Ravenswood Electronics Corp.

RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP. Ravenswood Electronics Corporation and Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union Local No. 743, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Industrial and Agricultural Workers, Party in Interest. Case 13-CA- 15499 September 29, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND MURPHY On June 24, 1977, Administrative Law Judge John F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the 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 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge, to modify his remedy, 3 and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.4 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, Ravenswood Electronics Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed Order, as so modified: I. Substitute the following for paragraph l(f): "(f) Creating the impression of surveillance, seizing employees' union authorization cards, taking an unlawful poll in respect to its employees' desires for union representation, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all 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. 232 NLRB No. 87 2 In his concluding findings regarding the collective-bargaining agree- ments, the Administrative Law Judge stated that "On August 6 ... Respondent executed a detailed collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent ... ." The agreement, ofcourse, was between Respondent and the Industrial and Agricultural Workers, as set forth earlier by the Administrative Law Judge. 3 In his recommended remedy for Respondent's unfair labor practices, the Administrative Law Judge, implicitly relying on Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), set at 6 percent per annum the interest to be assessed on withheld initiation fees, dues, and other moneys owed to Respondent's employees. In our recent Decision in Florida Steel Corpora- tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), we concluded that a flat interest rate of 6 percent no longer would effectuate the policies of the Act and we decided to adopt the sliding interest scale charged or paid by the Internal Revenue Service on the underpayment or overpayment of Federal taxes. Currently, that rate is 7 percent. With respect to monetary awards accruing in periods prior to the issuance of that Decision on August 25, 1977, however, we shall apply the current 7-percent rate wherein the "adjusted prime interest rate" as used by the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments was at least 7 percent. I4 n his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge uses the narrow cease-and-desist language, "in any like or related manner." Respondent here has committed violations which go to the very heart of the Act. We shall therefore require Respondent to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act. N.LR... v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941); Electrical Fittings Corporation, a Subsidiary of I-T-E Imperial Corporatton, 216 NLRB 1076 (1975). APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as employees, certain rights including the right: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a repre- sentative of your own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such rights. WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with any of your rights set forth above. WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of your union activities. WE WILL NOT take union authori- zation cards away from you. WE WILL NOT conduct an unlawful poll in respect to your desires for union representation. WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Industrial and Agricultural Workers. WE WILL NOT recognize and negotiate with Industrial and Agricultural Workers as the exclusive bargaining representative of our em- ployees unless and until such labor organization is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our collective-bargaining agreements with Industrial and Agricultural Workers dated May 20, 1976, 609 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and August 6, 1976, or any extension, renewal, or modification thereof or any superseding agree- ment; provided, that WE WILL NOT alter any wage increases or other benefits put into effect as the result of those agreements. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Indus- trial and Agricultural Workers by requiring employees to join that organization as a condition of obtaining or retaining employment with us, pursuant to the provisions of any past agreements with that union. WE WILL NOT recognize, negotiate, or enter into any new agreement with Industrial and Agricul- tural Workers unless and until that union has been certified as the representative of our employ- ees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff authorization in favor of Industrial and Agricul- tural Workers executed pursuant to these prior agreements. WE WILL reimburse all employees, former and present, for dues and other moneys unlawfully exacted from them under our contracts with Industrial and Agricultural Workers, plus interest. RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORPORATION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN F. CORBLEY, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing was held in this case on March 7, 8, and 9 at Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to a charge filed by Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local No. 743, affiliated with International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Team- sters, on June 1, 1976, and thereafter served by registered mail on Respondent on June 3, 1976; on an amended charge filed by the Teamsters on August 11, 1976, which was served on Respondent by registered mail on August 13, 1976; and on a complaint and notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board on August 24, 1976, which was also duly served on Respondent. The complaint, which was amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, during 1976, variously, by creating the impres- sion of surveillance, conducting an unlawful poll of its employees and forcefully taking union authorization cards away from its employees; that Respondent violated Section 8(aX1) and (2) of the Act during 1976 by unlawfully assisting Industrial and Agricultural Workers, hereinafter referred to as IAW, to organize its employees and then recognizing IAW and entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with IAW containing union-security provisions although IAW did not represent an uncoerced majority of its employees in the bargaining unit covered by the agreement; and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by entering into and enforcing the aforementioned union-security agreement, despite the fact that IAW did not represent the uncoerced majority of its employees. In its answer to the complaint, which was also duly served and amended on the record at the hearing, Respondent has denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. For reasons which appear hereinafter, I find and conclude that Respondent has violated the Act essentially as alleged in the complaint. At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel. All parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to file briefs. Counsel for the Teamsters and counsel for Respon- dent presented oral arguments at the conclusion of the hearing and the General Counsel and counsel for the IAW waived this right. Briefs subsequently received from the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent have been considered. Upon the entire record ' in this case, including the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an Illinois corporation. At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained a place of business at 2735 North Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois (herein called the plant), where it is engaged in the manufacture of transformers. During the calendar year preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representative period, Respondent in the course and conduct of the above-mentioned business operations received gross revenues in excess of $500,000. Also during the calendar year preceding the issuance of the complaint, which was, as noted above, a representative period, Respondent in the course and conduct of the above-mentioned business operations sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Chicago, Illinois, plant to points located outside the State of Illinois. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected. 610 RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Teamsters and IAW are now, and have been at all times material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Respondent's Relevant Hierarchy At all times material herein, the following named persons occupied the positions set forth opposite their respective names, and have been, and are now, agents of the Respondent, acting on its behalf, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act and/or supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act: Paul Ziegler, chairman of the board; James Roberts, Sr., president; James Roberts, Jr., vice president and general manager; Stephen Roberts, director of personnel; Andy Monoran, 2 superintendent; Mary M. Krauser, supervisor - testing department; and John Crawford, supervisor. B. Background and Sequence of Events As of January 1976, Respondent's plant here involved had not been organized by any labor union. The Teamsters had, however, attempted to organize the plant at times since at least 1972. These efforts were resumed by Robert T. Simpson, the Teamsters business agent, on or about January 10 or 12, 1976.3 Simpson spoke to employees outside the plant door on that occasion and passed out Teamsters authorization cards. On or about February 6, Simpson and some four other organizers also came to the plant and passed out leaflets which had authorization cards attached to them. On the latter date Gladys Hemphill, a plant employee, signed a Teamsters authorization card on which Hemphill also indicated that she would serve as a committeeperson. Thereafter, Hemphill became a contact maintained by Simpson inside the plant and the two spoke telephonically on several occasions during the ensuing months in an effort to coordinate the Teamsters organizational efforts. In mid-February, Teamsters organizers again went out to Respondent's plant in an attempt to solicit more authoriza- tions. The same occurred on or about March 10 and on or about April 2. Simpson himself went out again on or about April 20 or 21. On this last occasion he spoke with two employees including Hemphill. By the middle of May, the Teamsters had some 35 authorization cards from Respondent's production and maintenance employees who totaled about 85 during that period.4 The Teamsters organizational efforts did not go unno- ticed by Respondent. Acknowledged Supervisors Steve 2 The complaint alleges that this individual's name is spelled as it appears above. The answer avers that this name is spelled "Martorano." The record indicates his name is as spelled in the complaint and there has been no motion for a correction. In any event, James Roberts, Jr., testified that there is only one "Andy" who is a supervisor. I All dates appearing hereinafter occurred in 1976 unless otherwise noted. 4 The foregoing findings in respect to the Teamsters organizational efforts are based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Simpson in this regard as not essentially disputed but at least in part corroborated by Roberts (Respondent's personnel director), Mary Krauser, and John Crawford credibly testified that they had seen Teamsters organizers pass out authorization cards to employees in January and February. In late January, Steve Roberts informed his brother, James Roberts, Jr., that Teamsters authorization cards were being passed out in front of the plant.5 When so informed, James Roberts responded by noting that "they are here again." About February, Mary Krauser, supervisor of Respon- dent's first floor test department, came to work and was given an authorization card by Teamsters organizers. She then went into the plant and looked out the window for about 15 minutes watching the Teamsters organizers pass out authorization cards to employees coming to work. Hemphill walked into the plant, noticed Krauser watching, and asked Krauser why Krauser was so engaged. Krauser stated that "they" told her to do this. Shortly thereafter Krauser saw a Teamsters organizer standing just inside the plant door warming himself and further observed a different Teamsters organizer coming out of the plant basement. Krauser reported these matters to Krauser's supervisor, Lila Gatliff, to the foreman, Andy Monoran, and to Steve Roberts. She specifically told Steve Roberts about employees taking authorization cards from the Teamsters on this occasion. Steve Roberts advised Krauser to report to him again if the Teamsters returned to the plant the next day.6 About April 1976, while the weather was still cold, Supervisor John Crawford, who is in charge of employees working in the basement of Respondent's plant, was standing near the timeclock just down a flight of stairs from the entrance to the plant, immediately before punch- in time, which is at 7:16 a.m. When about three or four employees who worked in the basement (one of whom was Crawford's brother) passed by Crawford, Teamsters autho- rization cards in the possession of the employees passed from their hands into the hands of Crawford. I will say more of this incident in my "Concluding Findings." At the same time the Teamsters was attempting to organize the plant in the winter and spring of 1976, the fact that the plant was unorganized had come to the attention of Arnold Lasky, an attorney from Miami Florida, who is also president of the IAW. Lasky and Alan Gottlieb (who, in 1976, was a sales and labor relations consultant to Respondent) have been acquaintances since the 1960's when both had represented the National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions. Since that time, in 1972, Lasky has become president of the IAW. He has also become administrator of lAW's insurance trust fund. Sometime in late 1975 or early 1976, Lasky had contacted Gottlieb in an effort to identify employers or groups of employees who might be interested in banding Respondent's witness, James Roberts, Jr., and by Hemphill and Steve Roberts. The number of employees in the unit is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Steve Roberts in this regard. 5 Steve Roberts so admitted in his affidavit to a Board agent, which affidavit was received in evidence. 6 These findings are based on a composite of the credible testimony of Krauser and Hemphill, which does not clash as to these events except as to the date. My findings as to the date is based on the testimony of Krauser who appeared more certain on this point than Hemphill. 611 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD together with employees covered by lAW's trust fund and then take advantage of lower insurance rates. Gottlieb identified certain employers, one of which was Respon- dent. Gottlieb also told Lasky that Respondent was nonunion. Gottlieb agreed to speak with some of these employers about Lasky's proposal and to get back to Lasky. About 2 months before May 1976, Lasky went into negotiations with his insurance carrier, U.S. Life, and was informed that there would be an increase of about 70 percent in the premiums for his trust fund, apparently because of the small size of it. Faced with this crisis and not having heard from Gottlieb, Lasky decided to organize Respondent's employ- ees and, hopefully, to have them insured through his trust fund. To accomplish this purpose, Lasky sent an IAW professional employee, Aurelio Rodriguez, to Chicago to obtain employment, if possible, with Respondent and to evaluate the organizational possibilities. Rodriguez was, indeed, hired by Respondent on or about May I1. A few days later, Lasky telephoned Rodriguez and the latter told Lasky that he thought he knew who the employee leaders were. Lasky told Rodriguez to do nothing else because he, Lasky, was coming to Chicago and would direct the organizational campaign once he got there. Lasky came to Chicago later that week and, dressed in work clothes, applied for a job with Respondent on May 14.7 He was hired as a stockboy that morning by Steve Roberts, his duties were explained to him, and he began work. While working in the plant, Lasky spoke with Rodriguez, who identified the employees' leaders to him. Lasky then approached several of these individuals. After speaking with a number of them, Lasky felt that he was being watched by Respondent's supervisors. He thereupon began passing out IAW authorization cards openly inside the plant. This was reported to James Roberts, Jr., who came into the plant area, observed what Lasky was doing, and directed Monoran to throw Lasky out of the plant. Monoran told Lasky to go "out" and pointed to the door. Lasky left the building but camped outside until lunch. During the lunch break, Lasky spoke to employees as they walked down the street to get their checks cashed. He signed up one of these employees, Debbie Mcllvaine, and gave her authorization cards8 to hand out to other employees. Before Lasky had left the plant that morning, he had directed Rodriguez to begin passing out cards inside the plant. Rodriguez was also fired by Respondent later that day and joined Lasky on the street about 3 or 3:30 that afternoon. Lasky and Rodriguez passed out more cards after work that day. No employee signed a card at the time but some said they would mail them in.9 Meanwhile, being concerned that two union organizers had been in the plant, James Roberts, Jr., telephoned Gottlieb that afternoon and told Gottlieb what had 7 He did not indicate on his application his legal education or experience. 8 The lAW card by its terms is-both an application for membership and a b-; -. the employee to lAW. ·.' ' .ad ',.. w, o Lasky's organizational efforts are based on h .' "e , ,: i· , ,, testimony as partially corroborated by Steve Roberts and James Roberts, Jr. '0 Lasky had left his telephone number with his wife and with his office in Miami. happened. Gottlieb asked Roberts the names of the organizers and Roberts told him. Gottlieb then advised Roberts that Gottlieb knew Lasky and would try to contact him. Gottlieb also promised Roberts that Gottlieb would get back to him. Gottlieb telephoned Lasky that evening at Lasky's motel.'0 Gottlieb told Lasky that Gottlieb was angered over what Lasky had done. Lasky rejoined that he, Lasky, was considering filing an unfair labor practice charge against Respondent because of Rodriguez' discharge and also told Gottlieb, untruthfully, that Lasky had enough support to file a petition for an NLRB-conducted election (Lasky, in truth, had only one card at that time, McIl- vaine's). Gottlieb said that Rodriguez was fired for passing out authorization cards on company time. Lasky respond- ed that Rodriguez did so on breaktime. u1 In any event, Gottlieb told Lasky that Gottlieb would call him back. James Roberts, Jr., met with Gottlieb at the latter's office that evening. Gottlieb told Roberts that Gottlieb had talked to Lasky. Gottlieb advised Roberts that Lasky was going to file unfair labor practice charges and had enough support for a strike. Roberts asked Gottlieb what should be done. Gottlieb responded by inquiring of Roberts whether Roberts thought the employees would vote a union in if an election were held. Roberts thought not. Gottlieb then said he would see if Lasky would agree to an election. Gottlieb thereupon called Lasky back. Gottlie~ told Lasky that Respondent would agree to hold a private election - not an NLRB election - to see if the employees wanted a union. Lasky asked to be present at such election but Gottlieb refused. Gottlieb said that he did not want the employees to see Lasky but that Respondent wanted to find out if the employees had any feeling for a union. Gottlieb also asked that Lasky agree to stay away and not propagandize the employees. Lasky acquiesced and further agreed not to file unfair labor practice charges immediately. Gottlieb reported the results of this conversation to James Roberts, Jr., and Gottlieb and Roberts made the final decision to hold a private election for Respondent's employees. 12 Nothing occurred on May 15 and 16, a weekend. On the morning of Monday, May 17, James Roberts, Jr., called a meeting of Respondent's employees on company time and on company property. The employees who could not speak English were separated into groups and provided with a translator who was a fellow employee. Roberts stopped his speech several times to permit translation of what he said (into Spanish, Italian, and Greek). There is some conflict in the testimony as to what Roberts said to the employees at this meeting. However, based on my resolution of the credibility, I conclude that Roberts made the remarks which follow. Roberts began by noting that a union had been organizing out in front of the plant in the past few days. He " No such charge was ever filed. L2 The findings as to the events of the afternoon and evening of May 14 are based on a composite of the credible and undisputed testimony of Lasky (part of which was his adoption of his prehearing affidavit) and James Roberts, Jr. Gottlieb did not testify. 612 RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP. went on that a number of unions had tried to organize the plant during previous years but that he and his father were opposed to them and had fought their efforts to organize the plant. He stated that his attorney had checked on the Union which was then organizing the employees; namely, the Industrial and Agricultural Workers, and that this Union was an honest one. He continued that if the employees wanted a union they could vote on it. He said that if the employees voted in favor of IAW he would recognize it and a union organizer would be around to see them. He also said he would not hold such a prounion vote against them. On the other hand, he said that, if the employees voted against a union, he would fight further organizational attempts. Employees were permitted to ask questions at the conclusion of the speech and Gladys Hemphill exercised this opportunity. She asked Roberts about the Teamsters. Roberts responded that she should not ask him but should ask Jimmy Hoffa.'3 After Roberts' speech, the employees went to the cafeteria, where each was given a sheet of paper on which was printed a box next to the words "For union" and another box next to the words "Against union."14 It does not appear that any supervisor actually observed any employee in the process of voting. After the vote the employees, pursuant to previous instructions, placed their completed ballots in the suggestion box near the cafeteria. Later that day the ballots were counted by James Roberts, Jr., James Roberts, Sr., Monoran, and Steve Roberts. After the count, James Roberts, Jr., announced to the employees over the loudspeaker the results of the election. He told them that the Union was voted in 15 and that the vote in favor was approximately 42 or 44 and the vote against the Union was about 37 or 39. Roberts also telephoned the results to Gottlieb who called Lasky at Lasky's motel late in the same morning or early that afternoon. Gottlieb told Lasky that a vote had been conducted, that the result was close, but that the employees favored a union. Gottlieb also advised Lasky that the vote was secret and no supervisors were present. Gottlieb then offered to recognize lAW, but Lasky refused this offer. Lasky told Gottlieb that Lasky was not satisfied that the employees wanted his Union. Lasky asked to see the ballots but Gottlieb told Lasky that the ballots had 13 Most of my findings as to the speech and Hemphill's question are consistent with the general testimony of all of the witnesses who testified as to what occurred - Roberts, Hemphill, and Hemphill's fellow employees, Giza, Czengileni, and Mcllvaine. Roberts' testimony that he identified the IAW by name is corroborated by Mcllvaine. Also, in logic, it would seem appropriate that he would identify it, having told the employees, as all witnesses said, that it was a good union. I do not credit Mcllvaine's statement that Roberts said the employees could vote for any union they wanted. No provision was made, as will appear, for such a possibility in the balloting later that day and this testimony is inconsistent with Roberts' admission that he made the above-noted implicitly derogatory remark about Jimmy Hoffa, a former Teamsters leader, now believed dead, who had already disappeared at the time. Mcllvaine said she had never heard the name "Jimmy Hoffa" before the heanng herein. I do not credit Roberts' testimony that, if the employees simply voted "no," he said he would fight further organizational efforts by the IAW. This testimony is contrary to that of Giza and to Roberts' preheanng affidavit which says merely, as I have found, that a "no" vote would cause him to fight all further organizational efforts. I do not credit Hemphill's testimony that Roberts said the Teamsters been destroyed. Lasky again asked Gottlieb to agree on an NLRB-conducted election, but Gottlieb refused. Lasky and Gottlieb then agreed that Lasky could come to the plant and speak privately to the employees. Lasky went out to Respondent's plant on the afternoon of May 17, where he was admitted by Steve Roberts. Roberts sent Lasky to Respondent's cafeteria where Laskey met with English-speaking employees individually. Lasky was also permitted to talk to the employees who could not speak English in groups limited to people speaking that language. Respondent furnished an employ- ee translator for these group meetings. The meetings with the individual employees and non- English-speaking groups began on company time about 1:30 p.m. and lasted past quitting time at 4 or 4:30 p.m. At least one employee, Gladys Hemphill, was told by Steve Roberts and Supervisor Mary Krauser to go into the lunchroom where Lasky was speaking with employees. No supervisors were present in the lunchroom while Lasky met with the employees there.' 6 During these interviews Lasky identified himself, told the employees a little bit about his Union, and told some that if they joined he thought he could get them a raise. He also learned from some of them what other benefits they hoped he would obtain. Several employees mentioned during these interviews that they were interested in joining the Teamsters and Lasky told them to contact that union. In any event, during the course of that afternoon, some 49 employees signed cards applying for membership in IAW and authorizing IAW to represent them in collective bargaining. This group of cards, along with the card of Mcllvaine which Lasky obtained on May 14, gave the IAW 50 authorization cards as of the evening of May 17. This was a clear majority of the approximately 85 employees in the production and maintenance unit in mid-May. Early in the evening of May 17, after obtaining these cards, Lasky took the cards into the office of James Roberts, Jr., and demanded recognition. Roberts examined the cards and on that same date granted IAW recognition in writing as the exclusive bargaining representative of his employees. During the ensuing 3 days, Lasky - alone representing IAW - engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with was no good and that he would fight them to the highest court. I found Hemphill vague in some portions of her testimony and questions by counsel had to be greatly simplified on occasion in order for her to understand them. I conclude that her statement that Roberts said the Teamsters was no good is an inference she drew from Roberts' "ask Jimmy Hoffa" response to her question and her testimony about fighting the Teamsters to the highest court was her understanding of Roberts' statement that, if the employees voted against a union, at that time Respondent would fight any further organizational attempts. I find it unnecessary to resolve other conflicts in the testimony, which, however resolved, would not affect my ultimate findings herein. i4 No ballot was presented in evidence. There was some confusion in the testimony as to what the ballot said. However, all witnesses testified that they could vote for or agaiiist a union and that no union was named on the ballots. The above description of the ballot is based on the credible testimony of James Roberts, Jr., in this regard. is Giza credibly so testified. I6 Hemphill credibly so testified and Steve Roberts did not precisely deny so stating. Krauser did not testify as to this incident. 613 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's representatives - Gottlieb, James Roberts, Jr., Steve Roberts, James Roberts, Sr., and Monoran. Agreement was reached on a number of matters and a memorandum of agreement was signed on May 20 by James Roberts 17 for Respondent and Lasky for IAW. This agreement covered all production and maintenance em- ployees at Respondent's 2735 North Ashland Avenue plant, excluding office clericals, foremen, guards, watch- men, and supervisors, as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.' 8 Lasky, thereupon, took this agreement to the employees for ratification. A meeting of the employees and Lasky was held on Respondent's premises on or about May 20 on company time with Respondent's permission. No supervisors were present. Translators were present to assist those employees who did not speak English. At this meeting Lasky explained to the employees the provisions of the memorandum agreement and some employees asked questions. A number of employees objected to the agreement because it did not include insurance. Lasky replied that if the employees did not like the contract they had the option of going on strike. And he thereupon held a strike vote by having those people who were for a strike move to the opposite side of the room from those who were against it. At least two-thirds of the employees voted against a strike. Lasky then told the employees that the contract was not final1 9 and that he would continue to seek insurance benefits from Respon- dent. Before the meeting concluded, however, some 63 employees signed the memorandum agreement placing their signatures after a sentence thereon reading, "I hereby agree, approve and ratify the above agreement." 20 At or about this time, Hemphill called Simpson, the Teamsters representative, and inquired whether Respon- dent could "give the employees a union" in the fashion this had occurred. Simpson told Hemphill that Respondent was not supposed to have acted in that manner. As previously noted, the initial charge herein was filed on June I by the Teamsters. The Teamsters in May, and thereafter, continued its efforts to organize Respondent's employees despite Respondent's recognition of IAW. In June representatives of IAW solicited checkoff authorizations from the employees. The authorization form also included an insurance application. Gladys Hemphill signed both these portions of this form on June 24 and was told that she was the last employee to do so. In the meantime, further negotiations took place between Lasky for IAW and Gottlieb for Respondent. These discussions resulted in an agreement on insurance. During the early summer of 1976, IAW also processed a number of grievances for employees and maintained an office in Chicago. On August 6, Respondent and IAW executed a formal collective-bargaining agreement effective for 3 years from June 7, 1976, to June 6, 1979. James Roberts, Jr., signed for Respondent and Lasky signed for the IAW. This contract 17 Apparently James Roberts, Jr. 'i Respondent so admitted in its answer to the complaint. "9 Some items such as insurance (to remain the same as Respondent's preexisting benefit), management rights, and union security were written in summary fashion. The union-security provision read, simply, "Union shop." 20 I do not credit Hemphill's testimony that most of the employees voted provided individual insurance benefits to employees which after the second year of the contract would not require any employee contribution. The contract contained a number of other items, e.g., union visitation, seniority, grievance procedure, etc., not reflected in the memorandum agree- ment of May 20. On August 10, Lasky held a meeting of the employees on Respondent's property to inquire of the employees whether or not they still desired him to continue as their collective- bargaining representative. Most affirmed that they did and some 68 of them signed a document which stated that they agreed: "to renegotiate the present contract with the company"; to authorize IAW to continue as their bargain- ing representative; and to appoint Lasky and six named employees as the IAW negotiating committee. On the strength of this document, James Roberts, Jr., signed a new agreement on August 10, recognizing IAW as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. On August 10, Simpson, the Teamsters representative, sent a letter to Respondent, received by the latter on or about August 12, in which Teamsters demanded recogni- tion in a unit of Respondent's production, maintenance, and warehouse employees. On August 11, as previously mentioned, the first amended charge was filed by Teamsters herein. Also on August 12, Lasky provided Respondent with a document requesting Respondent to cease withholding dues in IAW's favor, to return all dues previously withheld plus interest to the employees, and absolving and releasing Respondent from any future claims of IAW against Respondent as the result of Lasky's action in executing this document. lAW has never actually received any dues from Respon- dent at any time.21 In mid-August, IAW closed its office in Chicago and laid off its resident representative, Rasmussen. On August 24, Teamsters filed a petition in Case 13-RC- 14156 for a Board-conducted election among Respondent's employees. On August 26, the Board notified Respondent and the Teamsters that the foregoing election petition would be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the present unfair labor practice case. C. Concluding Findings 1. The alleged impression of surveillance In or about February, as I have found, Mary Krauser, an admitted supervisor, stood near the door of Respondent's plant for about 15 minutes before morning startup time, watching the Teamsters representatives passing out union authorization cards to employees. Krauser was seen so engaged by Hemphill who asked why Krauser was standing there observing the organizers. Krauser respond- ed that she did this because "they" told her to do so. in favor of a strike. Her testimony on the point is contrary to that of Lasky, Czengileni, McIlvaine, and Giza. I believe she could not see how many employees were on each side from where she stood. Even she testified that Lasky noted at this time that a majority of the employees opposed a strike. 21 Lasky credibly so testified without dispute. 614 RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP. It is clear from the foregoing that Krauser was engaged in surveillance. It is also clear in view of the nature of the incident and the context in which it occurred - i.e., a supervisor watching employees being contacted by union organizers - that the "they," who told her to do this, could only be Respondent's higher management officials and that Hemphill would so understand Krauser's response. I, accordingly, conclude that by actually engaging in surveillance and telling Hemphill, in effect, that Respon- dent's management directed such action, Krauser created the impression of surveillance of employees' organizational activities, as alleged in the complaint, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act. 2. John Crawford and the authorization cards As I have found, sometime in April, while the weather was still cold, admitted Supervisor John Crawford stood by the timeclock. While Crawford stood there blank Team- sters authorization cards in the possession of some four employees passed from their hands to Crawford's. Hemp- hill stated that Crawford seized these cards from the employees. Crawford said they handed the cards to him voluntarily. Given the circumstances, as Crawford admit- ted, that Crawford on that same morning had already observed the Teamsters passing out cards to at least one employee (Crawford's own brother) and then went and stood by the clock as the employees including his brother passed by, I conclude that his later actions in respect to the cards were founded on intention rather than chance and that, consistent with such intention, he did seize the cards of the employees, as Hemphill testified. Even if I am in error in reaching this conclusion, I would still find that Crawford - constructively - seized these cards based on his own version of the incident. For the employees, caught redhanded, as it were, with the cards in their possession, were constrained out of obvious embarrassment to surren- der these cards to Crawford when they had to pass by him as he stood by the timeclock. I, accordingly, conclude that by Crawford's actions Respondent has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to engage in union activities and that Respondent has thereby violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act. 3. The "Poll" on May 17 As I have found, James Roberts, Jr., addressed Respon- dent's assembled employees on May 17 and told them he was opposed to unions. He added, however, that he would give them the opportunity to vote for or against a union and that the Union was the IAW, which he had been told was an honest union. The vote took place later that day with employees completing ballots stating their preference of "For union" or "Against union." After the balloting the employees were notified that the results of the count were slightly in favor of a union. The General Counsel and Charging Party argue that the poll was unlawful because it did not comport with the 22 Struksnes Construction Co., Inc., 165 NLRB 1062 (1967). 23 Struksnes Construction Co., Inc., supra, The Lorben Corporation, 146 NLRB 1507 (1964), enforcement denied 345 F.2d 346 (C.A. 2, 1965): cf. Board's Struksnes22 standards. Respondent argues that a poll is not per se unlawful and attempts to distinguish Struksnes on factual grounds. I agree with the General Counsel and the Charging Party. In Struksnes at 1063 the Board held: Absent unusual circumstances, the polling of em- ployees by an employer will be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act unless the following safeguards are observed: (I) the purpose of the poll is to determine the truth of a union's claim of majority, (2) this purpose is communicated to the employees, (3) assurances against reprisal are given, (4) the employees are polled by secret ballot, and (5) the employer has not engaged in unfair labor practices or otherwise created a coercive atmo- sphere. Here, significantly, the IAW did not - prior to the poll - claim to represent a majority of Respondent's employ- ees. Lasky was questioned at length about this at the hearing and stated no such claim had been advanced prior to the poll (IAW had at the time only one authorization card). Nor did Lasky recall any demand for recognition by IAW prior to the poll. Roberts did not, in his speech on May 17, assert that the IAW had demanded recognition or claimed majority support from Respondent's employees. After the speech and after the poll which followed it, Lasky declined recognition when such was offered by Gottlieb. Consequently, the poll could not have the purpose of testing a majority claim by any union (its purpose, as I will find, was to assist - unlawfully - the organizational campaign of the IAW). Further, Respondent had already committed other unfair labor practices, as I have held, in the acts of Krauser and Crawford. I conclude that, in these circumstances, Respondent did not satisfy the Struksnes requirements in conducting the poll of its employees on May 17; hence I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.23 4. Respondent's recognition of the IAW Prior to determining the legality of such recognition, I must first conclude when it in fact first occurred. As just mentioned, IAW presented Respondent with no claim of majority nor demand for recognition prior to the poll. Shortly after the poll, when Gottlieb offered to recognize IAW, Lasky declined such recognition. I there- fore conclude that recognition was first accorded to, and accepted by, the IAW when, on the evening of May 17, James Roberts, Jr., recognized IAW, in writing, following Lasky's presentation of authorization cards from a majori- ty of the employees at that time. The question then becomes whether IAW enjoyed support at the time of recognition from an uncoerced majority of the employees. I conclude that it did not. There were two possible bases for establishing lAW's majority - the poll and Lasky's later authorization card showing. Security Services, Incorporated 201 NLRB 1010 (1973), enfd. 487 F.2d 517 (C.A. 6, 1973). 615 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The poll could not provide a valid basis for establishing uncoerced majority support because, as I have found, it was unlawful. Further, its illegality was based, at least in part, on the fact that it could not have sought to test any prior majority claim by IAW - because no such claim had been made. Since the purpose of the poll was not to test any majority claim, the question arises as to what its purpose was. I conclude that the purpose of the poll - in the full context of the events which surrounded it - was to assist the IAW to gather support from Respondent's employees and to thwart the efforts of the Teamsters. The Teamsters, as I have found, had been attempting to organize Respondent's plant for several years and, during 1976, were actively engaged in this effort in the months of January, February, March, and April. Respondent, by James Roberts, Jr., and Steve Roberts, knew of these efforts in February. Through its supervisor, John Craw- ford, Respondent also knew of these efforts in April. When James Roberts, Jr., spoke to employees on May 17, he acknowledged to them that he was aware of other efforts to organize the plant (besides that of lAW). Despite his knowledge of these recent efforts of the Teamsters to organize, James Roberts, in his speech to his employees, did not take a neutral stance - between Teamsters and IAW, which, he told the employees, was then also organizing - but rather commented favorably on the IAW. When the Teamsters Union was mentioned by Hemphill in the course of Roberts' speech, Roberts downgraded that Union by referring Hemphill to Jimmy Hoffa, a famous Teamsters official who had disappeared under mysterious circumstances some months before Roberts' speech. Roberts also told the employees that Respondent had resisted attempts by other unions to organize its employees yet he advised them that, if they voted in favor of a union at this time, he would recognize the IAW. He added that, if they voted against a union, he would again resist all other organizational attempts thereafter. In sum, then, the following is what Roberts accomplished by his speech. With knowledge that both the Teamsters and IAW were organizing Roberts' employees, he made favorable remarks about IAW, denigrated Teamsters, and said that if the employees voted for a union he would recognize IAW. By negative implication this meant he would not recognize the Teamsters. He also said he would fight future organizational efforts if the employees voted against a union. By affirmative implication this meant he would fight the Teamsters if they continued their attempts to organize after the vote. The poll followed on the heels of this speech. Since Roberts showed preference to the IAW in his speech and effectively excluded Teamsters from participa- tion in, or benefit from, the poll, the poll could not establish the employees, free choice in the matter. It could 24 Peter and John's Restaurant Corporation t/a Steak and Brew, 213 NLRB 450. 452 (1974). This poll is further suspect because no nonmanage- ment person participated in the counting of the ballots and the ballots were destroyed on the same day. 25 See, e.g.. the admission of Steve Roberts in the transcnript of these proceedings. 26 Cf. Steak and Brew, supra; Tuschak/Jacobson, Inc. t/a Franklin only coerce the employees into voting, in effect, for IAW because this is the only union Respondent said it would recognize following a prounion result in the poll. By the same token such a vote could only assist IAW to organize Respondent's employees in that - if they desired represen- tation at all - the only union it would do them any good to join after the poll (because it was the only one Respondent would voluntarily recognize) was IAW. In these circumstances of explicit preferential treatment to IAW and effective exclusion of the Teamsters from participation, the poll could not provide a fair or reliable basis upon which to recognize IAW.2 4 Having disposed of the poll as a possible basis to show an IAW majority on May 17, this brings us to the authorization cards obtained by Lasky later on that same day. I likewise reject these cards as proof of IAW's uncoerced majority on essentially the same grounds as I have rejected the poll - namely, the assistance and preferential treatment accorded to IAW prior to, and during, the time Lasky obtained these authorizations. Thus, it may be recalled that Lasky gathered his card showing after the poll which I have found not only to have been coercive but also an assist to him in his organizational efforts. When Lasky entered the plant on May 17, he found himself seeking employee support after James Roberts, Jr., had already made favorable comments about Lasky's Union to all the employees and had, in effect, downgraded the Teamsters which was JAW's rival. Lasky was, thus, in a position to garner a card showing after Roberts had left the employees with the impression that Respondent would only recognize IAW if the employees wanted a union. Indeed, after the loudspeaker announcement in which Roberts told the employees that the Union had been voted in, employees were given the additional notion that they already had a union. Thereafter, Lasky was permitted to solicit authorization cards on company property, on worktime (in substantial part), and with the assistance of an employee interpreter (when he dealt with the employees who did not speak English). Not only was Lasky given the foregoing assistance but, in providing it to him, Respon- dent created an exception to its prior policy of keeping union organizers off company property at all times. 2 5 This policy had been so rigidly adhered to in the past, for example, that Supervisor Krauser, in February, promptly reported to Lila Gatliff (Krauser's supervisor), Steve Roberts, and Andy Monoran the presence of a Teamsters organizer in the basement of the plant on that occasion. In all these circumstances, the gathering of Lasky's card showing, like the poll, occurred in an atmosphere of coercion and employer assistance, and hence was no more reliable than the poll. I, accordingly, reject the card showing as a valid basis upon which to assess IAW's support among the employees at the time IAW was recognized on May 17.26 Convalescent Center, 223 NLRB 1298 (1976). In view of all the above- described circumstances, the Board's decision in Longchanmps, Inc. and its Wholly Owned Subsidiary, S & B Restaurant of Huntington, d/b/a/ Steak and Brew of Huntington, 205 NLRB 1025 (1973), is distinguishable on its facts. In the latter case - where the Board found not unlawful an employer's grant to a union of access to company property for the purposes of organization on company time - no other union had attempted to organize the 616 RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP. Having rejected the poll as well as the authorizations gathered on and before May 17, I conclude that IAW did not enjoy the support of an uncoerced majority of the Respondent's employees when Roberts recognized IAW as their exclusive bargaining representative on May 17. By according recognition to a labor organization which did not have the uncoerced support of a majority of its employees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.27 Further, by showing preference to the IAW at the expense of the Teamsters and by permitting an IAW organizer to organize its employees on company property and, in substantial part, on company time (while refusing like privileges to other unions) and thereafter by recogniz- ing lAW, Respondent has given unlawful aid, assistance, and support to lAW in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.28 Even if the Teamsters had not been in the picture in the spring of 1976, as I have found, I would reach the same result. For again the poll was taken and the authorization cards were signed on company time and property after James Roberts, Jr., had told Respondent's employees that Respondent had fought the efforts of other unions to organize in the past and would continue that fight in the future if employees voted against a union in the poll. On the other hand, if the employees voted for a union, Roberts told them, he would recognize the IAW. This meant that, if the employees wanted a union, they could have the IAW without any resistance from Respondent, but that, if they voted against a union, Respondent would oppose, as it had in the past, the efforts of any other union to organize. Thus, Respondent not only assisted the IAW to organize, it implanted in the minds of its employees that, if they ever wanted a labor organization to represent them, IAW would be the only union, for all practical purposes, that they could ever get; that is, it was the only union Respondent would not resist. And, as Roberts noted in his speech, Respondent's resistance had successfully kept out all other unions in the past. Hence, even without the competition of the Teamsters for employee support during and before May 1976, I would find, in all the other circumstances, that Respondent's recognition of IAW on May 17 violated Section 8(a)( ) and (2) of the Act.29 5. Additional violations of Section 8(aXl) and (2) of the Act The General Counsel also urges that the recognition of IAW by Respondent on May 17 was violative of Section 8(aXI) and (2) of the Act on the additional ground that such recognition was granted at a time when there was a question concerning representation. I reject this contention for the reason that, as of May 17, the Teamsters had not employees, the employer had stated no preference for the union organizing the employees, there were no other unfair labor practices found and, further, unlike here, the employer and union were both willing to, and did, have the union's majority independently examined by governmental authority. ZT International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO [Bernhard- Altmann Texas Corp.] v. N.LR.B., 366 U.S. 731 (1961). Such unlawful recognition would taint any subsequent majonty obtained under the umbrella of such recognition. Id at 736. IZ Steak and Brew, supra. made a present claim for recognition,3 0 nor had Teamsters filed an election petition with the Board at that time. Accordingly, the Midwest Piping31 doctrine, on which the General Counsel relies, does not apply and I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint. The complaint further alleges that Respondent unlawful- ly assisted IAW by telling employees to report to the union representative (when Lasky met with them after the poll on May 17). And, as I have found, Gladys Hemphill was at least one of those so told by Steve Roberts. However, this single act is insufficient to establish a separate violation of Section 8(aX2)3 2 and, in any event, the direction was given in such a way, according to the credible and undisputed testimony of Steve Roberts, that some other employees knew they had the choice - which they exercised - not to speak to the lAW representative. Therefore, I shall also recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. 6. The collective-bargaining agreements and the checkoff of union dues As I have found, Respondent and IAW consummated a memorandum agreement on May 20, 1976. This agreement contained a provision for a "union shop" (without describing what type of union-security arrangement was thereby established). In June, employees signed checkoff authorizations. According to the affidavit of James Rob- erts, Jr., Roberts admitted, and I find, that union dues were deducted from paychecks distributed on July 2, 1976, and Respondent intended to make a further deduction later in July. On August 6, as I have found, Respondent executed a detailed collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent which contained both an explicit 30-day union-security provision, an agreement by Respondent to withhold dues and initiation fees from the wages of all employees executing a legal authorization therefor, and a promise to remit these dues and fees monthly to the Union. Lasky, on the other hand, testified that no dues have actually been remitted to IAW. I find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with IAW on May 20, 1976, containing a "union shop" provision in which both parties contemplated that employees would have to be dues-paying members of IAW in order to maintain their employment with Respondent. I further conclude, in the light of IAW's efforts in June to have employees sign checkoff authorizations and by Respon- dent's efforts in July to withhold moneys (obviously pursuant to such checkoff authorizations), that the May 20 memorandum agreement contemplated such a procedure in the minds of the parties to it. 29 See Howard Creations, Inc., 212 NLRB 179 (1974); The Bassick Conpany, Spring Valley Division, a Division of Stewart. Warner Corporation. 127 NLRB 1552 (1960); Franklin Convalescent Center, supra. 30 Its apparent and only prior claim. which had been proffered in 1972 when Simpson discussed recognition with Gottlieb, had subsequently "died," according to Simpson, before January 1976, when Teamsters renewed its efforts to organize Respondent's employees. 3i Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060, 1069-70 (1945). 32 Steak and Brew of Huntington. supra. 617 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Inasmuch as IAW did not represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees in the bargaining unit when the agreement of May 20 was entered into, I find that, by executing said agreement containing what the parties understood to be union-security and checkoff arrangements and, separately, by honoring said arrange- ments, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.33 I further conclude that by entering into a formal collective-bargaining agreement containing an explicit 30- day union-security provision and a provision for withhold- ing dues from employees upon their voluntary authoriza- tions - said contract being entered into at a time when IAW still did not represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees - Respondent has further violat- ed Section 8(aX )), (2), and (3) of the Act.34 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section i, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Teamsters and IAW are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By creating the impression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees in February 1976, by taking away employees' union authorization cards in April 1976, and by conducting a poll of its employees on May 17, 1976, in respect to their support for a union, Respondent has violated Section 8(aX )) of the Act. 4. By recognizing lAW as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees on May 17, 1976, at a time when IAW did not represent an uncoerced majority of such employees, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. 5. By showing preference to IAW, to the detriment of a competing labor organization, by permitting IAW's repre- sentative to organize its employees on company property and, in substantial part, on company time, and by thereafter recognizing IAW on May 17, 1976, Respondent has violated Section 8(aX I) and (2) of the Act. 6. By entering into contracts with IAW on May 20, and August 6, 1976, where said contracts contained union- security arrangements and provisions for withholding of union dues and, further, where said contracts were entered into at times when IAW did not represent the uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees, and, finally, by enforcing said union-security and checkoff arrangements, 33 Prospect Gardens of Norwalk, Inc., 177 NLRB 136, 139-140 (1969). 34 Ibid. 35 Except, of course, the agreements' union-security and dues-checkoff provisions as to which effect may no longer be given. Respondent has violated Section 8(aX 1), (2), and (3) of the Act. 7. Respondent has not been shown to have violated the Act except as found herein. 8. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend an order directing it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. More particularly, having found that Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right freely to select their own bargaining representative in that Respondent unlawfully supported, assisted, and recognized IAW, the Order I shall recom- mend will require Respondent to cease providing such unlawful support and assistance, and to withdraw and withhold all recognition from IAW unless and until IAW shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of Re- spondent's employees in question. The Order shall further direct Respondent to cease giving effect to the memoran- dum agreement with IAW dated May 20, 1976, and the later formal collective-bargaining contract with that Union dated August 6, 1976, or to any renewal, modification, or extension of either such agreement. However, nothing in this Order shall authorize or require the withdrawal or elimination of any wage increase or other benefits, terms, and conditions of employment which may have been established pursuant to either such agreement. 35 The Order shall also require Respondent to reimburse all present and former employees for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys which may have been exacted from them by, or on behalf of, IAW pursuant to the union-security and dues- checkoff provisions, express or implied, of the aforemen- tioned collective-bargaining agreements, together with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. Finally, the recommended Order will require Respondent to cease and desist from creating the impression of surveillance, seizing employees' union authorization cards, taking an unlawful poll of its employees' wishes in respect to union representa- tion, or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 618 RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP. ORDER 36 The Respondent, Ravenswood Electronics Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Assisting or contributing support to Industrial and Agricultural Workers. (b) Recognizing and negotiating with Industrial and Agricultural Workers as the exclusive representative of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and until such labor organization is certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of said employees pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act. (c) Enforcing or giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreements with Industrial and Agricultural Workers dated May 20, 1976, and August 6, 1976, or any extension, renewal, or modification thereof or any superseding agreement, provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall authorize or require the withdrawal or elimination of any wage increase or other benefits or terms and conditions of employment which may have been established pursuant to such contracts. (d) Encouraging membership in Industrial and Agricul- tural Workers by conditioning employment on member- ship in such organization except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (e) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations executed by any of Respondent's employees in favor of Industrial and Agricultural Workers. (f) Creating the impression of surveillance, seizing employees' union authorization cards, taking an unlawful poll in respect to its employees' desires for union represen- tation, or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed employees pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Industri- al and Agricultural Workers as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of its employees, unless and until said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive represen- tative of such employees. (b) Reimburse all present and former employees for all initiation fees, dues, assessments, or any other moneys checked off in favor of Industrial and Agricultural Workers in the manner set forth in the Decision herein. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of dues and any other moneys to be repaid under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its 2735 North Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 37 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its 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. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. 3e 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. 37 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the chance to give evidence it has been decided that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to post this notice. The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as employees, certain rights including the rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representa- tive of your own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such things. WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with any of your rights set forth above, NOR WILL WE create the impression of surveillance of your union activities, NOR WILL WE take union authorization cards away from you, NOR WILL WE conduct an unlawful poll in respect to your desires for union representation. WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Industrial and Agricultural Workers. WE WILL NOT recognize and negotiate with Industri- al and Agricultural Workers as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees unless and until such labor organization is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our collective- bargaining agreements with Industrial and Agricultural Workers dated May 20, 1976, and August 6, 1976, or any extension, renewal, or modification thereof or any superseding agreement; provided that WE WILL NOT 619 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD alter any wage increases or other benefits put into effect as the result of those agreements. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Industrial and Agricultural Workers by requiring employees to join that organization as a condition of obtaining or retaining employment with us, pursuant to the provi- sions of any past agreements with that Union. WE WILL NOT recognize, negotiate, or enter into any new agreement with Industrial and Agricultural Work- ers unless and until that Union has been certified as the representative of our employees. WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff authoriza- tion in favor of Industrial and Agricultural Workers executed pursuant to these prior agreements. WE WILL reimburse all employees, former and present, for dues and other moneys unlawfully exacted from them under our contracts with Industrial and Agricultural Workers, plus 6-percent interest. RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 620