift supervisor of winding and shorting; and Ron Wandscher, night-shift production line supervisor. Ray Kimberly is the day-shift supervisor of the winding department and reports to Guy Manners. All of the above supervisors are salaried. In the winding department on the day shift is a group leader and six employees, while the second-shift operation has only three employees. The sorting department has a group leader on the day shift and 16 employees and the second shift has a group leader and 12 employees. In the pinning department on the first shift is a group leader and II employees and, on the second shift, a group leader and 6 employees. In the taping department on the first shift is a group leader and four employees and, on the second shift, a group leader and eight employees. In the potting department is a group leader and seven employees on the first shift and a group leader and three employees on the second shift. The metalized bench department and/or AMS under Supervisor Hassay had no group leader over the 17 employees on the day shift but there is a group leader on the second shift with 4 employees. Reporting to Bialecki are quality control technicians, warehouse personnel, two production control clerks, two general salesclerks, and two accounting clerks. The makeup of that department will be discussed further in the section dealing with the challenged ballot of Rose Kugell. The Company, which has been in business for a number of years and has a few employees with more than 10 years' seniority, is owned by Robert H. Kugell, his wife, and three daughters. The board of directors consisted of Robert H. Kugell, his wife, and his mother, Rose Kugell. On August 23, Rose Kugell tendered her resignation as a director and, at a special meeting of the directors on September 15, one of the daughters was elected to replace Rose Kugell. The union organizational effort apparently began in late August or early September. On September 22, both leaflets and membership authorization cards were distributed at the plant. Brian Lowell, who had been the production manager for about 3-1/2 years, testified that the day of that distribution was the first day he learned of union activity at the plant. B. Lowell's Activities on September 22 Brian Lowell testified that the supervisors reported to him on the morning of September 22 between 8 and 8:30 that union cards were being distributed and signed and that the rumor was that a lot of people had signed the cards. Lowell had a meeting with Supervisors Manners, King, and Hassay and they discussed the distribution and signing of the union cards and what problems or dissension existed to provoke this reaction. Lowell was told that there were grievances and complaints and that some of the employees were dissatisifed. Later, Mr. Kugell came in and they discussed the matter further with him. Thereafter, DeSanty, the sales manager, Bialecki, Lowell, and Kugell met and discussed the problem. Later, a meeting was held by Lowell with the supervisors and group leaders. Some of the group leaders said they would like Mr. Kugell to hold a general assembly with the entire plant personnel because they felt that some of the employees had been misled into signing union cards. Thereafter, Kugell did hold a meeting with the employees and discussed the Union. In the afternoon following the Kugell meeting, Lowell went out on the floor and talked with groups of employees in the various departments. At one point he talked to Carole Kelley, Sandy Krejmas, Laura Wozniak, Pat Ploof, and Teri Ann Evans. Evans testified that Lowell told them they had not asked any questions at the meeting with Kugell and he thought they might have some questions. Nobody responded. Lowell said that he wanted to know what the girls thought of the Union. Evans said she thought it was a good idea because they did not have any representation and had low wages. Lowell said, "Well, why didn't you come and tell me about those things?" She replied that she did not know. Lowell said they could have come and talked to him anytime they wanted. Evans said they did not even have a suggestion box. Wozniak said that the place where she previously worked had a gripe session every month. Lowell replied that those were some sugges- tions they could think about and maybe they could do something about them. Lowell then asked Kelley what she thought of the Union. She said she did not know and did not know what to think about anything anymore. Lowell said "if you think you're going to get more money from Mr. Kugell, you probably won't because you can't get blood out of a stone. He's doing the best he can for you people and we're trying to do our best. If you have any more problems, you can come and see me anytime you want. We have an open door policy." Lowell also asked if they had thought that they would have to pay dues and such things to the Union. Valerie Lavin was in the winding room when Lowell came over and spoke with her, Barbara Rushford, Susan Johnson, Nancy Banford, and Nancy Wheeler. Lowell asked what they thought about the Union. Rushford said 481 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that they had asked for a lot of things in the past and never got them. Lavin said that raises were unfair and they only got a dime a year, that the people who were more friendly with the Company got more. Lowell asked Wheeler if she really thought she needed the Union. She said she did. When asked why, she just replied she thought she needed it. Lowell testified that he did go out on the floor and talk to a number of the employees that day. To some leading questions, he stated that his supervisors told him that there were significant problems among employees and he decided to discuss those problems with the employees. He said he did not recall asking employees what they thought of the Union or why they thought it was a good idea. He did remember saying that obviously there were some problems and asked if they would discuss those with him. Low wage rates and a suggestion box were items brought up and that employees had no control over their destiny. He said he discussed the wage structure and that the electronics industry was very competitive and wage rates were lower than other industries in the area. One employee mentioned to him that Kugell's relationship with the employees was not very good. He testified that he did not inquire about any individuals' union activity or if they were supporting the Union or had signed a card and that he did not promise that the Company would take care of problems. Lowell did admit that he was curious as to what the employees thought about the Union. In his direct testimony, Lowell is obviously using the word "problems" to talk about the things which brought on the Union and the passing out of authorization cards with the rumor that large numbers of employees were signing them. As he stated, he obviously was interested in why the Union was making headway in the plant and sought to discover the reasons for it. I conclude and find that Lowell did approach groups of employees and asked them what they thought of the Union, why they thought the Union was a good idea, whether they needed a union to get the things they wanted, and generally was interrogating the employees to find out what brought the Union into the plant with apparently such a good reception. I find that these questionings and remarks by Lowell constituted unlawful interrogation and violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act. See Hochstetler & Sons, Inc., 224 NLRB 39 (1976). C. The Other Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations Valerie Lavin testified that around October 8, Lowell, accompanied by Supervisor Guy Manners, said that her name had been given to him in connection with blackball- ing and threatening and organizing silent strikes. She replied that whoever said those things was wrong and she had never done them and asked him what blackballing was. Lowell replied he had no time to discuss it but wanted her to know that the next time her name was given to him in that connection, he would file charges with the National Labor Relations Board. Lowell testified that he had a report from a supervisor and a group leader that one of the employees was distraught because she had been told that she was not supposed to talk to group leaders. He attempted to investigate but did not ask Lavin's side of it. He went to Lavin's machine, told her that her name had been given to him, that he was not accusing her of the activity but, if it was being conducted, it had to stop and that the Company would not tolerate blackballing and silent strikes, and that, if it happened and anyone was found guilty of conducting themselves in that way, the Company would bring charges with the NLRB. Basically, there is very little difference between the versions of these two individuals. Whether Lavin was accused or not of this "coventry" action, the only threat to her, if it can be called that, is that management apparently thought such actions were unprotected and it would bring NLRB charges against someone urging such action. I do not find that this is a threat of any retaliatory action which would be violative of the Act. I conclude that this is not a violation of Section 8(aXI) and will recommend its dismissal. Coleen Wissman testified that she had asked her group leader, Pat Moore, if she could speak with Mr. Kugell and later had a conversation in the afternoon with Kugell and group leader Pat Moore present. She stated she wanted to find out what kind of voting was going to be done and who was running it. She said Kugell said there were a few things he wanted to tell her before she asked her questions. He showed her a mimeographed newspaper article about Miller's Falls Company and said, if the Union came in, they would be paying about $2 per month for dues. He asked if she had been to any union meetings. After asking that question, she said Kugell took it back, saying that he could not ask her that question. Kugell did not recall asking this question. It is alleged that this question was illegal interrogation. If the testimony of Ms. Wissman had not been clear that Kugell took the question back, so that she did not feel any obligation to answer it, it possibly could be found that the question was asked in a way to solicit information. But here the evidence is that the employee obviously felt that Kugell had made a slip and retrieved it and did not want her to answer it. On the basis of the testimony, I conclude that what occurred was not an 8(aX I) interrogation or violative of the Act and will dismiss It. Nellie Paulin, who had been with the Company for 12 years, testified concerning a speech Kugell gave to her shift. She was the only witness called by the General Counsel and testified that there were some 12 people present and, when Kugell asked if they had any questions, no one responded. He said that the UE was the worst Union next to the Teamsters and wanted to organize the people for their money and he would be a hard bargainer. She said he said that quotas would have to be raised because the Union would cost him a lot of money and they would have to go home if they ran out of department work rather than going to another department as they were accustomed to. If a strike occurred, he had a right to hire people from the outside and, when the strike was over, they might find that their job was gone until there was an opening and that, if anybody wanted to cross the picket line and go to work, they could be fined. He stated that it was a good place to work and he could not understand why they felt they needed the Union. The complaint alleged as 482 WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY violative of the Act Paulin's testimony concerning raising quotas and changing the basis of temporarily transferring people when the work was short. Kugell testified he was asked to meet with the employees and at the beginning of the meeting told them he was under legal restraints as to what he could and could not say, that he could not interrogate them, promise them anything, or keep a close watch on them, that he did not want to know whether they had been at any union meetings, and he was not going to make any promises to them and, if they heard him say anything like this, to stop him. Among questions that were raised was the area of productivity and quotas. He replied that this was mixed with the question of higher wages and that in some cases union contracts were based on productivity, that is that a contract could set quotas which might result in higher wages and this was one method of obtaining higher wages rather than by just granting raises. Another question concerned replacing strikers and he replied that, during an economic strike, strikers could be permanently replaced. He said he told them at the same time he hoped they never had a strike because he could not afford one. Another question concerned job descriptions and he answered that, if they had job descriptions under a union contract, there was a possibility that, if they ran out of work in the individual's described job, the individual might not be able to go to another department the way they did at present. In weighing the testimony of Paulin and Kugell, I find that Kugell's testimony is the more convincing. It is very possible that Paulin's testimony is her impression of what Kugell said without the entire context of the statements. Her testimony consists mainly of isolated statements. Viewing these statements in a full context and in the detail Kugell gave in his more detailed description of the meeting, I am inclined to credit his version of the statements and that he avoided any threats or promises and answered these questions in a context of what could happen, depending upon what type of contract could be reached if the Union succeeded in winning the election. Accordingly, I do not find that Kugell threatened to raise quotas or cease transferring employees if the union won the election, and I will dismiss this allegation of the complaint. III. THE CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIONS A. Rose Kugell Rose Kugell is the mother of the principal stockholder of the Company, and from the inception of the Company's founding and Kugell's ownership of the Company until August or September (depending on when her resignation was effective, i.e., the date of the resignation or when it was accepted and a replacement elected), Rose Kugell was a director of the Company. William Bialecki stated that he hired Mrs. Kugell and that she is under his supervision. He testified that the employees under his supervision are more or less on salary but then admitted that he did have some hourly paid employees. Although testifying that Mrs. Kugell does not receive any special treatment, he acknowledged that she does not punch a timeclock, comes in at 9:30 a.m. or so and leaves about 12:30 p.m., takes an hour off for lunch, and comes back some time later and finishes up in the evening, according to him occasionally as late as 6:30 or 7 p.m. due to late deliveries. He noted that her hours fluctuated and that she is paid for 40 hours a week, even if she does not work that amount. Her time is not recorded anywhere, while others under his supervision are on an hourly rate and punch timecards. One other exception is an employee named Wickman who had previously been a supervisor and who is on a straight salary. Employee Ruth Caperelli testified that Rose Kugell comes to work somewhere around 9:30 or 9:45 a.m., turns the light switches on, and leaves around 12:30 or 1 p.m. and is usually gone for 2 hours or more. Caperelli stated that most of the other employees who are under Bialecki's supervision punch timecards. In view of Rose Kugell's relationship to the principal stockholder of the Company, her longtime directorship of the Company, and the special considerations apparently given her in her job, I find that she does not have a community of interest with the other employees and that the challenge to her ballot should be sustained. B. The Group Leaders Normally, the Company has one group leader per shift, per section, but said it was short on group leaders and did not have one for each of the sections. Where there are no group leaders, the supervisors take care of that department or section as well as the other departments. Essentially the group leaders do the same jobs in each of the sections. They gather the materials to be worked on prior to the start of the shift, see which orders have priority over the others according to the completion dates on the job orders, and assign those orders to the girls to be worked on, keep a record of what is produced through the day, fill in for girls who leave their machines, and, on some shifts, group leaders work most of the time on machines. The Union pointed to a number of signatures of group leaders on warning tickets to employees. The group leaders who were questioned concerning these stated that, in every instance, the group leader was instructed by the supervisor to prepare that warning slip, told what to put on it, and instructed to sign it as well and, on occasions, to give such warning slips to employees. The Union's witnesses testified that on any number of occasions when work in their department was slack, the group leader would transfer them to other departments. When the group leaders testified, they stated that they would tell such employees to go to other departments when work was slack, when their supervisors so instructed them. Assuming arguendo that group leaders did not consult with supervisors, which is contrary to the testimony, it would not seem to be an independent exercise of judgment to tell an employee to temporarily work in another department that needed help when an employee had nothing to do. The company job description for group leader is as follows: Position Title: Group Leader Report To: Production Shift Supervisor 483 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Position Concept: To coordinate production activities of a specific operation or group of operations and keep the Shift Supervisor informed on all pertinent matters within this area. General Responsibility: The Group Leader will be responsible for all training, materials flow, and produc- tion of his operation. The Group Leader will have the authority to carry out this function and will report any problems impeding his ability to carry out this function to the Shift Supervisor. Specific Responsibilities: The Group Leader will be responsible for, and have the authority to carry out, the following: I. Train all new personnel coming into the opera- tion and report their progress to the Shift Supervisor on a daily basis for the first two weeks. Make recommen- dations on all new personnel to the Shift Supervisor. 2. Brief new personnel coming into the operation on pertinent company policies, procedures and rules (break times, lunch periods, smoking regulations, etc.) 3. Review individual production tabulations on a daily basis and report substandard totals to Shift Supervisor. 4. Insure production standards are met. 5. Keep a continuous materials flow to production personnel within the operation to insure constant, uninterrupted production. 6. Report all personnel and production problems to the Shift Supervisor. 7. Report all insubordination incidents immediate- ly to the Shift Supervisor for prompt action. 8. Report all absences and tardiness to the Supervi- sor at the beginning of the shift. 9. Attend a monthly production meeting with the Shift Supervisor and the Production Manager. The duties, as outlined above, would seem to be those of a leadman with little or no authority and with minimal discretion. When employees were made group leaders, they received a 15-cent-an-hour increase, but the pay rate of group leaders varied from $2.55 to $3 per hour and seemed to be based on their length of service with the Company. In some instances, the group leaders are making less than other employees in their department or section. A number of the Union's witnesses corroborated that group leaders did not make decisions on requests for time off or for sick leave but consulted supervisors who thereafter talked to the individual employees. They stated that there were emergency times when employees were ill and would tell a group leader and leave, that there was no company policy on making a person stay when an emergency existed. On their recommendations concerning employees, there was inconsistent evidence as to the effectiveness of such recommendations, but there appeared to be independent supervisory investigations made. Respondent considered the Union's position about group leaders as a breach of faith since the consent agreement included them in the unit. Summing up, the group leaders are in effect lead persons, with some training or more experience than other employ- ees, who perform some extra duties and are paid a certain percentage more than most of the employees in that particular section. The position is quasi-supervisory but has little or no room for independent judgment and is without any authority to hire, fire, or effectively recommend the same or transfers. I conclude and find that the group leaders are not supervisory personnel within the meaning of the Act and that the challenges to their ballots should be overruled and their ballots opened and counted. C. The Objections to the Election Having found that Respondent committed an 8(a)(l) violation prior to the filing of the petition by the Union in this case and that Respondent has not committed any 8(aXI) violations following the filing of that petition, and there being no opposition to the Union's motion to withdraw the objections, I grant that motion. Ir. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, and therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act, occurring in connection with Respondent's business operations as set forth above in section I, 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the unfair labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and be ordered to cease and desist from violating the Act in the above manner and that it post an appropriate notice so informing its employees and that thereby the policies of the Act will be effectuated. On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating its employees around September 22, 1976. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case considered as a whole, I hereby issue the following recommended: 484 WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY ORDER 2 The Respondent, J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company, Greenfield, Massachusetts, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from unlawfully interrogating its employees. 2. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, Respondent shall: (a) Post at its plants, warehouses, and offices copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, 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 insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region I, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RECOMMENDED that complaint allegations 8(c), (d), and (e) be dismissed. 2 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 the recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.47 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. 3 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 Following a hearing in which the Company, the Union and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participated and offered evidence, it has been found that we violated the Act. We have been ordered to post this notice and to abide by what we say in this notice. WE WILL NOT unlawfully question our employees about their attitudes toward or reasons for supporting union organizational efforts. WE WILL NOT in the same or any similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. Our employees are free to become or remain members of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), Local No. 259. J. K. ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY 485