Halo Lighting Div. of McGraw Edison

702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Company the IBEW covering its production and maintenance and Independent Radionic Workers of America, employees. In 1979,3 a number of Respondent's em- affiliated with National Federation of Independ- ployees including IBEW stewards became dissatis- ent Unions of America and International Broth- fied with IBEW's representation, and contacted the erhood of Elec trical w o rkers, Local 134, AFL Independent Radionic Workers of America (hereaf- CIO, Party in Interest. Cases 13-CA-18948 Iand 13-CA-19ry in 1051 . C s 1 ter IRWA), and, on June 8, an election petition was filed. December 15, 1981 Throughout the vigorously run campaign, Re- spondent supported the reelection of the IBEW DECISION AND ORDER through a series of written communications to the BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND employees and a preelection speech by Thompson. ZIMMERMAN It stressed its concern over the possible loss of the use of the IBEW label on its product, and predict- On January 30, 1981, Administrative Law Judge ed a refusal by electrical installers represented by Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in he IBEW to handle the product, which in turn this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel would result in the loss of sales and the loss of a Respondent, and the International Brotherhood of great number of jobs. Although the General Coun- Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL-CIO (hereaf- sel did not allege that the written communications ter IBEW), filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Thompsons speech were violative of the Act, and the General Counsel, Respondent, and the it did allege that the same message conveyed by IBEW filed briefs in response to opposing parties' Thompson and several supervisors in conversations exceptions. with employees threatened employees with loss of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the jobs in violation of Section 8 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- ' it . its a. ... The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- T h e Administrative Law Judge dismissed the tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 8(a)(1) allegations concerning these statements by thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. allegations concerning these statements by The Board has considered the record and the at- Thompson a n d th e supervisors, although he did tached Decision in light of the exceptions and find that predictions as to the loss of specific num- briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- bers of such Jobs were unlawful. Relying on the ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law doctrine enunciated in the Supreme Court's deci- Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. sion in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 The General Counsel excepted to the failure of U.S. 575 (1969), that a company may predict the the Administrative Law Judge to find that state- precise effect unionism will have on it if the pre- ments made by Respondent's president, Thompson, diction s based on objective fact "to convey an and several of Respondent's supervisors, to various employer's belief as to demonstrable probable con- employees, that if the IBEW, the incumbent Union, sequences beyond the employer's control, the Ad- lost the impending election installation electricians minstratve Law Judge concluded that the evi- represented by that Union would refuse to install dence presented by the Employer in support of its Respondent's products which would cause a loss of belief that the loss of the IBEW label would have sales for Respondent and a resultant loss of work such a detrimental effect on its business was sub- for the employees. We find merit in this exception. stantal, and unrebutted by any evidence presented Respondent is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures by the General Counsel that such an effect would which it sells to distributors and contractors mainly ot result. for installation in commercial buildings. It began The evidence presented by the Employer in sup- operations in 1955 and, since shortly thereafter, has port of its predictions included an incident which been party to collective-bargaining contracts with occurred in Missouri in 1956 when electricians re- fused to install Respondent's incandescent lighting By telegraphic order dated October 23, 1981, the General Counsel's because it did not have the IBEW label, an inci- motion to sever Case 13-RC-15139 was granted and that case was re- dent which caused Respondent to seek out the manded to Region 13 for further processing. 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the IBEW and initiate its contractual relationship with Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to that Union; testimony that Respondent's major overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- competitors all have the use of the IBEW label- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products that 90 percent of Respondent's sales are in the Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have United States and that 95 percent of its sales are to carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. disrir We agree with the General Counsel that the notice to employees distributors r ontractors for large mmer- should be posted in both English and Spanish at Respondent's facility, and we shall order such posting.' All events occurred in 1979. 259 NLRB No. 86 702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Company the IBEW covering its production and maintenance and Independent Radionic Workers of America, employees. In 1979, 3 a number of Respondent's em- affiliated with National Federation of Independ- ployees including IBEW stewards became dissatis- ent Unions of America and International Broth- fied with IBEW's representation, and contacted the erhood of Elec trical w o rkers, Local 134, AFL- Independent Radionic Workers of America (hereaf- CIO, Party in Interest. Cases 13-CA-18948 .rij a i * and 13-CA-191051 ter IRWA), and, on June 8, an election petition was filed. December 15, 1981 Throughout the vigorously run campaign, Re- DECISION AND ORDER spondent supported the reelection of the IBEW through a series of written communications to the BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND employees and a preelection speech by Thompson. ZIMMERMAN It stressed its concern over the possible loss of the On January 30, 1981, Administrative Law Judge use of the IBEW label on its product, and predict- On January 30, 1981, Administrative Law Judge e a refusal by electrical installers represented by Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in e a to byndlethe prs representturb thi prceeing Threate, te Gnerl Cunsl, the IBEW to handle the product, which in turn this proceedingt Thereafter, the General Counself would result in the loss of sales and the loss of a Respondentl andl Workers, Loc al AF C bereaf- great number of jobs. Although the General Coun- E r IBEW), fileder sx etion 134, ApL-CIO (hereaf- sel did not allege that the written communications ter IBEW), filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Thompson's speech were violative of the Act, and the General Counsel, Respondent, and th e it did allege that the same message conveyed by IBEW filed briefs in response to opposing parties' Thompson and several supervisors in conversations exceptions.^with employees threatened employees with loss of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the jobs in violation of S o a National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Tn vinistrative Law (li. tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 8 a T h e g Administrative Law Judge dismissed the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. aw allegations concerning these statements by The Board has considered the record and the at- fiompson and the supervisors, although he did tached Decision in light of the exceptions and f nd t hat ofu ctions as to the loss of specific num- briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- b ers o f s uc h Jobs were unlawful. Relying on the ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law sdoctrine enunciated in the Supreme Court's deci- Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. sUon . N 7 L 5 R 1 B 9 vt G t ssel pac kny C o m pe c t 395 The General Counsel excepted to the failure of pU e s. 575 (1969), that a company may predict the the Administrative Law Judge to find that state- pdictio eff ect ibeonism will have on it if the pre- ments made by Respondent's president, Thompson, dem t lony s based on objective fact "to convey an and several of Respondent's supervisors, to various semployer's belief as to demonstrable probable con- employees, that if the IBEW, the incumbent Union, msequences" beyond the employer's control, the Ad- lost the impending election installation electricians m eistrative Law Judge concluded that the evi- represented by that Union would refuse to install bden ce pthtented by the Employer in support of its Respondent's products which would cause a loss of sb eu e f th at th e lo ss ef th e IB E W 1uin1 w w l d have sales for Respondent and a resultant loss of work su c h a detrimental effect on its business was sub- for the employees. We find merit in this exception. bstan thel ' G n d Corebutted by any evidence presented Respondent is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures th e G e n e ra l Counsel that such an effect would which it sells to distributors and contractors mainlye"OvtesUlt. for installation in commercial buildings. It began T t e evidence presented by the Employer in sup- operations in 1955 and, since shortly thereafter, has Port of its predictions included an incident which been party to collective-bargaining contracts with occurred in Missouri in 1956 when electricians re- fused to install Respondent's incandescent lighting 'By telegraphic order dated October 23, 1981, the General Counsel's because it did not have the IBEW label, an inci- motion to sever Case 13-RC-15139 was granted and that case was re- dent which caused Respondent to seek out the manded to Region 13 for further processing. 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the IBEW and initiate its contractual relationship With Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to that Union; testimony that Respondent's major overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- competitors all have the use of the IBEW label; bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products that 90 percent Of Respondent's sales are in the Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have United States and that 95 percent of its sales are to carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. d i -» A - r * i We agree with the General Counsel that the notice to employees distributors Or Contractors for use in large commer- should be posted in both English and Spanish at Respondent's facility, and we shall order such posting.' All events occurred in 1979. 259 NLRB No. 86 702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Company the IBEW covering its production and maintenance and Independent Radionic Workers of America, employees. In 1979, 3 a number of Respondent's em- affiliated with National Federation of Independ- ployees including IBEW stewards became dissatis- ent Unions of America and International Broth- fied with IBEW's representation, and contacted the erhood of Elec trical w o rkers, Local 134, AFL- Independent Radionic Workers of America (hereaf- CIO, Party in Interest. Cases 13-CA-18948 .rij a i * and 13-CA-191051 ter IRWA), and, on June 8, an election petition was filed. December 15, 1981 Throughout the vigorously run campaign, Re- DECISION AND ORDER spondent supported the reelection of the IBEW through a series of written communications to the BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND employees and a preelection speech by Thompson. ZIMMERMAN It stressed its concern over the possible loss of the On January 30, 1981, Administrative Law Judge use of the IBEW label on its product, and predict- On January 30, 1981, Administrative Law Judge e a refusal by electrical installers represented by Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in e a to byndlethe prs representturb thi prceeing Threate, te Gnerl Cunsl, the IBEW to handle the product, which in turn this proceedingt Thereafter, the General Counself would result in the loss of sales and the loss of a Respondentl andl Workers, Loc al AF C bereaf- great number of jobs. Although the General Coun- E r IBEW), fileder sx etion 134, APL-CIO (hereaf- sel did not allege that the written communications ter IBEW), filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Thompson's speech were violative of the Act, and the General Counsel, Respondent, and th e it did allege that the same message conveyed by IBEW filed briefs in response to opposing parties' Thompson and several supervisors in conversations exceptions.^with employees threatened employees with loss of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the jobs in violation of S o a National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Tn vinistrative Law (li. tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 8 a T h e g Administrative Law Judge dismissed the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. aw allegations concerning these statements by The Board has considered the record and the at- fiompson and the supervisors, although he did tached Decision in light of the exceptions and f nd t hat ofu ctions as to the loss of specific num- briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- b ers o f s uc h Jobs were unlawful. Relying on the ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law sdoctrine enunciated in the Supreme Court's deci- Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. sUon .. 575(199) vt G t ssel pac kny C o m pe c t 395 The General Counsel excepted to the failure of pU e s. 575 (1969), that a company may predict the the Administrative Law Judge to find that state- pdictio eff ect ibeonism will have on it if the pre- ments made by Respondent's president, Thompson, dem t lony s based on objective fact "to convey an and several of Respondent's supervisors, to various semployer's belief as to demonstrable probable con- employees, that if the IBEW, the incumbent Union, msequences" beyond the employer's control, the Ad- lost the impending election installation electricians m eistrative Law Judge concluded that the evi- represented by that Union would refuse to install bden ce pthtented by the Employer in support of its Respondent's products which would cause a loss of sb eu e f th at th e lo ss ef th e IB E W 1uin1 w w l d have sales for Respondent and a resultant loss of work su c h a detrimental effect on its business was sub- for the employees. We find merit in this exception. bstan thel ' G n d Corebutted by any evidence presented Respondent is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures th e G e n e ra l Counsel that such an effect would which it sells to distributors and contractors mainlye"OvtesUlt. for installation in commercial buildings. It began T t e evidence presented by the Employer in sup- operations in 1955 and, since shortly thereafter, has Port of its predictions included an incident which been party to collective-bargaining contracts with occurred in Missouri in 1956 when electricians re- fused to install Respondent's incandescent lighting 'By telegraphic order dated October 23, 1981, the General Counsel's because it did not have the IBEW label, an inci- motion to sever Case 13-RC-15139 was granted and that case was re- dent which caused Respondent to seek out the manded to Region 13 for further processing. 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the IBEW and initiate its contractual relationship With Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to that Union; testimony that Respondent's major overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- competitors all have the use of the IBEW label; bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products that 90 percent Of Respondent's sales are in the Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have United States and that 95 percent of its sales are to carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. d i -» A - r * i We agree with the General Counsel that the notice to employees distributors Or Contractors for use in large commer- should be posted in both English and Spanish at Respondent's facility, and we shall order such posting.' All events occurred in 1979. 259 NLRB No. 86 702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Company the IBEW covering its production and maintenance and Independent Radionic Workers of America, employees. In 1979, 3 a number of Respondent's em- affiliated with National Federation of Independ- ployees including IBEW stewards became dissatis- ent Unions of America and International Broth- fied with IBEW's representation, and contacted the erhood of Elec trical w o rkers, Local 134, AFL- Independent Radionic Workers of America (hereaf- CIO, Party in Interest. Cases 13-CA-18948 .rij a i * and 13-CA-191051 ter IRWA), and, on June 8, an election petition was filed. December 15, 1981 Throughout the vigorously run campaign, Re- DECISION AND ORDER spondent supported the reelection of the IBEW through a series of written communications to the BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND employees and a preelection speech by Thompson. ZIMMERMAN It stressed its concern over the possible loss of the On January 30, 1981, Administrative Law Judge use of the IBEW label on its product, and predict- On January 30, 1981, Administrative Law Judge e a refusal by electrical installers represented by Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in e a to byndlethe prs representturb thi prceeing Threate, te Gnerl Cunsl, the IBEW to handle the product, which in turn this proceedingt Thereafter, the General Counself would result in the loss of sales and the loss of a Respondentl andl Workers, Loc al AF C bereaf- great number of jobs. Although the General Coun- E r IBEW), fileder sx etion 134, APL-CIO (hereaf- sel did not allege that the written communications ter IBEW), filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Thompson's speech were violative of the Act, and the General Counsel, Respondent, and th e it did allege that the same message conveyed by IBEW filed briefs in response to opposing parties' Thompson and several supervisors in conversations exceptions.^with employees threatened employees with loss of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the jobs in violation of S o a National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Tn vinistrative Law (li. tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 8 a T h e g Administrative Law Judge dismissed the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. aw allegations concerning these statements by The Board has considered the record and the at- fiompson and the supervisors, although he did tached Decision in light of the exceptions and f nd t hat ofu ctions as to the loss of specific num- briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- b ers o f s uc h Jobs were unlawful. Relying on the ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law sdoctrine enunciated in the Supreme Court's deci- Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. sUon .. 575(199) v t G t ssel pac kny C o m pe c t 395 The General Counsel excepted to the failure of pU e s. 575 (1969), that a company may predict the the Administrative Law Judge to find that state- pdictio eff ect ibeonism will have on it if the pre- ments made by Respondent's president, Thompson, dem t lony s based on objective fact "to convey an and several of Respondent's supervisors, to various semployer's belief as to demonstrable probable con- employees, that if the IBEW, the incumbent Union, msequences" beyond the employer's control, the Ad- lost the impending election installation electricians m eistrative Law Judge concluded that the evi- represented by that Union would refuse to install bden ce pthtented by the Employer in support of its Respondent's products which would cause a loss of sb eu e f th at th e lo ss ef th e IB E W 1uin1 w w l d have sales for Respondent and a resultant loss of work su c h a detrimental effect on its business was sub- for the employees. We find merit in this exception. bstan thel ' G n d Corebutted by any evidence presented Respondent is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures th e G e n e ra l Counsel that such an effect would which it sells to distributors and contractors mainlye"OvtesUlt. for installation in commercial buildings. It began T t e evidence presented by the Employer in sup- operations in 1955 and, since shortly thereafter, has Port of its predictions included an incident which been party to collective-bargaining contracts with occurred in Missouri in 1956 when electricians re- fused to install Respondent's incandescent lighting 'By telegraphic order dated October 23, 1981, the General Counsel's because it did not have the IBEW label, an inci- motion to sever Case 13-RC-15139 was granted and that case was re- dent which caused Respondent to seek out the manded to Region 13 for further processing. 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the IBEW and initiate its contractual relationship With Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to that Union; testimony that Respondent's major overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- competitors all have the use of the IBEW label; bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products that 90 percent Of Respondent's sales are in the Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have United States and that 95 percent of its sales are to carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. d i -» A - r * i We agree with the General Counsel that the notice to employees distributors Or Contractors for use in large commer- should be posted in both English and Spanish at Respondent's facility, and we shall order such posting.' All events occurred in 1979. 259 NLRB No. 86 HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 703 cial construction; that on occasion Respondent's label will cause IBEW installers not to handle its product has gone out without the label, resulting in product, cause a substantial loss of business, or its sending the labels to follow the product, or con- result in a substantial loss of jobs. firming that it was still affiliated with the IBEW; These unsupported predictions made by Re- that Respondent's eastern regional sales manager, spondent were serious in nature in that they posed in sales presentations, lets the customers know that a threat to the very livelihood of the employees. In Respondent is an IBEW company, and that in his such circumstances, an employer who wishes to past experience as a journeyman electrician he predict such consequences based on the outcome of looked for the IBEW label on products, and he did a Board election must use care to assure that its not recall seeing other union labels on electrical predictions are based on objective fact concerning products; and testimony of the business representa- matters beyond its control, and will not convey the tive of the IBEW that it was normal for journey- impression that it will take steps on its own to ad- men electricians to check to see if an electrical fix- versely affect the employment status of its employ- ture bore the label of an AFL-CIO affiliate and, if ees. We find here that the Employer failed to use not, to call the union hall to see if the manufacturer such care in that its prediction had no sufficient was a union company. The company would then basis in fact. Further, in the context of other pree- be notified to send the labels to the jobsite. lection conduct engaged in by Respondent in viola- Noting the failure of the General Counsel to tion of Section 8(a)(l), including, inter alia, threats refute the foregoing testimony or to present evi- of discharge, loss of benefits, plant relocation, re- dence that journeymen electricians would be will- duced wages, and threats to report employees to ing to install fixtures without the IBEW label, or the Immigration Service if they supported the that any of Respondent's competitors used a label IRWA rather than the IBEW, we find that Re- other than that of the IBEW, the Administrative spondent made its predictions relating to job loss in Law Judge found Respondent's evidence sufficient a conscious effort to further instill fear in its em- to support its belief on which it based its predic- ployees. This infringed upon the employees' rights tions. to freely engage in Section 7 activities protected by Contrary to the conclusions reached by the Ad- the Act. We therefore find that the statements ministrative Law Judge, we do not beleive that Re- made by Thompson and Supervisors Lizordi, spondent's evidence constitutes objective fact sup- Monaco, Hueuink, Orabutt, Baez, Saez, and Jef- porting the belief that the election of IRWA rather fress concerning the refusal of installers to handle than the IBEW by the employees would bring Respondent's product, which would result in a loss about the dire consequences predicted by Respond- of business and loss of jobs, violated Section 8(a)(l) ent, i.e., the loss of the employees' jobs. of the Act. The only direct evidence relating to the refusal We find merit also in the General Counsel's ex- of electricians to install Respondent's product con- ception to the failure of the Administrative Law cerns an incident which took place in Missouri 25 Judge to find that Respondent violated Section years ago, an event we find too remote in time to 8(a)(1) by focusing the blame for the cancellation support Respondent's stated belief. We realize, of the company picnic on the IRWA. however, that Respondent has since that time had a The Company had planned its second annual bargaining relationship with the IBEW. The re- fiesta day, a picnic expected to attract about 700 mainder of Respondent's evidence on this issue employees, for July 7. During the last week of may indicate Respondent's belief in the advantages June, Supervisor Hueuink began receiving reports of having a contractual relationship with the that there might be violence at the picnic between IBEW; the loyalty of IBEW members to their supporters, instigated by Union and their concern for the protection of the se internl organizers for IRWA Re- organizational gains made by it; and the success the soe the picnic in light IBEW has had in organizing the electrical industry, te e s a, on l , it i d a e but it does not show that journeymen electricians theon nouncing the cancellation of the picnic containing as a group will refuse to install the product of a the following anguge t company which does not have a contractual rela- tionship with the IBEW, or that the IBEW would Information has come to our attention that the act contrary to the Act by inducing its members to organizers for the Independent Radionic refrain from handling the products of such a com- Workers of America (IRWA), the independent pany. Thus, we find that Respondent's evidence union that is attempting to become the bar- does not demonstrate an objective basis to support gaining agent for our plant production em- Respondent's predictions that the loss of the IBEW ployees, although not invited to our picnic, HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 703 cial construction; that on occasion Respondent's label will cause IBEW installers not to handle its product has gone out without the label, resulting in product, cause a substantial loss of business, or its sending the labels to follow the product, or con- result in a substantial loss of jobs. firming that it was still affiliated with the IBEW; These unsupported predictions made by Re- that Respondent's eastern regional sales manager, spondent were serious in nature in that they posed in sales presentations, lets the customers know that a threat to the very livelihood of the employees. In Respondent is an IBEW company, and that in his such circumstances, an employer who wishes to past experience as a journeyman electrician he predict such consequences based on the outcome of looked for the IBEW label on products, and he did a Board election must use care to assure that its not recall seeing other union labels on electrical predictions are based on objective fact concerning products; and testimony of the business representa- matters beyond its control, and will not convey the tive of the IBEW that it was normal for journey- impression that it will take steps on its own to ad- men electricians to check to see if an electrical fix- versely affect the employment status of its employ- ture bore the label of an AFL-CIO affiliate and, if ees. We find here that the Employer failed to use not, to call the union hall to see if the manufacturer such care in that its prediction had no sufficient was a union company. The company would then basis in fact. Further, in the context of other pree- be notified to send the labels to the jobsite. lection conduct engaged in by Respondent in viola- Noting the failure of the General Counsel to tion of Section 8(a)(l), including, inter alia. threats refute the foregoing testimony or to present evi- of discharge, loss of benefits, plant relocation, re- dence that journeymen electricians would be will- duced wages, and threats to report employees to ing to install fixtures without the IBEW label, or the Immigration Service if they supported the that any of Respondent's competitors used a label IRWA rather than the IBEW. we find that Re- other than that of the IBEW, the Administrative spondent made its predictions relating to job loss in Law Judge found Respondent's evidence sufficient a conscious effort to further instill fear in its em- to support its belief on which it based its predic- ployees. This infringed upon the employees' rights tio n s. to freely engage in Section 7 activities protected by Contrary to the conclusions reached by the Ad- the Act. We therefore find that the statements ministrative Law Judge, we do not beleive that Re- made by Thompson and Supervisors Lizordi, spondent's evidence constitutes objective fact sup- Monaco, Hueuink, Orabutt, Baez, Saez, and Jef- porting the belief that the election of IRWA rather fress concerning the refusal of installers to handle than the IBEW by the employees would bring Respondent's product, which would result in a loss about the dire consequences predicted by Respond- of business and loss of jobs, violated Section 8(a)(l) ent, i.e., the loss of the employees' jobs. of the Act. The only direct evidence relating to the refusal We find merit also in the General Counsel's ex- of electricians to install Respondent's product con- ception to the failure of the Administrative Law cerns an incident which took place in Missouri 25 Judge to find that Respondent violated Section years ago, an event we find too remote in time to 8(a)(1) by focusing the blame for the cancellation support Respondent's stated belief. We realize, of the company picnic on the IRWA. however, that Respondent has since that time had a The Company had planned its second annual bargaining relationship with the IBEW. The re- fiesta day, a picnic expected to attract about 700 mainder of Respondent's evidence on this issue employees, for July 7. During the last week of may indicate Respondent's belief in the advantages June, Supervisor Hueuink began receiving reports of having a c ont r ac tual rel at io nship w ith t he that there might be violence at the picnic between IBEW; the loyalty of IBEW members to their t A and IBEW supporters, instigated by Union and their concern for the protection of the s o t er organizers for IRWA. Re- organizational gains made by it; and the success the s d t c t pn i l IBEW has had in organizing the electrical industry, t r but it does not show that journeymen electricians nucn h aclaino h inccnann as'a~~o^ wnltfuset 1 S~ e-prS Tuncin t h e cacllto 0 ! t h e p i c n i c c o n t a i n i n g as a group will refuse to install the product of a thfolwnlagge company which does not have a contractual rela- tionship with the IBEW, or that the IBEW would Information has come to our attention that the act contrary to the Act by inducing its members to organizers for the Independent Radionic refrain from handling the products of such a com- Workers of America (IRWA), the independent pany. Thus, we find that Respondent's evidence union that is attempting to become the bar- does not demonstrate an objective basis to support gaining agent for our plant production em- Respondent's predictions that the loss of the IBEW ployees, although not invited to our picnic, HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 703 cial construction; that on occasion Respondent's label will cause IBEW installers not to handle its product has gone out without the label, resulting in product, cause a substantial loss of business, or its sending the labels to follow the product, or con- result in a substantial loss of jobs. firming that it was still affiliated with the IBEW; These unsupported predictions made by Re- that Respondent's eastern regional sales manager, spondent were serious in nature in that they posed in sales presentations, lets the customers know that a threat to the very livelihood of the employees. In Respondent is an IBEW company, and that in his such circumstances, an employer who wishes to past experience as a journeyman electrician he predict such consequences based on the outcome of looked for the IBEW label on products, and he did a Board election must use care to assure that its not recall seeing other union labels on electrical predictions are based on objective fact concerning products; and testimony of the business representa- matters beyond its control, and will not convey the tive of the IBEW that it was normal for journey- impression that it will take steps on its own to ad- men electricians to check to see if an electrical fix- versely affect the employment status of its employ- ture bore the label of an AFL-CIO affiliate and, if ees. We find here that the Employer failed to use not, to call the union hall to see if the manufacturer such care in that its prediction had no sufficient was a union company. The company would then basis in fact. Further, in the context of other pree- be notified to send the labels to the jobsite. lection conduct engaged in by Respondent in viola- Noting the failure of the General Counsel to tion of Section 8(a)(l), including, inter alia. threats refute the foregoing testimony or to present evi- of discharge, loss of benefits, plant relocation, re- dence that journeymen electricians would be will- duced wages, and threats to report employees to ing to install fixtures without the IBEW label, or the Immigration Service if they supported the that any of Respondent's competitors used a label IRWA rather than the IBEW. we find that Re- other than that of the IBEW, the Administrative spondent made its predictions relating to job loss in Law Judge found Respondent's evidence sufficient a conscious effort to further instill fear in its em- to support its belief on which it based its predic- ployees. This infringed upon the employees' rights tio n s. to freely engage in Section 7 activities protected by Contrary to the conclusions reached by the Ad- the Act. We therefore find that the statements ministrative Law Judge, we do not beleive that Re- made by Thompson and Supervisors Lizordi, spondent's evidence constitutes objective fact sup- Monaco, Hueuink, Orabutt, Baez, Saez, and Jef- porting the belief that the election of IRWA rather fress concerning the refusal of installers to handle than the IBEW by the employees would bring Respondent's product, which would result in a loss about the dire consequences predicted by Respond- of business and loss of jobs, violated Section 8(a)(l) ent, i.e., the loss of the employees' jobs. of the Act. The only direct evidence relating to the refusal We find merit also in the General Counsel's ex- of electricians to install Respondent's product con- ception to the failure of the Administrative Law cerns an incident which took place in Missouri 25 Judge to find that Respondent violated Section years ago, an event we find too remote in time to 8(a)(1) by focusing the blame for the cancellation support Respondent's stated belief. We realize, of the company picnic on the IRWA. however, that Respondent has since that time had a The Company had planned its second annual bargaining relationship with the IBEW. The re- fiesta day, a picnic expected to attract about 700 mainder of Respondent's evidence on this issue employees, for July 7. During the last week of may indicate Respondent's belief in the advantages June, Supervisor Hueuink began receiving reports of having a c ont r ac tual rel at io nship w ith t he that there might be violence at the picnic between IBEW; the loyalty of IBEW members to their t A and IBEW supporters, instigated by Union and their concern for the protection of the s o t er organizers for IRWA. Re- organizational gains made by it; and the success the s d t c t pn i l IBEW has had in organizing the electrical industry, t r but it does not show that journeymen electricians nucn h aclaino h inccnann as'a~~o^ wnltfuset 1 S~ e-prS Tuncin t h e cacllto 0 ! t h e p i c n i c c o n t a i n i n g as a group will refuse to install the product of a thfolwnlagge company which does not have a contractual rela- tionship with the IBEW, or that the IBEW would Information has come to our attention that the act contrary to the Act by inducing its members to organizers for the Independent Radionic refrain from handling the products of such a com- Workers of America (IRWA), the independent pany. Thus, we find that Respondent's evidence union that is attempting to become the bar- does not demonstrate an objective basis to support gaining agent for our plant production em- Respondent's predictions that the loss of the IBEW ployees, although not invited to our picnic, HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 703 cial construction; that on occasion Respondent's label will cause IBEW installers not to handle its product has gone out without the label, resulting in product, cause a substantial loss of business, or its sending the labels to follow the product, or con- result in a substantial loss of jobs. firming that it was still affiliated with the IBEW; These unsupported predictions made by Re- that Respondent's eastern regional sales manager, spondent were serious in nature in that they posed in sales presentations, lets the customers know that a threat to the very livelihood of the employees. In Respondent is an IBEW company, and that in his such circumstances, an employer who wishes to past experience as a journeyman electrician he predict such consequences based on the outcome of looked for the IBEW label on products, and he did a Board election must use care to assure that its not recall seeing other union labels on electrical predictions are based on objective fact concerning products; and testimony of the business representa- matters beyond its control, and will not convey the tive of the IBEW that it was normal for journey- impression that it will take steps on its own to ad- men electricians to check to see if an electrical fix- versely affect the employment status of its employ- ture bore the label of an AFL-CIO affiliate and, if ees. We find here that the Employer failed to use not, to call the union hall to see if the manufacturer such care in that its prediction had no sufficient was a union company. The company would then basis in fact. Further, in the context of other pree- be notified to send the labels to the jobsite. lection conduct engaged in by Respondent in viola- Noting the failure of the General Counsel to tion of Section 8(a)(l), including, inter alia. threats refute the foregoing testimony or to present evi- of discharge, loss of benefits, plant relocation, re- dence that journeymen electricians would be will- duced wages, and threats to report employees to ing to install fixtures without the IBEW label, or the Immigration Service if they supported the that any of Respondent's competitors used a label IRWA rather than the IBEW. we find that Re- other than that of the IBEW, the Administrative spondent made its predictions relating to job loss in Law Judge found Respondent's evidence sufficient a conscious effort to further instill fear in its em- to support its belief on which it based its predic- ployees. This infringed upon the employees' rights tio n s. to freely engage in Section 7 activities protected by Contrary to the conclusions reached by the Ad- the Act. We therefore find that the statements ministrative Law Judge, we do not beleive that Re- made by Thompson and Supervisors Lizordi, spondent's evidence constitutes objective fact sup- Monaco, Hueuink, Orabutt, Baez, Saez, and Jef- porting the belief that the election of IRWA rather fress concerning the refusal of installers to handle than the IBEW by the employees would bring Respondent's product, which would result in a loss about the dire consequences predicted by Respond- of business and loss of jobs, violated Section 8(a)(l) ent, i.e., the loss of the employees' jobs. of the Act. The only direct evidence relating to the refusal We find merit also in the General Counsel's ex- of electricians to install Respondent's product con- ception to the failure of the Administrative Law cerns an incident which took place in Missouri 25 Judge to find that Respondent violated Section years ago, an event we find too remote in time to 8(a)(1) by focusing the blame for the cancellation support Respondent's stated belief. We realize, of the company picnic on the IRWA. however, that Respondent has since that time had a The Company had planned its second annual bargaining relationship with the IBEW. The re- fiesta day, a picnic expected to attract about 700 mainder of Respondent's evidence on this issue employees, for July 7. During the last week of may indicate Respondent's belief in the advantages June, Supervisor Hueuink began receiving reports of having a c ont r ac tual rel at io nship w ith t he that there might be violence at the picnic between IBEW; the loyalty of IBEW members to their t WA and IBEW supporters, instigated by Union and their concern for the protection of the s o t er organizers for IRWA. Re- organizational gains made by it; and the success the s d t c t pn i l IBEW has had in organizing the electrical industry, t r but it does not show that journeymen electricians nucn h aclaino h inccnann as'a~~o^ wnltfuset 1 S~ e-prS Tuncin t h e canc"B 110 "o o f t h e p i c n i c c o n t a i n i n g as a group will refuse to install the product of a thfolwnlagge company which does not have a contractual rela- tionship with the IBEW, or that the IBEW would Information has come to our attention that the act contrary to the Act by inducing its members to organizers for the Independent Radionic refrain from handling the products of such a com- Workers of America (IRWA), the independent pany. Thus, we find that Respondent's evidence union that is attempting to become the bar- does not demonstrate an objective basis to support gaining agent for our plant production em- Respondent's predictions that the loss of the IBEW ployees, although not invited to our picnic, 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have made known their intentions to appear (b) Promising employees better jobs if they sup- there. Recent incidents related to their organi- port the above-named labor organization in a zational activities have created increased ten- Board-conducted election. sions and aroused feelings among our employ- (c) Threatening to lay off half the employees and ees. We believe the picnic would be used by half the supervisors, and reduce salaries to $2.90 if them as a forum to pursue further organiza- Respondent loses the use of the IBEW label, there- tional activities, and if that happens, it would by unlawfully restraining and coercing employees only interfere with the purpose of our picnic. to vote for the above-named Union in a Board-con- Since adequate security to deal with such a ducted election. condition is not available, we believe it is in (d) Threatening to lay off employees and reduce everyone's best interest to avoid such an mci- salaries if the employees try to put in a new union, dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling thereby unlawfully restraining and coercing em- the picnic. ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- The Administrative Law Judge found that al- zation in a Board-conducted election. though Respondent's information concerning non- (e) Threatening to move Respondent's plant to employee organizers' plans to attend the picnic another location if the employees do not vote for may not have been accurate, Respondent did have the above-named labor organization in a Board- legitimate concern based on the reports of possible conducted election. violence to cause it to cancel the picnic, and that (f) Threatening that employees would have to its purpose was not to interfere with the rights of start with minimum wages or at the bottom of Fed- its employees. He therefore found no violation of eral rates if the employees do not vote for the the Act. above-named labor organization in a Board-con- We agree that based on the reports of possible ducted election. violence Respondent was justified in canceling the (g) Soliciting employee grievances to induce em- picnic. However, the memo announcing the cancel- ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- lation unjustifiably placed the blame for the cancel- zation in a Board-conducted election. lation on the IRWA, particularly the nonemployee (h) Threatening to call the Immigration Service organizers of that Union. The evidence shows that employees vote for Independent Radionic if the employees vote for Independent Radionic Respondent had no cause to believe that these or- Workers of America, affiliated with National Fed- ganizers had planned to attend the picnic. Rather it e A shows that the information received by Respondent e ra t on of Independent Unions of America in a pertained only to the possibility of employee orga- Barco te etio nizers causing confrontations, not to persons "not (i) Threatening to discharge or otherwise dis- invited to our picnic," as stated by Respondent in criminate against employees because of their sup- its memo. Although Respondent may have feared a port for the above-named Independent Radionic confrontation between supporters of the two Workers of America. Unions at the picnic, it is clear from the memo that 0) Informing employees that the loss of the Respondent used its announcement to place the IBEW label would result in the loss of business for blame for this loss of a benefit on the Union it op- Respondent because IBEW electricians on con- posed in the election without any basis in fact. This struction sites would not install Respondent's prod- we find interfered with the employees' Section 7 ucts, with a consequent loss of jobs for Respond- rights, and violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. ent's employees. (k) Informing employees that the company ORDER picnic was canceled because of the intention of Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor nonemployee organizers for the Independent Radi- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- onic Workers of America to attend, thus causing a lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, security problem. Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Com- (1) In any like or related manner interfering with, pany, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, its officers, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise agents, sucessors, and assigns, shall: of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the 1. Cease and desist from: Act. (a) Promising employees benefits and wage in- 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- creases if they vote for International Brotherhood sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a (a) Post at its plant in Elk Grove, Illinois, copies Board-conducted election. of the attached notice marked "Appendix" printed 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have made known their intentions to appear (b) Promising employees better jobs if they sup- there. Recent incidents related to their organi- port the above-named labor organization in a zational activities have created increased ten- Board-conducted election. sions and aroused feelings among our employ- (c) Threatening to lay off half the employees and ees. We believe the picnic would be used by half the supervisors, and reduce salaries to $2.90 if them as a forum to pursue further organiza- Respondent loses the use of the IBEW label, there- tional activities, and if that happens, it would by unlawfully restraining and coercing employees only interfere with the purpose of our picnic. to vote for the above-named Union in a Board-con- Since adequate security to deal with such a ducted election. condition is not available, we believe it is in (d) Threatening to lay off employees and reduce everyone's best interest to avoid such an inci- salaries if the employees try to put in a new union, dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling thereby unlawfully restraining and coercing em- the picnic. ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- The Administrative Law Judge found that al- zation in a Board-conducted election. though Respondent's information concerning non- (e) Threatening to move Respondent's plant to employee organizers' plans to attend the picnic another location if the employees do not vote for may not have been accurate, Respondent did have the above-named labor organization in a Board- legitimate concern based on the reports of possible conducted election. violence to cause it to cancel the picnic, and that (f) Threatening that employees would have to its purpose was not to interfere with the rights of start with minimum wages or at the bottom of Fed- its employees. He therefore found no violation of eral rates if the employees do not vote for the the Act. above-named labor organization in a Board-con- We agree that based on the reports of possible ducted election. violence Respondent was justified in canceling the (g) Soliciting employee grievances to induce em- picnic. However, the memo announcing the cancel- ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- lation unjustifiably placed the blame for the cancel- zation in a Board-conducted election. lation on the IRWA, particularly the nonemployee h Threatening to call the Immigration Service organizers of that Union. The evidence shows that i employees vote for Independent Radionic Respondent had no cause to believe that these or- W o ganizers had planned to attend the picnic. Rather it e o I Uni o A shows that the information received by RespondentB e ra t ro n of Independent Unions of America, in a pertained only to the possibility of employee orga- Boareated tiot nizers causing confrontations, not to persons "not Threatening to discharge or otherwise dis- invited to our picnic," as stated by Respondent in criminate against employees because of their sup- its memo. Although Respondent may have feared a port f o r th e above-named Independent Radionic confrontation between supporters of the two Workers of America. Unions at the picnic, it is clear from the memo that 0) Informing employees that the loss of the Respondent used its announcement to place the IBEW label would result in the loss of business for blame for this loss of a benefit on the Union it op- Respondent because IBEW electricians on con- posed in the election without any basis in fact. This struction sites would not install Respondent's prod- we find interfered with the employees' Section 7 ucts, with a consequent loss of jobs for Respond- rights, and violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. ent's employees. (k) Informing employees that the company ORDER picnic was canceled because of the intention of Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor nonemployee organizers for the Independent Radi- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- onic Workers of America to attend, thus causing a lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, security problem. Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Com- (1) In any like or related manner interfering with, pany, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, its officers, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise agents, sucessors, and assigns, shall: of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the 1. Cease and desist from: Act. (a) Promising employees benefits and wage in- 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- creases if they vote for International Brotherhood sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a (a) Post at its plant in Elk Grove, Illinois, copies Board-conducted election. of the attached notice marked "Appendix" printed 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have made known their intentions to appear (b) Promising employees better jobs if they sup- there. Recent incidents related to their organi- port the above-named labor organization in a zational activities have created increased ten- Board-conducted election. sions and aroused feelings among our employ- (c) Threatening to lay off half the employees and ees. We believe the picnic would be used by half the supervisors, and reduce salaries to $2.90 if them as a forum to pursue further organiza- Respondent loses the use of the IBEW label, there- tional activities, and if that happens, it would by unlawfully restraining and coercing employees only interfere with the purpose of our picnic. to vote for the above-named Union in a Board-con- Since adequate security to deal with such a ducted election. condition is not available, we believe it is in (d) Threatening to lay off employees and reduce everyone's best interest to avoid such an inci- salaries if the employees try to put in a new union, dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling thereby unlawfully restraining and coercing em- the picnic. ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- The Administrative Law Judge found that al- zation in a Board-conducted election. though Respondent's information concerning non- (e) Threatening to move Respondent's plant to employee organizers' plans to attend the picnic another location if the employees do not vote for may not have been accurate, Respondent did have the above-named labor organization in a Board- legitimate concern based on the reports of possible conducted election. violence to cause it to cancel the picnic, and that (f) Threatening that employees would have to its purpose was not to interfere with the rights of start with minimum wages or at the bottom of Fed- its employees. He therefore found no violation of eral rates if the employees do not vote for the the Act. above-named labor organization in a Board-con- We agree that based on the reports of possible ducted election. violence Respondent was justified in canceling the (g) Soliciting employee grievances to induce em- picnic. However, the memo announcing the cancel- ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- lation unjustifiably placed the blame for the cancel- zation in a Board-conducted election. lation on the IRWA, particularly the nonemployee h Threatening to call the Immigration Service organizers of that Union. The evidence shows that i employees vote for Independent Radionic Respondent had no cause to believe that these or- W o ganizers had planned to attend the picnic. Rather it e o I Uni o A shows that the information received by RespondentB e ra t ro n of Independent Unions of America, in a pertained only to the possibility of employee orga- Boareated tior. nizers causing confrontations, not to persons "not Threatening to discharge or otherwise dis- invited to our picnic," as stated by Respondent in criminate against employees because of their sup- its memo. Although Respondent may have feared a port f o r th e above-named Independent Radionic confrontation between supporters of the two Workers of America. Unions at the picnic, it is clear from the memo that 0) Informing employees that the loss of the Respondent used its announcement to place the IBEW label would result in the loss of business for blame for this loss of a benefit on the Union it op- Respondent because IBEW electricians on con- posed in the election without any basis in fact. This struction sites would not install Respondent's prod- we find interfered with the employees' Section 7 ucts, with a consequent loss of jobs for Respond- rights, and violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. ent's employees. (k) Informing employees that the company ORDER picnic was canceled because of the intention of Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor nonemployee organizers for the Independent Radi- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- onic Workers of America to attend, thus causing a lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, security problem. Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Com- (1) In any like or related manner interfering with, pany, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, its officers, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise agents, sucessors, and assigns, shall: of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the 1. Cease and desist from: Act. (a) Promising employees benefits and wage in- 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- creases if they vote for International Brotherhood sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a (a) Post at its plant in Elk Grove, Illinois, copies Board-conducted election. of the attached notice marked "Appendix" printed 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have made known their intentions to appear (b) Promising employees better jobs if they sup- there. Recent incidents related to their organi- port the above-named labor organization in a zational activities have created increased ten- Board-conducted election. sions and aroused feelings among our employ- (c) Threatening to lay off half the employees and ees. We believe the picnic would be used by half the supervisors, and reduce salaries to $2.90 if them as a forum to pursue further organiza- Respondent loses the use of the IBEW label, there- tional activities, and if that happens, it would by unlawfully restraining and coercing employees only interfere with the purpose of our picnic. to vote for the above-named Union in a Board-con- Since adequate security to deal with such a ducted election. condition is not available, we believe it is in (d) Threatening to lay off employees and reduce everyone's best interest to avoid such an inci- salaries if the employees try to put in a new union, dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling thereby unlawfully restraining and coercing em- the picnic. ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- The Administrative Law Judge found that al- zation in a Board-conducted election. though Respondent's information concerning non- (e) Threatening to move Respondent's plant to employee organizers' plans to attend the picnic another location if the employees do not vote for may not have been accurate, Respondent did have the above-named labor organization in a Board- legitimate concern based on the reports of possible conducted election. violence to cause it to cancel the picnic, and that (f) Threatening that employees would have to its purpose was not to interfere with the rights of start with minimum wages or at the bottom of Fed- its employees. He therefore found no violation of eral rates if the employees do not vote for the the Act. above-named labor organization in a Board-con- We agree that based on the reports of possible ducted election. violence Respondent was justified in canceling the (g) Soliciting employee grievances to induce em- picnic. However, the memo announcing the cancel- ployees to vote for the above-named labor organi- lation unjustifiably placed the blame for the cancel- zation in a Board-conducted election. lation on the IRWA, particularly the nonemployee h Threatening to call the Immigration Service organizers of that Union. The evidence shows that i employees vote for Independent Radionic Respondent had no cause to believe that these or- W o ganizers had planned to attend the picnic. Rather it e o I Uni o A shows that the information received by RespondentB e ra t ro n of Independent Unions of America, in a pertained only to the possibility of employee orga- Boareated tior. nizers causing confrontations, not to persons "not Threatening to discharge or otherwise dis- invited to our picnic," as stated by Respondent in criminate against employees because of their sup- its memo. Although Respondent may have feared a port f o r th e above-named Independent Radionic confrontation between supporters of the two Workers of America. Unions at the picnic, it is clear from the memo that 0) Informing employees that the loss of the Respondent used its announcement to place the IBEW label would result in the loss of business for blame for this loss of a benefit on the Union it op- Respondent because IBEW electricians on con- posed in the election without any basis in fact. This struction sites would not install Respondent's prod- we find interfered with the employees' Section 7 ucts, with a consequent loss of jobs for Respond- rights, and violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. ent's employees. (k) Informing employees that the company ORDER picnic was canceled because of the intention of Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor nonemployee organizers for the Independent Radi- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- onic Workers of America to attend, thus causing a lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, security problem. Halo Lighting Division of McGraw Edison Com- (1) In any like or related manner interfering with, pany, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, its officers, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise agents, sucessors, and assigns, shall: of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the 1. Cease and desist from: Act. (a) Promising employees benefits and wage in- 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- creases if they vote for International Brotherhood sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a (a) Post at its plant in Elk Grove, Illinois, copies Board-conducted election. of the attached notice marked "Appendix" printed HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.4 Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material. of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United WE WILL NOT in any like or rlated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." them in Section 7 of the Act. APPENDIX HALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- original charge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September nationaBrotherhood of Electcal Workers 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election. nois. All briefs filed have been considered.2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercion and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during the course of an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put tions to the conduct of the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a . PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. n r L .... .. . ..i r * I . All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , The joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees to induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIX^HALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n an d unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIX^HALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIX^HALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIXQHALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIXQHALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIXQHALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIXQHALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 705 both in English and Spanish.' Copies of said notice, above-named labor organization in a Board- on forms provided by the Regional Director for conducted election. Region 13, after being duly signed by its repre- WE WILL NOT threaten to call the Immigra- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- tion Service if our employees vote for Inde- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it pendent Radionic Workers of America, affili- for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous ated with the National Federation of Inde- places, including all places where notices to em- pendent Unions of America, in a Board-con- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps ducted election. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- WE WILL NOT inform employees that the tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any loss of the IBEW label would result in the loss other material,.of business for us because electricians on con- (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, struction sites would not install our products, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this with a consequent loss of jobs for our employ- Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply ees. herewith. WE WILL NOT inform employees that the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be Company picnic was canceled because of the dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Na- intention of nonemployee organizers for the tional Labor Relations Act not found herein. Independent Radionic Workers of America to ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~attend, thus causing a security problem. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United attenthusaing a- secu ri rolated manner States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by W E W I L L N O T in an l k e o r re l a t ed manner Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- interfere With, restrain, or coerce Our employ- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed Order of the National Labor Relations Board." te iSco 7 o t A APPENDIXQHALO LIGHTING DIVISION OF NOTICE To EMPLOYEES MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY POSTED BY ORDER OF THEDECISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government STATEMENT OF THE CASE WE WILL NOT promise our employees bene- ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The fits and wage increases if they vote for Inter- origina l c har ge in this consolidated case was filed on national Brotherhood of Electrical W e -, . ,July 24, 1979.' A second charge was filed on September national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ^ 12. The consolidated complaint, alleging violations of Local 134, AFL-CIO, in a Board-conducted Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the National Labor Relations election. Act, as amended, herein called the Act, issued on Sep- WE WILL NOT promise our employees better tember 26. The hearing was held on various dates be- jobs if they support the above-named labor or- tween March 4 and 21, 1980, inclusive, in Chicago, Illi- ganization in a Board-conducted election,.nois. All briefs filed have been considered. 2 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off half of our At issue in this case are questions whether Respondent employees and half of our supervisors and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and co- reduce salaries to $2.90 if our Company loses ercio n and unlawful assistance to the incumbent union the right to use the IBEW label. during th e c o u rse o f an organizational campaign con- WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees ducted by the Charging Party prior to a Board election and educ salriesif ur eployes ty toput on August 29. Also involved are the Petitioner's objec- and reduce salaries if our employees try to put the election. in a new union. WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW another location if our employees do not vote for the above-named labor organization in a *. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Board-conducted election. The Respondent, Halo Lighting Division of McGraw WE WILL NOT threaten that our employees Edison Company, is engaged in the manufacture and dis- will have to start with minimum wages or at tribution of lighting fixtures and related products at its the bottom of Federal rates if they do not vote plant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, the only facility in- for the above-named labor organization in a volved in this proceeding. During the last fiscal or calen- Board-conducted election. WE r.. L ...... .. ^~. it r rievancs *m *r rI All dates hereafter are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our , IThe joint motion of the parties to correct the exhibits and the Gener- employees tO induce them to vote for the al Counsel's motion to correct the transcript are granted. 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dar year Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped ployees. Respondent stressed particularly its concern that finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to the loss of the IBEW label on its lighting fixtures would customers located in States other than the State of Illi- result in a loss of business and a loss of a great number of nois. jobs. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within On July 19 Thomson wrote the employees that bar- the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. gaining would start from the beginning with a new union Independent Radionic Workers of America, affiliated and the employees could lose the wages and benefits with National Federation of Independent Unions of they now had if they elected the IRWA. On July 25 America, hereinafter the IRWA, and International Thomson pointed out to the employees that the IRWA Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL- was losing money and that the employees the IRWA CIO, hereinafter the IBEW, are labor organizations represented at Zenith had lost about 12,500 jobs since within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1968; that representation of the employees by the IRWA II. PREFACE at Halo could cause the Company to lose business and many of the employees lose their jobs. On July 31 Halo, a then small manufacturing plant, was founded Thomson pointed out to the employees that Respondent in 1955 and operated out of a single facility on North had expanded from 200 employees in 1968 to 1,100 em- Orchard Street in Chicago, Illinois. Dan T. Thomson, ployees in 1979 and asked the employees to compare president of the commercial products group of McGraw Halo's growth to the IRWA's decline and jobs lost at Edison Company and president of Halo Lighting Divi- Zenith. On August 2 Thomson responded to an IRWA sion of McGraw Edison Company at times material bulletin of August 1, stating that it was not true that the herein, was one of the original three employees. Then, as IRWA represented journeymen electricians and repeated now, the Company manufactured incandescent lighting Respondent's opinion that the loss of the IBEW label fixtures, at that time its only product line. could drastically reduce the number of fixtures sold, Halo began operations as an unorganized plant. Its first which could mean a significant loss in sales, resulting in major commercial sale for incandescent fixtures was a loss of jobs for many employees at Halo. made to the Harry S. Truman Memorial Library in On August 10 Thomson again called for support of the Independence, Missouri. After the fixtures arrived at the IBEW. He stated that the IRWA was not a recognized jobsite, the Company was informed that the contractor electrical union and their label did not mean anything to and the electricians on the job were refusing to install Halo's customers, that thousands of IRWA members had the fixtures because they did not bear the IBEW label. lost their jobs. In an August 20 memo Thomson in- The Company sought counsel, contacted the IBEW, and formed the employees that a group of Northwest Air- shortly thereafter its employees were represented by that lines employees had switched from an AFL-CIO union Union. Since then Respondent, as a member of the Chi- to an independent union and then stated that it took the cago Lighting Equipment Manufacturing Association, new union a year and a half to negotiate the first con- has had a continuous bargaining relationship with the tract, that the pay increase, although retroactive, was not IBEW covering its production and maintenance employ- received by the employees for 20 months, and that the ees under a series of contracts, the last of which termi- new contract left the employees behind the pay and nated on August 31. benefits given by other airlines. The memo concluded Sometime in 1979 a number of Respondent's employ- with the question, "Could these things happen here?" ees, including most, if not all of the IBEW stewards, par- On August 22 Thomson again challenged the truth of ticularly the chief steward, Jesus Gonzalez, became dis- statements made by the IRWA, asserting that the IRWA satisfied with the representatives assigned by the IBEW had lost benefits for its members in the first contract ne- to serve the employees at the Halo plant. Gonzalez and gotiated after the sale of Zenith's hearing aid division, other employees contacted the IRWA with the view of setting out specific lost benefits with an attached chart. establishing that Union as their collective-bargaining rep- In a final memo on August 28 Thomson reminded the resentative in place of the IBEW. On June 8 the IRWA employees that the then-current contract with the IBEW filed its petition in this case. Thereafter, Ed Lane and would expire on August 31 and that the employees' fail- Elizer Medina, the then representatives for the IBEW, ure to choose the IBEW in the election of August 29 were replaced by Joe Kingsley and Roy L. Cortes. would mean that the Company would lose the right to Cortes, a business representative of Local 1031, IBEW, was assigned to Local 134 for work at the Halo plant In a letter dated July Thomsonwrote during the 3-month period prior to the election of We think it is important that you know how your Company feels August 29. A large proportion of Respondent's employ- about the decision you will be making and how it could affect your ees are of Hispanic origin and fluent only in Spanish. future. It is our sincere believe [sic] that it would be a serious mis- Cortes speaks English and Spanish and communicated take for our employees to vote for a change in their bargaining rep- with all employees in either language,.resentative because if they do, it would mean that we could no with all employees IAn e ter language. o af longer affix the IBEW label to our products. Our present relation- From June 5, the date the IRWA began its campaign, ship with the IBEW, as your exclusive bargaining agent, enables us until August 29, the date of the Board election, Respond- to place their union label on all the products we manufacture and it ent and both Unions campaigned vigorously. Respondent is especially important to the sale of Halo, Lite-Trend, and Power supported the reelection of the IBEW by means of, inter Trac assembly fixtures. IBEW electricians have, in some instances, refused to install "non-IBEW labelled fixtures." We are convinced if alia, a series of written communications to its employees we lost the IBEW label it could affect a substantial part of our busi- and a final speech by Thomson on August 23 to the em- ness and cause the loss of a great number of jobs. 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dar year Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped ployees. Respondent stressed particularly its concern that finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to the loss of the IBEW label on its lighting fixtures would customers located in States other than the State of Illi- result in a loss of business and a loss of a great number of nois. jobs.I I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within On July 19 Thomson wrote the employees that bar- the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. gaining would start from the beginning with a new union Independent Radionic Workers of America, affiliated and the employees could lose the wages and benefits with National Federation of Independent Unions of they now had if they elected the IRWA. On July 25 America, hereinafter the IRWA, and International Thomson pointed out to the employees that the IRWA Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL- was losing money and that the employees the IRWA CIO, hereinafter the IBEW. are labor organizations represented at Zenith had lost about 12,500 jobs since within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1968; that representation of the employees by the IRWA II. PREFACE a t Halo c o uld cause the Company to lose business and many of the employees lose their jobs. On July 31 Halo, a then small manufacturing plant, was founded Thomson pointed out to the employees that Respondent in 1955 and operated out of a single facility on North had expanded from 200 employees in 1968 to 1,100 em- Orchard Street in Chicago, Illinois. Dan T. Thomson, ployees in 1979 and asked the employees to compare president of the commercial products group of McGraw Halo's growth to the IRWA's decline and jobs lost at Edison Company and president of Halo Lighting Divi- Zenith. On August 2 Thomson responded to an IRWA sion of McGraw Edison Company at times material bulletin of August 1, stating that it was not true that the herein, was one of the original three employees. Then, as IRWA represented journeymen electricians and repeated now, the Company manufactured incandescent lighting Respondent's opinion that the loss of the IBEW label fixtures, at that time its only product line. could drastically reduce the number of fixtures sold, Halo began operations as an unorganized plant. Its first which could mean a significant loss in sales, resulting in major commercial sale for incandescent fixtures was a loss of jobs for many employees at Halo. made to the Harry S. Truman Memorial Library in On August 10 Thomson again called for support of the Independence, Missouri. After the fixtures arrived at the IBEW. He stated that the IRWA was not a recognized jobsite, the Company was informed that the contractor electrical union and their label did not mean anything to and the electricians on the job were refusing to install Halo's customers, that thousands of IRWA members had the fixtures because they did not bear the IBEW label,. lost their jobs. In an August 20 memo Thomson in- The Company sought counsel, contacted the IBEW, and formed the employees that a group of Northwest Air- shortly thereafter its employees were represented by that lines employees had switched from an AFL-CIO union Union. Since then Respondent, as a member of the Chi- to an independent union and then stated that it took the cago Lighting Equipment Manufacturing Association, new union a year and a half to negotiate the first con- has had a continuous bargaining relationship with the tract, that the pay increase, although retroactive, was not IBEW covering its production and maintenance employ- received by the employees for 20 months, and that the ees under a series of contracts, the last of which termi- new contract left the employees behind the pay and nated on August 31. benefits given by other airlines. The memo concluded Sometime in 1979 a number of Respondent's employ- with the question, "Could these things happen here?" ees, including most, if not all of the IBEW stewards, par- On August 22 Thomson again challenged the truth of ticularly the chief steward, Jesus Gonzalez, became dis- statements made by the IRWA, asserting that the IRWA satisfied with the representatives assigned by the IBEW had lost benefits for its members in the first contract ne- to serve the employees at the Halo plant. Gonzalez and gotiated after the sale of Zenith's hearing aid division, other employees contacted the IRWA with the view of setting out specific lost benefits with an attached chart. establishing that Union as their collective-bargaining rep- In a final memo on August 28 Thomson reminded the resentative in place of the IBEW. On June 8 the IRWA employees that the then-current contract with the IBEW filed its Petition in this case. Thereafter, Ed Lane and would expire on August 31 and that the employees' fail- Elizer Medina, the then representatives for the IBEW, ure to choose the IBEW in the election of August 29 were replaced by Joe Kingsley and Roy L. Cortes. would mean that the Company would lose the right to Cortes, a business representative of Local 1031, IBEW, was assigned to Local 134 for work at the Halo plant In a letter dated July 6 Thomson wrote: during the 3-month period prior to the election of We think it is important that you know how your Company feels August 29. A large proportion of Respondent's employ- about the decision you will be making and how it could affect your ees are of Hispanic origin and fluent only in Spanish. future. It is our sincere believe [sic] that it would be a serious mis- Cortes Speaks English and Spanish and communicated t ake f or our employees to vote for a change in their bargaining rep- with all employees in either language,.resentative because if they do, it would mean that we could no c,^ I JLe <, tko dA * te TOW A kegan **s *ampaign, longer affix the IBEW label to our products. Our present rclation- From June 5, the date the IRWA began Its campaign, ,ship with the IBEW, as your exclusive bargaining agent, enables us until August 29, the date Of the Board election, Respond- to place their union label on all the products we manufacture and it ent and both Unions campaigned vigorously. Respondent is especially important to the sale of Halo, Lite-Trend, and power supported the reelection of the IBEW by means of, inter T r ac assembly fixt u res. IBEW electricians have, in some instances, refused to install "non-IBEW labelled fixtures." We are convinced if alia. a series of written communications to its employees we lost the IBEW label it could affect a substantial part of our busi- and a final speech by Thomson on August 23 to the em- ness and cause the loss of a great number of jobs. 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dar year Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped ployees. Respondent stressed particularly its concern that finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to the loss of the IBEW label on its lighting fixtures would customers located in States other than the State of Illi- result in a loss of business and a loss of a great number of nois. jobs.I I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within On July 19 Thomson wrote the employees that bar- the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. gaining would start from the beginning with a new union Independent Radionic Workers of America, affiliated and the employees could lose the wages and benefits with National Federation of Independent Unions of they now had if they elected the IRWA. On July 25 America, hereinafter the IRWA, and International Thomson pointed out to the employees that the IRWA Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL- was losing money and that the employees the IRWA CIO, hereinafter the IBEW. are labor organizations represented at Zenith had lost about 12,500 jobs since within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1968; that representation of the employees by the IRWA II. PREFACE a t Halo c o uld cause the Company to lose business and many of the employees lose their jobs. On July 31 Halo, a then small manufacturing plant, was founded Thomson pointed out to the employees that Respondent in 1955 and operated out of a single facility on North had expanded from 200 employees in 1968 to 1,100 em- Orchard Street in Chicago, Illinois. Dan T. Thomson, ployees in 1979 and asked the employees to compare president of the commercial products group of McGraw Halo's growth to the IRWA's decline and jobs lost at Edison Company and president of Halo Lighting Divi- Zenith. On August 2 Thomson responded to an IRWA sion of McGraw Edison Company at times material bulletin of August 1, stating that it was not true that the herein, was one of the original three employees. Then, as IRWA represented journeymen electricians and repeated now, the Company manufactured incandescent lighting Respondent's opinion that the loss of the IBEW label fixtures, at that time its only product line. could drastically reduce the number of fixtures sold, Halo began operations as an unorganized plant. Its first which could mean a significant loss in sales, resulting in major commercial sale for incandescent fixtures was a loss of jobs for many employees at Halo. made to the Harry S. Truman Memorial Library in On August 10 Thomson again called for support of the Independence, Missouri. After the fixtures arrived at the IBEW. He stated that the IRWA was not a recognized jobsite, the Company was informed that the contractor electrical union and their label did not mean anything to and the electricians on the job were refusing to install Halo's customers, that thousands of IRWA members had the fixtures because they did not bear the IBEW label,. lost their jobs. In an August 20 memo Thomson in- The Company sought counsel, contacted the IBEW, and formed the employees that a group of Northwest Air- shortly thereafter its employees were represented by that lines employees had switched from an AFL-CIO union Union. Since then Respondent, as a member of the Chi- to an independent union and then stated that it took the cago Lighting Equipment Manufacturing Association, new union a year and a half to negotiate the first con- has had a continuous bargaining relationship with the tract, that the pay increase, although retroactive, was not IBEW covering its production and maintenance employ- received by the employees for 20 months, and that the ees under a series of contracts, the last of which termi- new contract left the employees behind the pay and nated on August 31. benefits given by other airlines. The memo concluded Sometime in 1979 a number of Respondent's employ- with the question, "Could these things happen here?" ees, including most, if not all of the IBEW stewards, par- On August 22 Thomson again challenged the truth of ticularly the chief steward, Jesus Gonzalez, became dis- statements made by the IRWA, asserting that the IRWA satisfied with the representatives assigned by the IBEW had lost benefits for its members in the first contract ne- to serve the employees at the Halo plant. Gonzalez and gotiated after the sale of Zenith's hearing aid division, other employees contacted the IRWA with the view of setting out specific lost benefits with an attached chart. establishing that Union as their collective-bargaining rep- In a final memo on August 28 Thomson reminded the resentative in place of the IBEW. On June 8 the IRWA employees that the then-current contract with the IBEW filed its Petition in this case. Thereafter, Ed Lane and would expire on August 31 and that the employees' fail- Elizer Medina, the then representatives for the IBEW, ure to choose the IBEW in the election of August 29 were replaced by Joe Kingsley and Roy L. Cortes. would mean that the Company would lose the right to Cortes, a business representative of Local 1031, IBEW, was assigned to Local 134 for work at the Halo plant In a letter dated July 6 Thomson wrote: during the 3-month period prior to the election of We think it is important that you know how your Company feels August 29. A large proportion of Respondent's employ- about the decision you will be making and how it could affect your ees are of Hispanic origin and fluent only in Spanish. future. It is our sincere believe [sic] that it would be a serious mis- Cortes Speaks English and Spanish and communicated t ake f o r o u r employees to vote for a change in their bargaining rep- with all employees in either language,.resentative because if they do, it would mean that we could no c,^ I JLe <, tko dA * te TOW A kegan **s *ampaign, longer affix the IBEW label to our products. Our present rclation- From June 5, the date the IRWA began its campaign, nship with the IBEW, as your exclusive bargaining agent, enables us until August 29, the date Of the Board election, Respond- to place their union label on all the products we manufacture and it ent and both Unions campaigned vigorously. Respondent is especially important to the sale of Halo, Lite-Trend, and power supported the reelection of the IBEW by means of, inter T r ac assembly fixt u res. IBEW electricians have, in some instances, refused to install "non-IBEW labelled fixtures." We are convinced if alia. a series of written communications to its employees we lost the IBEW label it could affect a substantial part of our busi- and a final speech by Thomson on August 23 to the em- ness and cause the loss of a great number of jobs. 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dar year Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped ployees. Respondent stressed particularly its concern that finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to the loss of the IBEW label on its lighting fixtures would customers located in States other than the State of Illi- result in a loss of business and a loss of a great number of nois. jobs.I I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within On July 19 Thomson wrote the employees that bar- the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. gaining would start from the beginning with a new union Independent Radionic Workers of America, affiliated and the employees could lose the wages and benefits with National Federation of Independent Unions of they now had if they elected the IRWA. On July 25 America, hereinafter the IRWA, and International Thomson pointed out to the employees that the IRWA Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134, AFL- was losing money and that the employees the IRWA CIO, hereinafter the IBEW. are labor organizations represented at Zenith had lost about 12,500 jobs since within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1968; that representation of the employees by the IRWA II. PREFACE a t Halo could cause the Company to lose business and many of the employees lose their jobs. On July 31 Halo, a then small manufacturing plant, was founded Thomson pointed out to the employees that Respondent in 1955 and operated out of a single facility on North had expanded from 200 employees in 1968 to 1,100 em- Orchard Street in Chicago, Illinois. Dan T. Thomson, ployees in 1979 and asked the employees to compare president of the commercial products group of McGraw Halo's growth to the IRWA's decline and jobs lost at Edison Company and president of Halo Lighting Divi- Zenith. On August 2 Thomson responded to an IRWA sion of McGraw Edison Company at times material bulletin of August 1, stating that it was not true that the herein, was one of the original three employees. Then, as IRWA represented journeymen electricians and repeated now, the Company manufactured incandescent lighting Respondent's opinion that the loss of the IBEW label fixtures, at that time its only product line. could drastically reduce the number of fixtures sold, Halo began operations as an unorganized plant. Its first which could mean a significant loss in sales, resulting in major commercial sale for incandescent fixtures was a loss of jobs for many employees at Halo. made to the Harry S. Truman Memorial Library in On August 10 Thomson again called for support of the Independence, Missouri. After the fixtures arrived at the IBEW. He stated that the IRWA was not a recognized jobsite, the Company was informed that the contractor electrical union and their label did not mean anything to and the electricians on the job were refusing to install Halo's customers, that thousands of IRWA members had the fixtures because they did not bear the IBEW label,. lost their jobs. In an August 20 memo Thomson in- The Company sought counsel, contacted the IBEW, and formed the employees that a group of Northwest Air- shortly thereafter its employees were represented by that lines employees had switched from an AFL-CIO union Union. Since then Respondent, as a member of the Chi- to an independent union and then stated that it took the cago Lighting Equipment Manufacturing Association, new union a year and a half to negotiate the first con- has had a continuous bargaining relationship with the tract, that the pay increase, although retroactive, was not IBEW covering its production and maintenance employ- received by the employees for 20 months, and that the ees under a series of contracts, the last of which termi- new contract left the employees behind the pay and nated on August 31. benefits given by other airlines. The memo concluded Sometime in 1979 a number of Respondent's employ- with the question, "Could these things happen here?" ees, including most, if not all of the IBEW stewards, par- On August 22 Thomson again challenged the truth of ticularly the chief steward, Jesus Gonzalez, became dis- statements made by the IRWA, asserting that the IRWA satisfied with the representatives assigned by the IBEW had lost benefits for its members in the first contract ne- to serve the employees at the Halo plant. Gonzalez and gotiated after the sale of Zenith's hearing aid division, other employees contacted the IRWA with the view of setting out specific lost benefits with an attached chart. establishing that Union as their collective-bargaining rep- In a final memo on August 28 Thomson reminded the resentative in place of the IBEW. On June 8 the IRWA employees that the then-current contract with the IBEW filed its Petition in this case. Thereafter, Ed Lane and would expire on August 31 and that the employees' fail- Elizer Medina, the then representatives for the IBEW, ure to choose the IBEW in the election of August 29 were replaced by Joe Kingsley and Roy L. Cortes. would mean that the Company would lose the right to Cortes, a business representative of Local 1031, IBEW, was assigned to Local 134 for work at the Halo plant In a letter dated July 6 Thomson wrote: during the 3-month period prior to the election of We think it is important that you know how your Company feels August 29. A large proportion of Respondent's employ- about the decision you will be making and how it could affect your ees are of Hispanic origin and fluent only in Spanish. future. It is our sincere believe [sic] that it would be a serious mis- Cortes Speaks English and Spanish and communicated t ake f o r o u r employees to vote for a change in their bargaining rep- with all employees in either language,.resentative because if they do, it would mean that we could no c,^ I JLe <, tko dA * te TOW A kegan **s *ampaign, longer affix the IBEW label to our products. Our present rclation- From June 5, the date the IRWA began its campaign, nship with the IBEW, as your exclusive bargaining agent, enables us until August 29, the date Of the Board election, Respond- to place their union label on all the products we manufacture and it ent and both Unions campaigned vigorously. Respondent is especially important to the sale of Halo, Lite-Trend, and power supported the reelection of the IBEW by means of, inter T r ac assembly fixt u res. IBEW electricians have, in some instances, refused to install "non-IBEW labelled fixtures." We are convinced if alia. a series of written communications to its employees we lost the IBEW label it could affect a substantial part of our busi- and a final speech by Thomson on August 23 to the em- ness and cause the loss of a great number of jobs. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 707 display the IBEW label on its fixtures, a result that Lizardi is fluent in English and Spanish. A loquacious "could hurt both of us." and colorful individual, Lizardi undertook to educate Re- On August 23 Thomson made a speech to the assem- spondent's employees, some of whom spoke only Span- bled employees. During the course of the speech Thom- ish, in the intricacies of labor law, including policies of son said, inter alia, that outsiders were attempting to tear the National Labor Relations Board, textbook references them apart and "at times I felt as though they just might to the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department, and the be trying to force us to temporarily close the plant"; necessity for good-faith negotiations in collective bar- that, "if the IBEW label is lost, we all could lose"; that gaining. In his many conversations with individuals and the IRWA had falsely stated that the IBEW journeymen groups of employees, Lizardi stressed particularly the ne- electricians would not refuse to install the Company's cessity to retain the IBEW label and the possibility of ex- fixtures if the IBEW lost the election; that the Compa- tended negotiations if a new contract had to be negotiat- ny's competitors would like to see the IRWA win and ed with a new union. So erudite and forceful were Lizar- the Company to lose the IBEW label, business, and jobs; di's arguments that several employees would shout when that thousands of IRWA members at Zenith had lost they saw Lizardi approaching, "Hey, don't talk to Tony. their jobs in the past few years; and that Thomson did He's going to make you dizzy, he's going to make you not want to see that happen at Halo. not want to see that happen at Halo. dizzy." At times Lizardi would drive home his point The complaint does not allege that any of the above with an understandable metaphor. Speaking of the nego- written communications or the August 23 speech is un- tiating process, he explained it was like trying to con- lawful and the General Counsel so stated on the record. vince a girl. "If you've gone out with her once and you Nevertheless, the General Counsel takes the position that nail her d tere, you o the eon e around nail her down there, you know the second time around alleged unlawful statements orally made by supervisors t on ter n the t te o ad and found to accord "exactly" to "Respondent's script" work real hard at it, didn't you?" are unlawful, work real hard at it, didn't you?" are unlawful. Normally, the failure of the General Counsel to allege According to Lizardi and contrary to the testimony of known conduct of Respondent within the 10(b) period as witnesses for the General Counsel, he made no threats or unlawful would preclude me from ruling on the legality promises to the employees to induce them to vote for the of such conduct. The General Counsel's insistence, how- IBEW rather than the IRWA. He told them there was ever, on litigating the legality of oral statements "exact- no way the salary matter could be touched before a ly" the same as the written statements puts such state- Board election. When the employees argued they did not ments, whether written or oral, in issue. An unlawful need the IBEW label he told them, "[I]f the lamps do threat is unlawful whether written or spoken. Although not go out on the truck, because they do not order, the awkwardly presented, the issue of Respondent's right clients do not order, there is no need to do any one of under Section 8(c) of the Act to refer to the possible loss them. If there is no need to need any lamps, there is no of the IBEW label and the consequent loss of business need for people to build lamps. And this would affect us and jobs was fully litigated in this case. all including me." In explaining Respondent's letter of The propriety of the Respondent's campaign literature August 20, relating to the strike at Northwest Airlines, is raised by the IRWA as an objection to the conduct of Lizardi pointed out that in that case the Teamsters, a the election. However, the IRWA rested its case on the newly elected union, did not even manage to get the basis of the General Counsel's prima facie case of unfair same benefits that the industry had or that the employees labor practices. No evidence was offered challenging the had under a different union. If the employees elected a accuracy of the facts and figures contained in Respond- new union at Halo, "negotiations could carry on for God ent's letters and communications to its employees. knows how long" since all the contract language would have to be negotiated anew. When an employee asked, i11. THE FACTS "Well, why do they want to give us the minimum A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion wage?" Lizardi responded, "Well, it's up to the negotia- tors, you know, to determine whether they would accept 1. Statements by supervisors that or not, but after a long negotiation, necessarily they can offer you whatever they think they can afford, a. By Supervisor Tony Lizardi whether that's included or not." Lizardi, a man of many talents, was, like many of Re- Five witnesses for the General Counsel, three of spondent's employees, of Puerto Rican origin. He was whom had been discharged by Respondent between employed by Respondent as a supervisor in the shipping August 31 and October 5 and all of whom were no department during the campaign period from June to longer employed by Respondent, testified that Lizardi September. At the time of the hearing he was employed made more specific and forceful arguments on behalf of by the Department of Defense in the Defense Logistics the IBEW: Agency. Prior thereto he had been for a number of years (1) Santiago (Chago) Cabrera began working for Re- a professor at the University of Puerto Rico, teaching spondent in 1970 and was discharged on August 31. Li- labor law, labor history, accounting, finance, and busi- zardi was Cabrera's supervisor in the shipping depart- ness planning. In his varied occupations Lizardi had also ment. During the months of June, July, and August Ca- managed a warehouse and had participated as part of brera, a strong and vocal supporter of the IRWA, spoke management in dual union organizational campaigns. to Lizardi about the unions two or three times a day. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 707 display the IBEW label on its fixtures, a result that Lizardi is fluent in English and Spanish. A loquacious "could hurt both of us." and colorful individual, Lizardi undertook to educate Re- On August 23 Thomson made a speech to the assem- spondent's employees, some of whom spoke only Span- bled employees. During the course of the speech Thom- ish, in the intricacies of labor law, including policies of son said, inter alia, that outsiders were attempting to tear the National Labor Relations Board, textbook references them apart and "at times I felt as though they just might to the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department, and the be trying to force us to temporarily close the plant"; necessity for good-faith negotiations in collective bar- that, "if the IBEW label is lost, we all could lose"; that gaining. In his many conversations with individuals and the IRWA had falsely stated that the IBEW journeymen groups of employees, Lizardi stressed particularly the ne- electricians would not refuse to install the Company's cessity to retain the IBEW label and the possibility of ex- fixtures if the IBEW lost the election; that the Compa- tended negotiations if a new contract had to be negotiat- ny's competitors would like to see the IRWA win and ed with a new union. So erudite and forceful were Lizar- the Company to lose the IBEW label, business, and jobs; di's arguments that several employees would shout when that thousands of IRWA members at Zenith had lost they saw Lizardi approaching, "Hey, don't talk to Tony. their jobs in the past few years; and that Thomson did He's going to make you dizzy, he's going to make you not want to see that happen at Halo. dizzy." At times Lizardi would drive home his point The complaint does not allege that any of the above with an understandable metaphor. Speaking of the nego- written communications or the August 23 speech is un- tiating process, he explained it was like trying to con- lawful and the General Counsel so stated on the record. vnce a girl. "If you've gone out with her once and you Nevertheless, the General Counsel takes the position that n h dw te , yo kn. t s alleged unlawful statements orally made by supervisors it' goig to er than the se. You ado and found to accord "exactly" to "Respondent's script" w ra hr at it, didn't youu" are unlawfulwork real hard at it, didn.t you? Normally, the failure of the General Counsel to allege According to Lizardi and contrary to the testimony of known conduct of Respondent within the 10(b) period as witnesses for the General Counsel, he made no threats or unlawful would preclude me from ruling on the legality promises to the employees to induce them to vote for the of such conduct. The General Counsel's insistence, how- I B E W rather than the IRWA. He told them there was ever, on litigating the legality of oral statements "exact- n o way t h e salary matter could be touched before a ly" the same as the written statements puts such state- Board election. When the employees argued they did not ments, whether written or oral, in issue. An unlawful need the IBEW label he told them, "[I]f the lamps do threat is unlawful whether written or spoken. Although not go out on the truck, because they do not order, the awkwardly presented, the issue of Respondent's right clients do not order, there is no need to do any one of under Section 8(c) of the Act to refer to the possible loss them. If there is no need to need any lamps, there is no of the IBEW label and the consequent loss of business need for people to build lamps. And this would affect us and jobs was fully litigated in this case. all including me." In explaining Respondent's letter of The propriety of the Respondent's campaign literature August 20, relating to the strike at Northwest Airlines, is raised by the IRWA as an objection to the conduct of Lizardi pointed out that in that case the Teamsters, a the election. However, the IRWA rested its case on the newly elected union, did not even manage to get the basis of the General Counsel's prima facie case of unfair same benefits that the industry had or that the employees labor practices. No evidence was offered challenging the had under a different union. If the employees elected a accuracy of the facts and figures contained in Respond- new union at Halo, "negotiations could carry on for God ent's letters and communications to its employees. knows how long" since all the contract language would have to be negotiated anew. When an employee asked, il. THE FACTS "Well, why do they want to give us the minimum A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion wage?" Lizardi responded, "Well, it's up to the negotia- tors, you know, to determine whether they would accept 1. Statements by supervisors that or not, but after a long negotiation, necessarily they can offer you whatever they think they can afford, a. By Supervisor Tony Lizardi whether that's included or not." Lizardi, a man of many talents, was, like many of Re- F i v e witnesses for the General Counsel, three of spondent's employees, of Puerto Rican origin. He was w h o m had been discharged by Respondent between employed by Respondent as a supervisor in the shipping August 31 and October 5 and all of whom were no department during the campaign period from June to lo"ger employed by Respondent, testified that Lizardi September. At the time of the hearing he was employed made more specific and forceful arguments on behalf of by the Department of Defense in the Defense Logistics the IBEW: Agency. Prior thereto he had been for a number of years (1) Santiago (Chago) Cabrera began working for Re- a professor at the University of Puerto Rico, teaching spondent in 1970 and was discharged on August 31. Li- labor law, labor history, accounting, finance, and busi- zardi was Cabrera's supervisor in the shipping depart- ness planning. In his varied occupations Lizardi had also ment. During the months of June, July, and August Ca- managed a warehouse and had participated as part of brera, a strong and vocal supporter of the IRWA, spoke management in dual union organizational campaigns,. to Lizardi about the unions two or three times a day. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 707 display the IBEW label on its fixtures, a result that Lizardi is fluent in English and Spanish. A loquacious "could hurt both of us." and colorful individual, Lizardi undertook to educate Re- On August 23 Thomson made a speech to the assem- spondent's employees, some of whom spoke only Span- bled employees. During the course of the speech Thom- ish, in the intricacies of labor law, including policies of son said, inter alia, that outsiders were attempting to tear the National Labor Relations Board, textbook references them apart and "at times I felt as though they just might to the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department, and the be trying to force us to temporarily close the plant"; necessity for good-faith negotiations in collective bar- that, "if the IBEW label is lost, we all could lose"; that gaining. In his many conversations with individuals and the IRWA had falsely stated that the IBEW journeymen groups of employees, Lizardi stressed particularly the ne- electricians would not refuse to install the Company's cessity to retain the IBEW label and the possibility of ex- fixtures if the IBEW lost the election; that the Compa- tended negotiations if a new contract had to be negotiat- ny's competitors would like to see the IRWA win and ed with a new union. So erudite and forceful were Lizar- the Company to lose the IBEW label, business, and jobs; di's arguments that several employees would shout when that thousands of IRWA members at Zenith had lost they saw Lizardi approaching, "Hey, don't talk to Tony. their jobs in the past few years; and that Thomson did He's going to make you dizzy, he's going to make you not want to see that happen at Halo. dizzy." At times Lizardi would drive home his point The complaint does not allege that any of the above with an understandable metaphor. Speaking of the nego- written communications or the August 23 speech is un- tiating process, he explained it was like trying to con- lawful and the General Counsel so stated on the record. vnce a girl. "If you've gone out with her once and you Nevertheless, the General Counsel takes the position that n h dw te , yo kn. t s alleged unlawful statements orally made by supervisors it' goig ther than the se. You ado and found to accord "exactly" to "Respondent's script" w ra hr at it, didn't youu" are unlawfulwork real hard at it, didn.t you? Normally, the failure of the General Counsel to allege According to Lizardi and contrary to the testimony of known conduct of Respondent within the 10(b) period as witnesses for the General Counsel, he made no threats or unlawful would preclude me from ruling on the legality promises to the employees to induce them to vote for the of such conduct. The General Counsel's insistence, how- I B E W rather than the IRWA. He told them there was ever, on litigating the legality of oral statements "exact- n o way the salary matter could be touched before a ly" the same as the written statements puts such state- Board election. When the employees argued they did not ments, whether written or oral, in issue. An unlawful need the IBEW label he told them, "[I]f the lamps do threat is unlawful whether written or spoken. Although not go out on the truck, because they do not order, the awkwardly presented, the issue of Respondent's right clients do not order, there is no need to do any one of under Section 8(c) of the Act to refer to the possible loss them. If there is no need to need any lamps, there is no of the IBEW label and the consequent loss of business need for people to build lamps. And this would affect us and jobs was fully litigated in this case. all including me." In explaining Respondent's letter of The propriety of the Respondent's campaign literature August 20, relating to the strike at Northwest Airlines, is raised by the IRWA as an objection to the conduct of Lizardi pointed out that in that case the Teamsters, a the election. However, the IRWA rested its case on the newly elected union, did not even manage to get the basis of the General Counsel's prima facie case of unfair same benefits that the industry had or that the employees labor practices. No evidence was offered challenging the had under a different union. If the employees elected a accuracy of the facts and figures contained in Respond- new union at Halo, "negotiations could carry on for God ent's letters and communications to its employees. knows how long" since all the contract language would have to be negotiated anew. When an employee asked, il. THE FACTS "Well, why do they want to give us the minimum A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion wage?" Lizardi responded, "Well, it's up to the negotia- tors, you know, to determine whether they would accept 1. Statements by supervisors that or not, but after a long negotiation, necessarily they can offer you whatever they think they can afford, a. By Supervisor Tony Lizardi whether that's included or not." Lizardi, a man of many talents, was, like many of Re- F i v e witnesses for the General Counsel, three of spondent's employees, of Puerto Rican origin. He was w h o m had been discharged by Respondent between employed by Respondent as a supervisor in the shipping August 31 and October 5 and all of whom were no department during the campaign period from June to lo"ger employed by Respondent, testified that Lizardi September. At the time of the hearing he was employed made more specific and forceful arguments on behalf of by the Department of Defense in the Defense Logistics the IBEW: Agency. Prior thereto he had been for a number of years (1) Santiago (Chago) Cabrera began working for Re- a professor at the University of Puerto Rico, teaching spondent in 1970 and was discharged on August 31. Li- labor law, labor history, accounting, finance, and busi- zardi was Cabrera's supervisor in the shipping depart- ness planning. In his varied occupations Lizardi had also ment. During the months of June, July, and August Ca- managed a warehouse and had participated as part of brera, a strong and vocal supporter of the IRWA, spoke management in dual union organizational campaigns,. to Lizardi about the unions two or three times a day. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 707 display the IBEW label on its fixtures, a result that Lizardi is fluent in English and Spanish. A loquacious "could hurt both of us." and colorful individual, Lizardi undertook to educate Re- On August 23 Thomson made a speech to the assem- spondent's employees, some of whom spoke only Span- bled employees. During the course of the speech Thom- ish, in the intricacies of labor law, including policies of son said, inter alia, that outsiders were attempting to tear the National Labor Relations Board, textbook references them apart and "at times I felt as though they just might to the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department, and the be trying to force us to temporarily close the plant"; necessity for good-faith negotiations in collective bar- that, "if the IBEW label is lost, we all could lose"; that gaining. In his many conversations with individuals and the IRWA had falsely stated that the IBEW journeymen groups of employees, Lizardi stressed particularly the ne- electricians would not refuse to install the Company's cessity to retain the IBEW label and the possibility of ex- fixtures if the IBEW lost the election; that the Compa- tended negotiations if a new contract had to be negotiat- ny's competitors would like to see the IRWA win and ed with a new union. So erudite and forceful were Lizar- the Company to lose the IBEW label, business, and jobs; di's arguments that several employees would shout when that thousands of IRWA members at Zenith had lost they saw Lizardi approaching, "Hey, don't talk to Tony. their jobs in the past few years; and that Thomson did He's going to make you dizzy, he's going to make you not want to see that happen at Halo. dizzy." At times Lizardi would drive home his point The complaint does not allege that any of the above with an understandable metaphor. Speaking of the nego- written communications or the August 23 speech is un- tiating process, he explained it was like trying to con- lawful and the General Counsel so stated on the record. vnce a girl. "If you've gone out with her once and you Nevertheless, the General Counsel takes the position that n h dw te , yo kn. t s alleged unlawful statements orally made by supervisors it' goig ther than the se. You ado and found to accord "exactly" to "Respondent's script" w ra hr at it, didn't youu" are unlawfulwork real hard at it, didn.t you? Normally, the failure of the General Counsel to allege According to Lizardi and contrary to the testimony of known conduct of Respondent within the 10(b) period as witnesses for the General Counsel, he made no threats or unlawful would preclude me from ruling on the legality promises to the employees to induce them to vote for the of such conduct. The General Counsel's insistence, how- I B E W rather than the IRWA. He told them there was ever, on litigating the legality of oral statements "exact- n o way the salary matter could be touched before a ly" the same as the written statements puts such state- Board election. When the employees argued they did not ments, whether written or oral, in issue. An unlawful need the IBEW label he told them, "[I]f the lamps do threat is unlawful whether written or spoken. Although not go out on the truck, because they do not order, the awkwardly presented, the issue of Respondent's right clients do not order, there is no need to do any one of under Section 8(c) of the Act to refer to the possible loss them. If there is no need to need any lamps, there is no of the IBEW label and the consequent loss of business need for people to build lamps. And this would affect us and jobs was fully litigated in this case. all including me." In explaining Respondent's letter of The propriety of the Respondent's campaign literature August 20, relating to the strike at Northwest Airlines, is raised by the IRWA as an objection to the conduct of Lizardi pointed out that in that case the Teamsters, a the election. However, the IRWA rested its case on the newly elected union, did not even manage to get the basis of the General Counsel's prima facie case of unfair same benefits that the industry had or that the employees labor practices. No evidence was offered challenging the had under a different union. If the employees elected a accuracy of the facts and figures contained in Respond- new union at Halo, "negotiations could carry on for God ent's letters and communications to its employees. knows how long" since all the contract language would have to be negotiated anew. When an employee asked, il. THE FACTS "Well, why do they want to give us the minimum A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion wage?" Lizardi responded, "Well, it's up to the negotia- tors, you know, to determine whether they would accept 1. Statements by supervisors that or not, but after a long negotiation, necessarily they can offer you whatever they think they can afford, a. By Supervisor Tony Lizardi whether that's included or not." Lizardi, a man of many talents, was, like many of Re- F i v e witnesses for the General Counsel, three of spondent's employees, of Puerto Rican origin. He was w h o m had been discharged by Respondent between employed by Respondent as a supervisor in the shipping August 31 and October 5 and all of whom were no department during the campaign period from June to lo"ger employed by Respondent, testified that Lizardi September. At the time of the hearing he was employed made more specific and forceful arguments on behalf of by the Department of Defense in the Defense Logistics the IBEW: Agency. Prior thereto he had been for a number of years (1) Santiago (Chago) Cabrera began working for Re- a professor at the University of Puerto Rico, teaching spondent in 1970 and was discharged on August 31. Li- labor law, labor history, accounting, finance, and busi- zardi was Cabrera's supervisor in the shipping depart- ness planning. In his varied occupations Lizardi had also ment. During the months of June, July, and August Ca- managed a warehouse and had participated as part of brera, a strong and vocal supporter of the IRWA, spoke management in dual union organizational campaigns,. to Lizardi about the unions two or three times a day. 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cabrera testified that in mid-August Lizardi called Ca- (3) Dionisio Perez, employed by Respondent in Febru- brera into Lizardi's office and told Cabrera that if he ary 1976, in the shipping department, was discharged on kept quiet and kept calm and helped to calm down the October 5. He testified that Lizardi spoke to Perez and other employees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money other employees before working time every day for and more benefits. On this and other occasions Lizardi about an hour during the period from July to August. asked Cabrera if he belonged to the new (IRWA) or old Lizardi told Perez that if the employees did not vote for (IBEW) union. Cabrera replied that he was 100 percent the IBEW there would be loss of work, loss of produc- for the new union. Lizardi also said that if the IRWA tion; the employees would lose benefits; they would have won the election the employees would go back to to start with a new contract and minimum wages. making $2.90 per hour. Cabrera told Lizardi that Ca- Perez testified that Lizardi compared the employees brera would continue talking for the IRWA. Following working at Zenith represented by the IRWA with those his conversation with Lizardi, Cabrera told other em- represented by the IBEW and said that the former ployees that Lizardi had offered Cabrera money to keep earned less than the latter, Lizardi said that if the em- quiet and calm the other employees down. Cabrera told ployees voted for the IBEW they could get a good con- the employees he was 100 percent for the IRWA. tract; if they did not vote for the IBEW the plant could Cabrera testified that in other conversations with Li- move to another location. zardi during this period, at times when they were alone Perez testified further that Lizardi told the employees and at times in the presence of other employees, Lizardi who gathered around him that he could talk to Thomson said that if the IRWA came into the plant the Respond- to set up a meeting with them and whatever they ent would pay the employees $2.90 per hour, and that needed, if they needed an increase, they could talk to they would lay off half the employees and maybe even Thomson. lay off half the supervisors. Perez also testified that a few days before the election Cabrera also testified that he and Lizardi had lunch on Lizardi said that if the IBEW lost the election the Con- one occasion, that they were late returning to work, and pany would not have the label and, as a result, there that Lizardi took care of Cabrera's card for punching in would be a loss of production and a lot of layoffs. purposes. During the luncheon Lizardi told Cabrera that (4) Pedro Forts, who was employed by Respondent as if the employees continued to try to put in a new union an order filler in the shipping department from August the same thing would happen at Halo that happened in 29, 1978, to November 28, testified that he had four or other companies where the employees put in a new five conversations with Lizardi during the period from union, it ended with employees laid off and salaries re- June to August. duced. T ir-1 i * T*i Fortis testified that in his first conversation with Li- Cabrera testified further that every time Lizardi talked zardi in June the latter said that if the IBEW lost there about the Union Lizardi would say if the employees did would be a lot of people who would be laid off and the not vote for the IBEW Respondent could move the w r Company would move the factory to another place. Company to California or any place because McGraw F a t t L s t i t Edison was a big company and had a lot of money. Edison was a big company and had a lot of money.Forts also testified that Lizardi said that if the em- Cabrera testified, with respect to the IBEW label, that ployees supported the IBEW and the IBEW won the Lizardi would start his conversations with the statement electon Lizardi would take the employees out to eat and that if the IRWA came in the Company would lose the they could drnk what they wanted. If the IRWA won use of the IBEW seal, and that they would have to lay the election the ompany would pay the employees off half the employees, lay off some of the supervisors, $290 er hour instead of the $5.17 an hour the employ- and reduce the salaries to $2.90. ees were making and the employees would not have any (2) William Velasquez, employed by Respondent in the kind of benefits. shipping department in 1974, was discharged on Septem- Fortis testified further that all of his conversations ber 12. He testified that he and about 20 other employees with Lizardi, including a conversation a week before the met with Lizardi during working time on or about July election, were almost to the same effect. 30. Lizardi told the employees that they should vote for In one of the above conversations Lizardi said that if the old union (IBEW) and he would take care of every- he could legally find out who voted in favor of the old thing for them; he would go to personnel and try to get union (IBEW) he would try to get the employees a 25- the employees a raise of 25 cents per hour. cent-per-hour increase. Velasquez testified that during the period from July to During some of the conversations employees would August he spoke to Lizardi on two other occasions, once ask Lizardi why the label was so important. Lizardi ex- in the company of other employees and once alone. In plained that if the IBEW lost the election the Company these conversations Lizardi spoke of a strike at an air- would not be able to use its label and therefore it would plane factory where another union entered and the em- lay off employees and move the factory. ployees lost a lot of money. Lizardi said that the same (5) Francisco Lopez was employed by Respondent in thing would happen at Halo if another union came in-a the shipping department as an order filler under the su- lot of jobs would be lost. Lazardi spoke of the IBEW pervision of Angel Santiago from August 29, 1978, to labels, that without the labels the electricians would not August 24, 1979. install the Company's products and the employees would Lopez testified that he and six or seven other employ- lose jobs if the IRWA came into the Company. Lazardi ees met with Lizardi in the shipping section of the Lite also said that the employees' salaries would be lower. Trend area in mid-August. Lizardi was carrying some 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cabrera testified that in mid-August Lizardi called Ca- (3) Dionisio Perez, employed by Respondent in Febru- brera into Lizardi's office and told Cabrera that if he ary 1976, in the shipping department, was discharged on kept quiet and kept calm and helped to calm down the October 5. He testified that Lizardi spoke to Perez and other employees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money other employees before working time every day for and more benefits. On this and other occasions Lizardi about an hour during the period from July to August. asked Cabrera if he belonged to the new (IRWA) or old Lizardi told Perez that if the employees did not vote for (IBEW) union. Cabrera replied that he was 100 percent the IBEW there would be loss of work, loss of produc- for the new union. Lizardi also said that if the IRWA tion; the employees would lose benefits; they would have won the election the employees would go back to to start with a new contract and minimum wages. making $2.90 per hour. Cabrera told Lizardi that Ca- Perez testified that Lizardi compared the employees brera would continue talking for the IRWA. Following working at Zenith represented by the IRWA with those his conversation with Lizardi, Cabrera told other em- represented by the IBEW and said that the former ployees that Lizardi had offered Cabrera money to keep earned less than the latter, Lizardi said that if the em- quiet and calm the other employees down. Cabrera told ployees voted for the IBEW they could get a good con- the employees he was 100 percent for the IRWA. tract; if they did not vote for the IBEW the plant could Cabrera testified that in other conversations with Li- move to another location. zardi during this period, at times when they were alone Perez testified further that Lizardi told the employees and at times in the presence of other employees, Lizardi who gathered around him that he could talk to Thomson said that if the IRWA came into the plant the Respond- to set up a meeting with them and whatever they ent would pay the employees $2.90 per hour, and that needed, if they needed an increase, they could talk to they would lay off half the employees and maybe even Thomson. lay off half the supervisors. Perez also testified that a few days before the election Cabrera also testified that he and Lizardi had lunch on Lizardi said that if the IBEW lost the election the Com- one occasion, that they were late returning to work, and pany would not have the label and, as a result, there that Lizardi took care of Cabrera's card for punching in would be a loss of production and a lot of layoffs. purposes. During the luncheon Lizardi told Cabrera that (4) Pedro Fords, who was employed by Respondent as if the employees continued to try to put in a new union an order filler in the shipping department from August the same thing would happen at Halo that happened in 29, 1978, to November 28, testified that he had four or other companies where the employees put in a new five conversations with Lizardi during the period from union, it ended with employees laid off and salaries re- June to August. duced. .T-ir .1 .. * *-i >11- Fortis testified that in his first conversation with Li- Cabrera testified further that every time Lizardi talked zardi in June the latter said that if the IBEW lost there about the Union Lizardi would say if the employees did w b a l o p wh w b l o a not vote for the IBEW Respondent could move the C mv th r t a plac1 _, * ^ IT * 1 1. »* /- ~~~~Company would move the factory to another place. Company to California or any place because McGraw _*., - , -. * . . , Compay to alifrnia r an plac becuse M~raw Fortis also testified that Lizardi said that if the em- Edison was a big company and had a lot of money.,p oyee s s o rte t he IBEW a n d t h eI Ww t h e Cabrera testified, with respect to the IBEW label, that e o y e es supported the IBEW and the IBEW won the Lizardi would start his conversations with the statement e lec t h o n Lizardd would take the employees out to eat and that if the IRWA came in the Company would lose the t h e y c o u ld d tnk w h at t h ey w a n ted . I f t h e I R W A w o n use of the IBEW seal, and that they would have to lay 2 th e 0el ec tr o n th e C o m p 51 y w o u ld p a y t h e employ- off half the employees, lay off some of the supervisors, 2e9 0 per h o u rinstead of the e 5.17 an hour the employ- and reduce the salaries to $2.90. e es w n e m ak in g an d t h e e m p o y e es w o u l d n o t h av e an y (2) William Velasquez, employed by Respondent in the k ln d o f b e n e ms . shipping department in 1974, was discharged on Septem- F o r t i s testified further that all of his conversations ber 12. He testified that he and about 20 other employees w it h Lizardi, including a conversation a week before the met with Lizardi during working time on or about July election, were almost to the same effect. 30. Lizardi told the employees that they should vote for I n o n e o f the above conversations Lizardi said that if the old union (IBEW) and he would take care of every- he could legally find out who voted in favor of the old thing for them; he would go to personnel and try to get u n i o n (IBEW) he would try to get the employees a 25- the employees a raise of 25 cents per hour. cent-per-hour increase. Velasquez testified that during the period from July to During some of the conversations employees would August he spoke to Lizardi on two other occasions, once ask Lizardi why the label was so important. Lizardi ex- in the company of other employees and once alone. In plained that if the IBEW lost the election the Company these conversations Lizardi spoke of a strike at an air- would not be able to use its label and therefore it would plane factory where another union entered and the em- lay off employees and move the factory. ployees lost a lot of money. Lizardi said that the same (5) Francisco Lopez was employed by Respondent in thing would happen at Halo if another union came in-a the shipping department as an order filler under the su- lot of jobs would be lost. Lazardi spoke of the IBEW pervision of Angel Santiago from August 29, 1978, to labels, that without the labels the electricians would not August 24, 1979. install the Company's products and the employees would Lopez testified that he and six or seven other employ- lose jobs if the IRWA came into the Company. Lazardi ees met with Lizardi in the shipping section of the Lite also said that the employees' salaries would be lower. Trend area in mid-August. Lizardi was carrying some 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cabrera testified that in mid-August Lizardi called Ca- (3) Dionisio Perez, employed by Respondent in Febru- brera into Lizardi's office and told Cabrera that if he ary 1976, in the shipping department, was discharged on kept quiet and kept calm and helped to calm down the October 5. He testified that Lizardi spoke to Perez and other employees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money other employees before working time every day for and more benefits. On this and other occasions Lizardi about an hour during the period from July to August. asked Cabrera if he belonged to the new (IRWA) or old Lizardi told Perez that if the employees did not vote for (IBEW) union. Cabrera replied that he was 100 percent the IBEW there would be loss of work, loss of produc- for the new union. Lizardi also said that if the IRWA tion; the employees would lose benefits; they would have won the election the employees would go back to to start with a new contract and minimum wages. making $2.90 per hour. Cabrera told Lizardi that Ca- Perez testified that Lizardi compared the employees brera would continue talking for the IRWA. Following working at Zenith represented by the IRWA with those his conversation with Lizardi, Cabrera told other em- represented by the IBEW and said that the former ployees that Lizardi had offered Cabrera money to keep earned less than the latter, Lizardi said that if the em- quiet and calm the other employees down. Cabrera told ployees voted for the IBEW they could get a good con- the employees he was 100 percent for the IRWA. tract; if they did not vote for the IBEW the plant could Cabrera testified that in other conversations with Li- move to another location. zardi during this period, at times when they were alone Perez testified further that Lizardi told the employees and at times in the presence of other employees, Lizardi who gathered around him that he could talk to Thomson said that if the IRWA came into the plant the Respond- to set up a meeting with them and whatever they ent would pay the employees $2.90 per hour, and that needed, if they needed an increase, they could talk to they would lay off half the employees and maybe even Thomson. lay off half the supervisors. Perez also testified that a few days before the election Cabrera also testified that he and Lizardi had lunch on Lizardi said that if the IBEW lost the election the Com- one occasion, that they were late returning to work, and pany would not have the label and, as a result, there that Lizardi took care of Cabrera's card for punching in would be a loss of production and a lot of layoffs. purposes. During the luncheon Lizardi told Cabrera that (4) Pedro Fords, who was employed by Respondent as if the employees continued to try to put in a new union an order filler in the shipping department from August the same thing would happen at Halo that happened in 29, 1978, to November 28, testified that he had four or other companies where the employees put in a new five conversations with Lizardi during the period from union, it ended with employees laid off and salaries re- June to August. duced. .T-ir .1 .. * *-i >11- Fortis testified that in his first conversation with Li- Cabrera testified further that every time Lizardi talked zardi in June the latter said that if the IBEW lost there about the Union Lizardi would say if the employees did w b a l o p wh w b l o a not vote for the IBEW Respondent could move the C mv th r t a plac1 _, * ^ IT * 1 1. »* /- ~~~~Company would move the factory to another place. Company to California or any place because McGraw _*., - , -. * . . , Compay to alifrnia r an plac becuse M~raw Fortis also testified that Lizardi said that if the em- Edison was a big company and had a lot of money.,p oyee s s o rte t he IBEW a n d t h eI Ww t h e Cabrera testified, with respect to the IBEW label, that e o y e es supported the IBEW and the IBEW won the Lizardi would start his conversations with the statement e lec t h o n Lizardd would take the employees out to eat and that if the IRWA came in the Company would lose the t h e y c o u ld d tnk w h at t h ey w a n ted . I f t h e I R W A w o n use of the IBEW seal, and that they would have to lay 2 th e 0el ec tr o n th e C o m p 51 y w o u ld p a y t h e employ- off half the employees, lay off some of the supervisors, 2e9 0 per h o u rinstead of the e 5.17 an hour the employ- and reduce the salaries to $2.90. e es w n e m ak in g an d t h e e m p l oy e es w o u l d n o t h av e an y (2) William Velasquez, employed by Respondent in the k ln d o f b e n e ms . shipping department in 1974, was discharged on Septem- F o r t i s testified further that all of his conversations ber 12. He testified that he and about 20 other employees w it h Lizardi, including a conversation a week before the met with Lizardi during working time on or about July election, were almost to the same effect. 30. Lizardi told the employees that they should vote for I n o n e o f the above conversations Lizardi said that if the old union (IBEW) and he would take care of every- he could legally find out who voted in favor of the old thing for them; he would go to personnel and try to get u n i o n (IBEW) he would try to get the employees a 25- the employees a raise of 25 cents per hour. cent-per-hour increase. Velasquez testified that during the period from July to During some of the conversations employees would August he spoke to Lizardi on two other occasions, once ask Lizardi why the label was so important. Lizardi ex- in the company of other employees and once alone. In plained that if the IBEW lost the election the Company these conversations Lizardi spoke of a strike at an air- would not be able to use its label and therefore it would plane factory where another union entered and the em- lay off employees and move the factory. ployees lost a lot of money. Lizardi said that the same (5) Francisco Lopez was employed by Respondent in thing would happen at Halo if another union came in-a the shipping department as an order filler under the su- lot of jobs would be lost. Lazardi spoke of the IBEW pervision of Angel Santiago from August 29, 1978, to labels, that without the labels the electricians would not August 24, 1979. install the Company's products and the employees would Lopez testified that he and six or seven other employ- lose jobs if the IRWA came into the Company. Lazardi ees met with Lizardi in the shipping section of the Lite also said that the employees' salaries would be lower. Trend area in mid-August. Lizardi was carrying some 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cabrera testified that in mid-August Lizardi called Ca- (3) Dionisio Perez, employed by Respondent in Febru- brera into Lizardi's office and told Cabrera that if he ary 1976, in the shipping department, was discharged on kept quiet and kept calm and helped to calm down the October 5. He testified that Lizardi spoke to Perez and other employees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money other employees before working time every day for and more benefits. On this and other occasions Lizardi about an hour during the period from July to August. asked Cabrera if he belonged to the new (IRWA) or old Lizardi told Perez that if the employees did not vote for (IBEW) union. Cabrera replied that he was 100 percent the IBEW there would be loss of work, loss of produc- for the new union. Lizardi also said that if the IRWA tion; the employees would lose benefits; they would have won the election the employees would go back to to start with a new contract and minimum wages. making $2.90 per hour. Cabrera told Lizardi that Ca- Perez testified that Lizardi compared the employees brera would continue talking for the IRWA. Following working at Zenith represented by the IRWA with those his conversation with Lizardi, Cabrera told other em- represented by the IBEW and said that the former ployees that Lizardi had offered Cabrera money to keep earned less than the latter, Lizardi said that if the em- quiet and calm the other employees down. Cabrera told ployees voted for the IBEW they could get a good con- the employees he was 100 percent for the IRWA. tract; if they did not vote for the IBEW the plant could Cabrera testified that in other conversations with Li- move to another location. zardi during this period, at times when they were alone Perez testified further that Lizardi told the employees and at times in the presence of other employees, Lizardi who gathered around him that he could talk to Thomson said that if the IRWA came into the plant the Respond- to set up a meeting with them and whatever they ent would pay the employees $2.90 per hour, and that needed, if they needed an increase, they could talk to they would lay off half the employees and maybe even Thomson. lay off half the supervisors. Perez also testified that a few days before the election Cabrera also testified that he and Lizardi had lunch on Lizardi said that if the IBEW lost the election the Com- one occasion, that they were late returning to work, and pany would not have the label and, as a result, there that Lizardi took care of Cabrera's card for punching in would be a loss of production and a lot of layoffs. purposes. During the luncheon Lizardi told Cabrera that (4) Pedro Fords, who was employed by Respondent as if the employees continued to try to put in a new union an order filler in the shipping department from August the same thing would happen at Halo that happened in 29, 1978, to November 28, testified that he had four or other companies where the employees put in a new five conversations with Lizardi during the period from union, it ended with employees laid off and salaries re- June to August. duced. .T-ir .1 .. * *-i >11- Fortis testified that in his first conversation with Li- Cabrera testified further that every time Lizardi talked zardi in June the latter said that if the IBEW lost there about the Union Lizardi would say if the employees did w b a l o p wh w b l o a not vote for the IBEW Respondent could move the C mv th r t a plac1 _, * ^ IT * 1 1. »* /- ~~~~Company would move the factory to another place. Company to California or any place because McGraw _*., - , -. * . . , Compay to alifrnia r an plac becuse M~raw Fortis also testified that Lizardi said that if the em- Edison was a big company and had a lot of money.,p oyee s s o rte t he IBEW a n d t h eI Ww t h e Cabrera testified, with respect to the IBEW label, that e o y e es supported the IBEW and the IBEW won the Lizardi would start his conversations with the statement e lec t h o n Lizardd would take the employees out to eat and that if the IRWA came in the Company would lose the t h e y c o u ld d tnk w h at t h ey w a n ted . I f t h e I R W A w o n use of the IBEW seal, and that they would have to lay 2 th e 0el ec tr o n th e C o m p 51 y w o u ld p a y t h e employ- off half the employees, lay off some of the supervisors, 2e9 0 per h o u rinstead of the e 5.17 an hour the employ- and reduce the salaries to $2.90. e es w n e m ak in g an d t h e e m p l oy e es w o u l d n o t h av e an y (2) William Velasquez, employed by Respondent in the k ln d o f b e n e ms . shipping department in 1974, was discharged on Septem- F o r t i s testified further that all of his conversations ber 12. He testified that he and about 20 other employees w it h Lizardi, including a conversation a week before the met with Lizardi during working time on or about July election, were almost to the same effect. 30. Lizardi told the employees that they should vote for I n o n e o f the above conversations Lizardi said that if the old union (IBEW) and he would take care of every- he could legally find out who voted in favor of the old thing for them; he would go to personnel and try to get u n i o n (IBEW) he would try to get the employees a 25- the employees a raise of 25 cents per hour. cent-per-hour increase. Velasquez testified that during the period from July to During some of the conversations employees would August he spoke to Lizardi on two other occasions, once ask Lizardi why the label was so important. Lizardi ex- in the company of other employees and once alone. In plained that if the IBEW lost the election the Company these conversations Lizardi spoke of a strike at an air- would not be able to use its label and therefore it would plane factory where another union entered and the em- lay off employees and move the factory. ployees lost a lot of money. Lizardi said that the same (5) Francisco Lopez was employed by Respondent in thing would happen at Halo if another union came in-a the shipping department as an order filler under the su- lot of jobs would be lost. Lazardi spoke of the IBEW pervision of Angel Santiago from August 29, 1978, to labels, that without the labels the electricians would not August 24, 1979. install the Company's products and the employees would Lopez testified that he and six or seven other employ- lose jobs if the IRWA came into the Company. Lazardi ees met with Lizardi in the shipping section of the Lite also said that the employees' salaries would be lower. Trend area in mid-August. Lizardi was carrying some HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 709 handbills and asked the employees if they had received IBEW journeymen electricians would not install a part them. Lopez asked what Lizardi thought was the best that did not have their union label on it; that the Compa- thing for the employees to do. Lizardi said, "Stay with ny would not be able to sell the fixtures; that the em- the one you have, because voting for a new union is like ployees could lose their jobs; and that he might lose his throwing your salaries away and no benefits." Lopez job too. asked Lizardi what he meant. Lizardi said, "If the While Velasquez' testimony was somewhat inconsist- IRWA wins we will have to negotiate, start from the ent, including statements made in her affidavit, I am sat- bottom on the federal rates and then we would have to isfied that the above testimony accurately reflects her start from new benefits." conversation with Monaco and it is credited. Monaco Lopez testified further that in early August he and two did not testify. other employees were in the cafeteria during their break- time. Lizardi approached them and said, "You look like c. By Supervisor Daniel Hueuink smart guys. You speak English, write English and under- D P w t i stand English. You could have a better job if you stick also tstii erez, w h o se testimony is discussed above with us." Lopez said nothing. also testified that in late July or early August he and In resolving credibility as to these witnesses I have other employees had a conversation with Hueuink, then taken into consideration the probability that the wit- a division of employee relations manager, in the shipping nesses for the General Counsel may have misunderstood department. Perez asked Hueuink why they should keep or misinterpreted much of what Lizardi read to them the IBEW label; if the IRWA won the election they from technical books or told them about negotiation could use the label of that Union. Hueuink responded from "Day One" or the need for the IBEW label to sell that he did not want that to happen because if the IBEW Respondent's products. It is understandable that some of lost the election the electricians would not want to install them would get dizzy listening to him or react angrily the lamps; if that happened there would be layoffs, they by calling him a liar. As Lizardi conceded, the employ- would lose benefits, and they would get a new contract ees with whom he was dealing were highly emotional, at a minimum salary. On cross-examination Perez denied impatient people. They were poorly or not at all educat- that Hueuink had said anything about company sales if ed in a formal sense. Certainly, at some point Lizardi, the lighting fixtures were not installed or that there was himself highly articulate and knowledgeable, must have a discussion of contracts. However, Perez conceded that realized that he could not accomplish his objective of Hueink said the Company would sit down and negotiate persuading them to vote for the IBEW by showing them a new contract if the IRWA won the election, but that technical treatises and talking about good-faith collective they had to start with new benefits. bargaining. It may well be that Lizardi did not make all Hueuink testified that on the above occasion, at Lizar- of the statements in haec verba attributed to him by the di's request, Hueuink spoke to the employees about the General Counsel's witnesses, several of whom were not IBEW label. Hueuink told the employees that without impressive.4 But I cannot believe he made none of them. the IBEW label the IBEW electricians on the construc- Lizardi's own testimony as to what he told them is too tion site would probably not install the fixtures and thus bland (except for metaphors), too pat, and too general to the Company could have a loss of sales. Hueuink indicat- be convincing. It has none of the sharp sting and direct- ed that a reduction in sales could reduce employment. ness that might be expected from an outspoken, direct, Hueuink also told the employees that if the IRWA won and passionate individual, such as Lizardi. It was, after the election wages and benefits would have to be negoti- all, his assigned job to persuade these simple, but very ated, stubborn employees that they had no real choice but to Hueuink testified in a clear and straightforward vote for the IBEW. The hard points of impact and per- manner. I credit him over Perez as to this conversation. suasion found in Respondent's written material are mir- rored in some of the testimony of the General Counsel's d. By Supervisor Castor Colon witnesses, but with added force. In the absence of a Pedro Fortis, whose testimony is discussed above, also more specific and believable version of what Lizardi, in testified that he spoke to Colon, a supervisor in the ship- fact, may have told the employees in his vigorous and ping department, about the Union three or four times in persistent compaign to insure victory for the IBEW, I August. Colon said if the IRWA won the election there credit the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel was a good probability that many of the employees over Lizardi. would lose their jobs and there was a possibility that the factory would move to another location. On several oc- b. By Supervisor Vince Monaco casions during this period Colon would give the employ- Luz Velasquez, who was employed by Respondent ees a company letter saying, "Here is a paper from the from September 26, 1975, to August 20, 1979, testified Company" and explain to those who did not understand that on a day in July she was translating into Spanish for English what it said. a fellow employee a campaign letter about the IBEW William Velasquez, whose testimony is discussed above, label. Monaco interrupted her conversation and said, "I also testified that he spoke to Colon on one occasion in don't want to brainwash you, but this is what the paper early August in the presence of other employees. Colon says, we could lose our job." Monaco explained that the said that the labels could not be changed; that if they changed, the electricians would not be able to install the See below in sec. l(d) indings with respect to William Velasquez. lamps in any part of the State; that if the IRWA won the HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 709 handbills and asked the employees if they had received IBEW journeymen electricians would not install a part them. Lopez asked what Lizardi thought was the best that did not have their union label on it; that the Compa- thing for the employees to do. Lizardi said, "Stay with ny would not be able to sell the fixtures; that the em- the one you have, because voting for a new union is like ployees could lose their jobs; and that he might lose his throwing your salaries away and no benefits." Lopez job too. asked Lizardi what he meant. Lizardi said, "If the While Velasquez' testimony was somewhat inconsist- IRWA wins we will have to negotiate, start from the ent, including statements made in her affidavit, I am sat- bottom on the federal rates and then we would have to isfied that the above testimony accurately reflects her start from new benefits." conversation with Monaco and it is credited. Monaco Lopez testified further that in early August he and two did not testify. other employees were in the cafeteria during their break- time. Lizardi approached them and said, "You look like c. By Supervisor Daniel Hueuink smart guys. You speak English, write English and under- D P w t i . c. a, stand English. You could have a better job if you stick a D lso"est Pe rez d w h o s e testimony is discussed above with us." Lopez said nothing.o al s o t es t ed t h a t dao l at e rt o r early August he and In resolving credibility as to these witnesses I have aother employees had a conversation with Hueumk, then taken into consideration the probability that the wit- a division of employee relations manager in the shipping nesses for the General Counsel may have misunderstood p^'"" 1-. e z ^ d ""^T 11 w h y t h e y sh o ul d ^ or misinterpreted much of what Lizardi read to them the IBEW label; if the IRWA won the election they from technical books or told them about negotiation co ul d u se the lab e l o f that Union. Hueuink responded from "Day One" or the need for the IBEW label to sell t h at he did not want that to happen because if the IBEW Respondent's products. It is understandable that some of l o st t h e election the electricians would not want to install them would get dizzy listening to him or react angrily the lamps; if that happened there would be layoffs, they by calling him a liar. As Lizardi conceded, the employ- w o u l d lose benefits, and they would get a new contract ees with whom he was dealing were highly emotional, at a minimum salary. On cross-examination Perez denied impatient people. They were poorly or not at all educat- that Hueuink had said anything about company sales if ed in a formal sense. Certainly, at some point Lizardi, the lighting fixtures were not installed or that there was himself highly articulate and knowledgeable, must have a discussion of contracts. However, Perez conceded that realized that he could not accomplish his objective of Hueink said the Company would sit down and negotiate persuading them to vote for the IBEW by showing them a new contract if the IRWA won the election, but that technical treatises and talking about good-faith collective they had to start with new benefits. bargaining. It may well be that Lizardi did not make all Hueuink testified that on the above occasion, at Lizar- of the statements in haec verba attributed to him by the di's request, Hueuink spoke to the employees about the General Counsel's witnesses, several of whom were not IB E W label. Hueuink told the employees that without impressive.' But I cannot believe he made none of them. the IBEW label the IBEW electricians on the construc- Lizardi's own testimony as to what he told them is too tion site would probably not install the fixtures and thus bland (except for metaphors), too pat, and too general to the Company could have a loss of sales. Hueuink indicat- be convincing. It has none of the sharp sting and direct- ed that a reduction in sales could reduce employment. ness that might be expected from an outspoken, direct, Hueuink also told the employees that if the IRWA won and passionate individual, such as Lizardi. It was, after the election wages and benefits would have to be negoti- all, his assigned job to persuade these simple, but very ated, stubborn employees that they had no real choice but to Hueuink testified in a clear and straightforward vote for the IBEW. The hard points of impact and per- manner. I credit him over Perez as to this conversation. suasion found in Respondent's written material are mir- rored in some of the testimony of the General Counsel's d. By Supervisor Castor Colon witnesses, but with added force. In the absence of a Pedro Fortis, whose testimony is discussed above, also more specific and believable version of what Lizardi, in testified that he spoke to Colon, a supervisor in the ship- fact, may have told the employees in his vigorous and ping department, about the Union three or four times in persistent compaign to insure victory for the IBEW, I August. Colon said if the IRWA won the election there credit the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel was a good probability that many of the employees over Lizardi. would lose their jobs and there was a possibility that the b, By Supervisor Vince Monaco factory would move to another location. On several oc- b. By Supervisor Vmnce Monaco^^^ g^p ^C^ ^ py casions during this period Colon would give the employ- Luz Velasquez, who was employed by Respondent ees a company letter saying, "Here is a paper from the from September 26, 1975, to August 20, 1979, testified Company" and explain to those who did not understand that on a day in July she was translating into Spanish for English what it said. a fellow employee a campaign letter about the IBEW William Velasquez, whose testimony is discussed above, label. Monaco interrupted her conversation and said, "I also testified that he spoke to Colon on one occasion in don't want to brainwash you, but this is what the paper early August in the presence of other employees. Colon says, we could lose our job." Monaco explained that the said that the labels could not be changed; that if they changed, the electricians would not be able to install the See below in sec. l(d) Findings with respect to William Velasquez. lamps in any part of the State; that if the IRWA won the HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 709 handbills and asked the employees if they had received IBEW journeymen electricians would not install a part them. Lopez asked what Lizardi thought was the best that did not have their union label on it; that the Compa- thing for the employees to do. Lizardi said, "Stay with ny would not be able to sell the fixtures; that the em- the one you have, because voting for a new union is like ployees could lose their jobs; and that he might lose his throwing your salaries away and no benefits." Lopez job too. asked Lizardi what he meant. Lizardi said, "If the While Velasquez' testimony was somewhat inconsist- IRWA wins we will have to negotiate, start from the ent, including statements made in her affidavit, I am sat- bottom on the federal rates and then we would have to isfied that the above testimony accurately reflects her start from new benefits." conversation with Monaco and it is credited. Monaco Lopez testified further that in early August he and two did not testify. other employees were in the cafeteria during their break- time. Lizardi approached them and said, "You look like c. By Supervisor Daniel Hueuink smart guys. You speak English, write English and under- D P w t i . c. a, stand English. You could have a better job if you stick a D lso"est Pe rez d w h o s e testimony is discussed above with us." Lopez said nothing.o al s o t es t ed t h a t dao l at e rt o r early August he and In resolving credibility as to these witnesses I have aother employees had a conversation with Hueumk, then taken into consideration the probability that the wit- a division of employee relations manager in the shipping nesses for the General Counsel may have misunderstood p^'"" 1-. e z ^ d ""^T 11 w h y t h e y sh o ul d ^ or misinterpreted much of what Lizardi read to them the IBEW label; if the IRWA won the election they from technical books or told them about negotiation co ul d use the label of that Union. Hueuink responded from "Day One" or the need for the IBEW label to sell t h at he did not want that to happen because if the IBEW Respondent's products. It is understandable that some of l o st the election the electricians would not want to install them would get dizzy listening to him or react angrily the lamps; if that happened there would be layoffs, they by calling him a liar. As Lizardi conceded, the employ- w ou l d lose benefits, and they would get a new contract ees with whom he was dealing were highly emotional, at a minimum salary. On cross-examination Perez denied impatient people. They were poorly or not at all educat- that Hueuink had said anything about company sales if ed in a formal sense. Certainly, at some point Lizardi, the lighting fixtures were not installed or that there was himself highly articulate and knowledgeable, must have a discussion of contracts. However, Perez conceded that realized that he could not accomplish his objective of Hueink said the Company would sit down and negotiate persuading them to vote for the IBEW by showing them a new contract if the IRWA won the election, but that technical treatises and talking about good-faith collective they had to start with new benefits. bargaining. It may well be that Lizardi did not make all Hueuink testified that on the above occasion, at Lizar- of the statements in haec verba attributed to him by the di's request, Hueuink spoke to the employees about the General Counsel's witnesses, several of whom were not IB E W label. Hueuink told the employees that without impressive." But I cannot believe he made none of them. the IBEW label the IBEW electricians on the construc- Lizardi's own testimony as to what he told them is too tion site would probably not install the fixtures and thus bland (except for metaphors), too pat, and too general to the Company could have a loss of sales. Hueuink indicat- be convincing. It has none of the sharp sting and direct- ed that a reduction in sales could reduce employment. ness that might be expected from an outspoken, direct, Hueuink also told the employees that if the IRWA won and passionate individual, such as Lizardi. It was, after the election wages and benefits would have to be negoti- all, his assigned job to persuade these simple, but very ated, stubborn employees that they had no real choice but to Hueuink testified in a clear and straightforward vote for the IBEW. The hard points of impact and per- manner. I credit him over Perez as to this conversation. suasion found in Respondent's written material are mir- rored in some of the testimony of the General Counsel's d. By Supervisor Castor Colon witnesses, but with added force. In the absence of a Pedro Fortis, whose testimony is discussed above, also more specific and believable version of what Lizardi, in testified that he spoke to Colon, a supervisor in the ship- fact, may have told the employees in his vigorous and ping department, about the Union three or four times in persistent compaign to insure victory for the IBEW, I August. Colon said if the IRWA won the election there credit the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel was a good probability that many of the employees over Lizardi. would lose their jobs and there was a possibility that the b, By Supervisor Vince Monaco factory would move to another location. On several oc- b. By Supervisor Vmnce Monaco^^^ g^p ^^^ ^ py casions during this period Colon would give the employ- Luz Velasquez, who was employed by Respondent ees a company letter saying, "Here is a paper from the from September 26, 1975, to August 20, 1979, testified Company" and explain to those who did not understand that on a day in July she was translating into Spanish for English what it said. a fellow employee a campaign letter about the IBEW William Velasquez, whose testimony is discussed above, label. Monaco interrupted her conversation and said, "I also testified that he spoke to Colon on one occasion in don't want to brainwash you, but this is what the paper early August in the presence of other employees. Colon says, we could lose our job." Monaco explained that the said that the labels could not be changed; that if they changed, the electricians would not be able to install the See below in sec. l(d) Findings with respect to William Velasquez. lamps in any part of the State; that if the IRWA won the HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 709 handbills and asked the employees if they had received IBEW journeymen electricians would not install a part them. Lopez asked what Lizardi thought was the best that did not have their union label on it; that the Compa- thing for the employees to do. Lizardi said, "Stay with ny would not be able to sell the fixtures; that the em- the one you have, because voting for a new union is like ployees could lose their jobs; and that he might lose his throwing your salaries away and no benefits." Lopez job too. asked Lizardi what he meant. Lizardi said, "If the While Velasquez' testimony was somewhat inconsist- IRWA wins we will have to negotiate, start from the ent, including statements made in her affidavit, I am sat- bottom on the federal rates and then we would have to isfied that the above testimony accurately reflects her start from new benefits." conversation with Monaco and it is credited. Monaco Lopez testified further that in early August he and two did not testify. other employees were in the cafeteria during their break- time. Lizardi approached them and said, "You look like c. By Supervisor Daniel Hueuink smart guys. You speak English, write English and under- D P w t i . c. a, stand English. You could have a better job if you stick a D lso"est Pe rez d w h o s e testimony is discussed above with us." Lopez said nothing.o al s o t es t ed t h a t dao l at e rt o r early August he and In resolving credibility as to these witnesses I have aother employees had a conversation with Hueumk, then taken into consideration the probability that the wit- a division of employee relations manager in the shipping nesses for the General Counsel may have misunderstood p^'"" 1-. e z ^ d ""^T 11 w h y t h e y sh o ul d ^p or misinterpreted much of what Lizardi read to them the IBEW label; if the IRWA won the election they from technical books or told them about negotiation co ul d use the label of that Union. Hueuink responded from "Day One" or the need for the IBEW label to sell t h at he did not want that to happen because if the IBEW Respondent's products. It is understandable that some of l o st the election the electricians would not want to install them would get dizzy listening to him or react angrily the lamps; if that happened there would be layoffs, they by calling him a liar. As Lizardi conceded, the employ- w ou l d lose benefits, and they would get a new contract ees with whom he was dealing were highly emotional, at a minimum salary. On cross-examination Perez denied impatient people. They were poorly or not at all educat- that Hueuink had said anything about company sales if ed in a formal sense. Certainly, at some point Lizardi, the lighting fixtures were not installed or that there was himself highly articulate and knowledgeable, must have a discussion of contracts. However, Perez conceded that realized that he could not accomplish his objective of Hueink said the Company would sit down and negotiate persuading them to vote for the IBEW by showing them a new contract if the IRWA won the election, but that technical treatises and talking about good-faith collective they had to start with new benefits. bargaining. It may well be that Lizardi did not make all Hueuink testified that on the above occasion, at Lizar- of the statements in haec verba attributed to him by the di's request, Hueuink spoke to the employees about the General Counsel's witnesses, several of whom were not IB E W label. Hueuink told the employees that without impressive." But I cannot believe he made none of them. the IBEW label the IBEW electricians on the construc- Lizardi's own testimony as to what he told them is too tion site would probably not install the fixtures and thus bland (except for metaphors), too pat, and too general to the Company could have a loss of sales. Hueuink indicat- be convincing. It has none of the sharp sting and direct- ed that a reduction in sales could reduce employment. ness that might be expected from an outspoken, direct, Hueuink also told the employees that if the IRWA won and passionate individual, such as Lizardi. It was, after the election wages and benefits would have to be negoti- all, his assigned job to persuade these simple, but very ated, stubborn employees that they had no real choice but to Hueuink testified in a clear and straightforward vote for the IBEW. The hard points of impact and per- manner. I credit him over Perez as to this conversation. suasion found in Respondent's written material are mir- rored in some of the testimony of the General Counsel's d. By Supervisor Castor Colon witnesses, but with added force. In the absence of a Pedro Fortis, whose testimony is discussed above, also more specific and believable version of what Lizardi, in testified that he spoke to Colon, a supervisor in the ship- fact, may have told the employees in his vigorous and ping department, about the Union three or four times in persistent compaign to insure victory for the IBEW, I August. Colon said if the IRWA won the election there credit the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel was a good probability that many of the employees over Lizardi. would lose their jobs and there was a possibility that the b, By Supervisor Vince Monaco factory would move to another location. On several oc- b. By Supervisor Vmnce Monaco^^^ g^p ^^^ ^ py casions during this period Colon would give the employ- Luz Velasquez, who was employed by Respondent ees a company letter saying, "Here is a paper from the from September 26, 1975, to August 20, 1979, testified Company" and explain to those who did not understand that on a day in July she was translating into Spanish for English what it said. a fellow employee a campaign letter about the IBEW William Velasquez, whose testimony is discussed above, label. Monaco interrupted her conversation and said, "I also testified that he spoke to Colon on one occasion in don't want to brainwash you, but this is what the paper early August in the presence of other employees. Colon says, we could lose our job." Monaco explained that the said that the labels could not be changed; that if they changed, the electricians would not be able to install the See below in sec. l(d) Findings with respect to William Velasquez. lamps in any part of the State; that if the IRWA won the 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election many of the employees would lose their jobs; Baez told the employee that if the IRWA won the elec- that salaries would be lowered and there would be a lot tion the Company would call the Immigration Service of layoffs; the Company would be obliged to move the and a lot of people who were here without legal right plant to another location. would get into trouble. Gonzalez stepped back and said, While Colon conceded that he had distributed compa- "Gomer, what are you saying?" Baez replied in Spanish, ny literature to the employees and that he spoke to Ve- "You better keep going, you are hot." lasquez twice a week during the period prior to the elec- Angela Sanchez, who was employed by Respondent for tion about softball, Colon denied that he ever discussed 3 years prior to and at the time of the election, submitted the Union or that he had made the statements attributed a pretrial affidavit to the General Counsel. Sanchez was to him. not employed at the time of the hearing and her address Velasquez' affidavit to the Board does not mention his was unknown. The General Counsel sought to subpena conversation with Colon and at the hearing Velasquez' Sanchez at her last known address. The subpena was re- testimony as to whether he had discussed his testimony turned unclaimed. In these circumstances her affidavit with the General Counsel in preparation for the hearing was offered and received in evidence. was evasive and contradictory. Sanchez stated in her affidavit that 2 or 3 weeks before Colon, however, was a most unimpressive witness. I the election Baez told Sanchez that Baez knew she was cannot believe in this hotly contested campaign that he for the new Union and that she was running the risk of never discussed the desirability of voting for the IBEW being fired. Baez said if the IBEW won Sanchez would rather than the IRWA with employees under his immedi- be fired and that she was the first one on the list. Baez ate supervision and with whom he was in daily contact. also said that he would see Sanchez in line waiting for Velasquez' testimony corroborates that of Fortis. I credit compensation with a cup of coffee and a doughnut in her Velasquez and Fortis over Colon. hand. A day before the election Sanchez reported to Foreman Ivan Saez what Baez had said about Sanchez e. By Traffic Manager Charles Orabutt risking her job. Saez said that Baez had no authority to Pedro Fortis also testified that on several occasions 2 or say that to her. Saez did not testify. 3 weeks before the election Orabutt told Fortis and other Sanchez stated further that about 2 or 3 weeks before employees that if the IRWA won the election the major- the election Baez and Saez came to the production line ity of the employees would be laid off and would lose and stopped work to talk to about 15 employees. Baez their jobs and the label was very important for the Com- said that if the new Union (IRWA) won the Company pany to be able to sell the lamps. Orabutt spoke in Eng- would lose the old Union's (IBEW) label and electricians lish, which was translated for Fortis into Spanish. How- would not install Halo lamps; the Company's merchan- ever, Fortis, who has a limited ability to understand dise would not get out because when the electricians saw English, testified that he was able to understand what the merchandise did not have the label they would send Orabutt said in English. it back and the employees would be laid off. Saez said Orabutt testified that in mid-August he was asked by that the label was very important and that losing the Frank Lopez in the presence of Fortis and other employ- label would mean losing the merchandise. ees why the Company's products could not use the Baez denied making the statements attributed to him IRWA label instead of the IBEW label. Orabutt told the by Gonzalez and denied telling Sanchez she was running employees that the IRWA label was not the type of label the risk of being fired or that he would see her in line that could be recognized in the electrical industry; if the waiting for compensation. Baez testified that he handed IBEW label were not on the product it could be a prob- out literature to the employees once or twice a day and lem if the electricians did not install it; the loss of the sometimes more during the preelection period. He talked IBEW label would mean a loss of sales for the Company; to the employees about the label and other kinds of prob- it would mean the loss of jobs because of the loss of lems, but denied ever saying that the employees would business; there would be layoffs throughout the Compa- be better off with the old union. ny. Baez was in daily contact with the employees in hand- I find no serious questions of credibility in the testimo- ing out literature and answering questions. His testimony ny of these two witnesses. Fortis' knowledge of English as to what he actually told the employees is vague and is quite limited and he may well have understood Ora- his contention that he never said that the employees butt to have made the statements attributed to him. would be better off with the old Union (IBEW) is, at However, I am satisfied that Orabutt's version of what least, evasive. Gonzalez' testimony of a veiled threat of he, in fact, told the employees on the above occasion is discharge is consistent with Sanchez' testimony of an more accurate and I credit Orabutt to the extent his testi- actual threat of discharge. I credit Gonzalez and Sanchez mony varies from that of Fortis. over Baez. f. By Supervisor Gomer Baez g. By Director of Distribution Joe Jeffress Jesus Gonazlez, who was employed as a setup man Santiago Cabrera, whose testimony is discussed above, from October 3, 1977, to September 1979, testified that testified that during the last 2 weeks in July he was on or about August 22 he overheard a conversation be- called to a meeting in Jeffress' office along with Zoilo tween Baez and an employee, whom Gonzalez, himself a Rodriguez and Francisco Lopez. Jeffress spoke in Eng- native of Puerto Rico, believed to be of Mexican origin. lish. Cabrera's ability to understand English is limited. At 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election many of the employees would lose their jobs; Baez told the employee that if the IRWA won the elec- that salaries would be lowered and there would be a lot tion the Company would call the Immigration Service of layoffs; the Company would be obliged to move the and a lot of people who were here without legal right plant to another location. would get into trouble. Gonzalez stepped back and said, While Colon conceded that he had distributed compa- "Gomer, what are you saying?" Baez replied in Spanish, ny literature to the employees and that he spoke to Ve- "You better keep going, you are hot." lasquez twice a week during the period prior to the elec- Angela Sanchez, who was employed by Respondent for tion about softball, Colon denied that he ever discussed 3 years prior to and at the time of the election, submitted the Union or that he had made the statements attributed a pretrial affidavit to the General Counsel. Sanchez was to him. not employed at the time of the hearing and her address Velasquez' affidavit to the Board does not mention his was unknown. The General Counsel sought to subpena conversation with Colon and at the hearing Velasquez' Sanchez at her last known address. The subpena was re- testimony as to whether he had discussed his testimony turned unclaimed. In these circumstances her affidavit with the General Counsel in preparation for the hearing was offered and received in evidence. was evasive and contradictory. Sanchez stated in her affidavit that 2 or 3 weeks before Colon, however, was a most unimpressive witness. I the election Baez told Sanchez that Baez knew she was cannot believe in this hotly contested campaign that he for the new Union and that she was running the risk of never discussed the desirability of voting for the IBEW being fired. Baez said if the IBEW won Sanchez would rather than the IRWA with employees under his immedi- be fired and that she was the first one on the list. Baez ate supervision and with whom he was in daily contact. also said that he would see Sanchez in line waiting for Velasquez' testimony corroborates that of Fortis. I credit compensation with a cup of coffee and a doughnut in her Velasquez and Fortis over Colon. hand. A day before the election Sanchez reported to Foreman Ivan Saez what Baez had said about Sanchez e. By Traffic Manager Charles Orabutt risking her job. Saez said that Baez had no authority to Pedro Fortis also testified that on several occasions 2 or say th at to her. Saez did not testify. 3 weeks before the election Orabutt told Fortis and other Sanchez stated further that about 2 or 3 weeks before employees that if the IRWA won the election the major- the election Baez and Saez came to the production line ity of the employees would be laid off and would lose and stopped work to talk to about 15 employees. Baez their jobs and the label was very important for the Com- said that if the new Union (IRWA) won the Company pany to be able to sell the lamps. Orabutt spoke in Eng- would lose the old Union's (IBEW) label and electricians lish, which was translated for Fortis into Spanish. How- would not install Halo lamps; the Company's merchan- ever, Fortis, who has a limited ability to understand dise would not get out because when the electricians saw English, testified that he was able to understand what the merchandise did not have the label they would send Orabutt said in English. it back and the employees would be laid off. Saez said Orabutt testified that in mid-August he was asked by that the label was very important and that losing the Frank Lopez in the presence of Fortis and other employ- label would mean losing the merchandise. ees why the Company's products could not use the Baez denied making the statements attributed to him IRWA label instead of the IBEW label. Orabutt told the by Gonzalez and denied telling Sanchez she was running employees that the IRWA label was not the type of label the risk of being fired or that he would see her in line that could be recognized in the electrical industry; if the waiting for compensation. Baez testified that he handed IBEW label were not on the product it could be a prob- out literature to the employees once or twice a day and lem if the electricians did not install it; the loss of the sometimes more during the preelection period. He talked IBEW label would mean a loss of sales for the Company; to the employees about the label and other kinds of prob- it would mean the loss of jobs because of the loss of lems, but denied ever saying that the employees would business; there would be layoffs throughout the Compa- be better off with the old union. ny. Baez was in daily contact with the employees in hand- I find no serious questions of credibility in the testimo- ing out literature and answering questions. His testimony ny of these two witnesses. Fortis' knowledge of English as to what he actually told the employees is vague and is quite limited and he may well have understood Ora- his contention that he never said that the employees butt to have made the statements attributed to him. would be better off with the old Union (IBEW) is, at However, I am satisfied that Orabutt's version of what least, evasive. Gonzalez' testimony of a veiled threat of he, in fact, told the employees on the above occasion is discharge is consistent with Sanchez' testimony of an more accurate and I credit Orabutt to the extent his testi- actual threat of discharge. I credit Gonzalez and Sanchez mony varies from that of Fortis. over Baez. f. By Supervisor Gomer Baez g. By Director ofDistribution Joe Jeffress Jesus Gonazlez, who was employed as a setup man Santiago Cabrera, whose testimony is discussed above, from October 3, 1977, to September 1979, testified that testified that during the last 2 weeks in July he was on or about August 22 he overheard a conversation be- called to a meeting in Jeffress' office along with Zoilo tween Baez and an employee, whom Gonzalez, himself a Rodriguez and Francisco Lopez. Jeffress spoke in Eng- native of Puerto Rico, believed to be of Mexican origin. lish. Cabrera's ability to understand English is limited. At 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election many of the employees would lose their jobs; Baez told the employee that if the IRWA won the elec- that salaries would be lowered and there would be a lot tion the Company would call the Immigration Service of layoffs; the Company would be obliged to move the and a lot of people who were here without legal right plant to another location. would get into trouble. Gonzalez stepped back and said, While Colon conceded that he had distributed compa- "Gomer, what are you saying?" Baez replied in Spanish, ny literature to the employees and that he spoke to Ve- "You better keep going, you are hot." lasquez twice a week during the period prior to the elec- Angela Sanchez, who was employed by Respondent for tion about softball, Colon denied that he ever discussed 3 years prior to and at the time of the election, submitted the Union or that he had made the statements attributed a pretrial affidavit to the General Counsel. Sanchez was to him. not employed at the time of the hearing and her address Velasquez' affidavit to the Board does not mention his was unknown. The General Counsel sought to subpena conversation with Colon and at the hearing Velasquez' Sanchez at her last known address. The subpena was re- testimony as to whether he had discussed his testimony turned unclaimed. In these circumstances her affidavit with the General Counsel in preparation for the hearing was offered and received in evidence. was evasive and contradictory. Sanchez stated in her affidavit that 2 or 3 weeks before Colon, however, was a most unimpressive witness. I the election Baez told Sanchez that Baez knew she was cannot believe in this hotly contested campaign that he for the new Union and that she was running the risk of never discussed the desirability of voting for the IBEW being fired. Baez said if the IBEW won Sanchez would rather than the IRWA with employees under his immedi- be fired and that she was the first one on the list. Baez ate supervision and with whom he was in daily contact. also said that he would see Sanchez in line waiting for Velasquez' testimony corroborates that of Fortis. I credit compensation with a cup of coffee and a doughnut in her Velasquez and Fortis over Colon. hand. A day before the election Sanchez reported to Foreman Ivan Saez what Baez had said about Sanchez e. By Traffic Manager Charles Orabutt risking her job. Saez said that Baez had no authority to Pedro Fortis also testified that on several occasions 2 or say th at to her. Saez did not testify. 3 weeks before the election Orabutt told Fortis and other Sanchez stated further that about 2 or 3 weeks before employees that if the IRWA won the election the major- the election Baez and Saez came to the production line ity of the employees would be laid off and would lose and stopped work to talk to about 15 employees. Baez their jobs and the label was very important for the Com- said that if the new Union (IRWA) won the Company pany to be able to sell the lamps. Orabutt spoke in Eng- would lose the old Union's (IBEW) label and electricians lish, which was translated for Fortis into Spanish. How- would not install Halo lamps; the Company's merchan- ever, Fortis, who has a limited ability to understand dise would not get out because when the electricians saw English, testified that he was able to understand what the merchandise did not have the label they would send Orabutt said in English. it back and the employees would be laid off. Saez said Orabutt testified that in mid-August he was asked by that the label was very important and that losing the Frank Lopez in the presence of Fortis and other employ- label would mean losing the merchandise. ees why the Company's products could not use the Baez denied making the statements attributed to him IRWA label instead of the IBEW label. Orabutt told the by Gonzalez and denied telling Sanchez she was running employees that the IRWA label was not the type of label the risk of being fired or that he would see her in line that could be recognized in the electrical industry; if the waiting for compensation. Baez testified that he handed IBEW label were not on the product it could be a prob- out literature to the employees once or twice a day and lem if the electricians did not install it; the loss of the sometimes more during the preelection period. He talked IBEW label would mean a loss of sales for the Company; to the employees about the label and other kinds of prob- it would mean the loss of jobs because of the loss of lems, but denied ever saying that the employees would business; there would be layoffs throughout the Compa- be better off with the old union. ny. Baez was in daily contact with the employees in hand- I find no serious questions of credibility in the testimo- ing out literature and answering questions. His testimony ny of these two witnesses. Fortis' knowledge of English as to what he actually told the employees is vague and is quite limited and he may well have understood Ora- his contention that he never said that the employees butt to have made the statements attributed to him. would be better off with the old Union (IBEW) is, at However, I am satisfied that Orabutt's version of what least, evasive. Gonzalez' testimony of a veiled threat of he, in fact, told the employees on the above occasion is discharge is consistent with Sanchez' testimony of an more accurate and I credit Orabutt to the extent his testi- actual threat of discharge. I credit Gonzalez and Sanchez mony varies from that of Fortis. over Baez. f. By Supervisor Gomer Baez g. By Director ofDistribution Joe Jeffress Jesus Gonazlez, who was employed as a setup man Santiago Cabrera, whose testimony is discussed above, from October 3, 1977, to September 1979, testified that testified that during the last 2 weeks in July he was on or about August 22 he overheard a conversation be- called to a meeting in Jeffress' office along with Zoilo tween Baez and an employee, whom Gonzalez, himself a Rodriguez and Francisco Lopez. Jeffress spoke in Eng- native of Puerto Rico, believed to be of Mexican origin. lish. Cabrera's ability to understand English is limited. At 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election many of the employees would lose their jobs; Baez told the employee that if the IRWA won the elec- that salaries would be lowered and there would be a lot tion the Company would call the Immigration Service of layoffs; the Company would be obliged to move the and a lot of people who were here without legal right plant to another location. would get into trouble. Gonzalez stepped back and said, While Colon conceded that he had distributed compa- "Gomer, what are you saying?" Baez replied in Spanish, ny literature to the employees and that he spoke to Ve- "You better keep going, you are hot." lasquez twice a week during the period prior to the elec- Angela Sanchez, who was employed by Respondent for tion about softball, Colon denied that he ever discussed 3 years prior to and at the time of the election, submitted the Union or that he had made the statements attributed a pretrial affidavit to the General Counsel. Sanchez was to him. not employed at the time of the hearing and her address Velasquez' affidavit to the Board does not mention his was unknown. The General Counsel sought to subpena conversation with Colon and at the hearing Velasquez' Sanchez at her last known address. The subpena was re- testimony as to whether he had discussed his testimony turned unclaimed. In these circumstances her affidavit with the General Counsel in preparation for the hearing was offered and received in evidence. was evasive and contradictory. Sanchez stated in her affidavit that 2 or 3 weeks before Colon, however, was a most unimpressive witness. I the election Baez told Sanchez that Baez knew she was cannot believe in this hotly contested campaign that he for the new Union and that she was running the risk of never discussed the desirability of voting for the IBEW being fired. Baez said if the IBEW won Sanchez would rather than the IRWA with employees under his immedi- be fired and that she was the first one on the list. Baez ate supervision and with whom he was in daily contact. also said that he would see Sanchez in line waiting for Velasquez' testimony corroborates that of Fortis. I credit compensation with a cup of coffee and a doughnut in her Velasquez and Fortis over Colon. hand. A day before the election Sanchez reported to Foreman Ivan Saez what Baez had said about Sanchez e. By Traffic Manager Charles Orabutt risking her job. Saez said that Baez had no authority to Pedro Fortis also testified that on several occasions 2 or say th at to her. Saez did not testify. 3 weeks before the election Orabutt told Fortis and other Sanchez stated further that about 2 or 3 weeks before employees that if the IRWA won the election the major- the election Baez and Saez came to the production line ity of the employees would be laid off and would lose and stopped work to talk to about 15 employees. Baez their jobs and the label was very important for the Com- said that if the new Union (IRWA) won the Company pany to be able to sell the lamps. Orabutt spoke in Eng- would lose the old Union's (IBEW) label and electricians lish, which was translated for Fortis into Spanish. How- would not install Halo lamps; the Company's merchan- ever, Fortis, who has a limited ability to understand dise would not get out because when the electricians saw English, testified that he was able to understand what the merchandise did not have the label they would send Orabutt said in English. it back and the employees would be laid off. Saez said Orabutt testified that in mid-August he was asked by that the label was very important and that losing the Frank Lopez in the presence of Fortis and other employ- label would mean losing the merchandise. ees why the Company's products could not use the Baez denied making the statements attributed to him IRWA label instead of the IBEW label. Orabutt told the by Gonzalez and denied telling Sanchez she was running employees that the IRWA label was not the type of label the risk of being fired or that he would see her in line that could be recognized in the electrical industry; if the waiting for compensation. Baez testified that he handed IBEW label were not on the product it could be a prob- out literature to the employees once or twice a day and lem if the electricians did not install it; the loss of the sometimes more during the preelection period. He talked IBEW label would mean a loss of sales for the Company; to the employees about the label and other kinds of prob- it would mean the loss of jobs because of the loss of lems, but denied ever saying that the employees would business; there would be layoffs throughout the Compa- be better off with the old union. ny. Baez was in daily contact with the employees in hand- I find no serious questions of credibility in the testimo- ing out literature and answering questions. His testimony ny of these two witnesses. Fortis' knowledge of English as to what he actually told the employees is vague and is quite limited and he may well have understood Ora- his contention that he never said that the employees butt to have made the statements attributed to him. would be better off with the old Union (IBEW) is, at However, I am satisfied that Orabutt's version of what least, evasive. Gonzalez' testimony of a veiled threat of he, in fact, told the employees on the above occasion is discharge is consistent with Sanchez' testimony of an more accurate and I credit Orabutt to the extent his testi- actual threat of discharge. I credit Gonzalez and Sanchez mony varies from that of Fortis. over Baez. f. By Supervisor Gomer Baez g. By Director ofDistribution Joe Jeffress Jesus Gonazlez, who was employed as a setup man Santiago Cabrera, whose testimony is discussed above, from October 3, 1977, to September 1979, testified that testified that during the last 2 weeks in July he was on or about August 22 he overheard a conversation be- called to a meeting in Jeffress' office along with Zoilo tween Baez and an employee, whom Gonzalez, himself a Rodriguez and Francisco Lopez. Jeffress spoke in Eng- native of Puerto Rico, believed to be of Mexican origin. lish. Cabrera's ability to understand English is limited. At HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 711 the hearing most of his testimony was given through an be arranged because it would be unlawful. Cabrera's interpreter. Cabrera testified that he understood some of knowledge of English is poor and it may well be he mis- what Jeffress said and Lopez translated other portions. understood or misinterpreted Jeffress' remarks. In any According to Cabrera, Jeffress asked the employees if event, in view of Jeffress' believable testimony and the more money or more benefits were the main thing the failure of Lopez to confirm Cabrera's testimony or to employees wanted. Cabrera said, "Yes, it is, more contradict the testimony of Jeffress, I credit Jeffress over money, more benefits, more something, you know." Jef- Cabrera as to the above conversation in Jeffress' office. fress said he would try; he would go to Thomson and maybe Thomson could find something for everybody. h. By President Dan T. Thomson Jeffress said the Company could move to some place and lay off the foremen. If the new Union won the election Concepcion Ocampo, who had been employed by Re- the Company would lay off half the people, maybe 200 spondent for 6 years at the time of the hearing, testified to 300 people and the foremen too. On several other oc- that on a day in the early part of August she and about casions Jeffress told Cabrera the employees would lose a 20 other employees met with Thomson at the production lot of benefits if the new Union came in; the new Union line. Ocampo told Thomson the employees were con- was small and could not support a company the size of fused by all the papers that had been passed out to them Halo. about the label and asked him to explain the situation to Lopez testified that he recalled the meeting in Jeffress' them. Thomson said the label used by the Company was office with Cabrera and Rodriquez, but did not recall recognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the what was said. Rodriguez did not testify. product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- Jeffress testified that he was informed by Lizardi that stall it. The employees asked why that was so since there several employees wanted to talk to Jeffress privately were many other factories that were making lamps and about working conditions. Jeffress met with the above did not use the label and still had sales. Thomson said employees in his office about a month or a month and a there was no way that they could prove that and be- half before the election. Lopez told Jeffress that the em- cause of the label Halo was No. I in selling lamps. ployees thought things were getting out of hand and all Thomson distinguished the situation where a lamp was that the employees wanted was to correct some working sold in a store from the installation of a lamp at a con- conditions. Jeffress told the employees he could not struction site. Thomson said the electricians belonged to make any promises and could not discuss the matter, but the same union and in refusing to install the products asked what some of the working conditions were. The Halo would have less orders, less sales, and less work. employees said they wanted to talk to Thomson. Jeffress Ocampo also testified that prior to the election Thom- asked for the names of people who were concerned and son made a speech to the employees in the cafeteria; that what they wanted to talk about and he would see what he spoke about the label; that he read from a piece of could be done. Jeffress denied making the statements at- paper; and that he said almost the same thing he had said tributed to him by Cabrera. Thereafter, Lizardi gave Jef- to the employees on the production line in the above fress a list of names of employees. Jeffress gave the list meeting to his boss, Greg Hege, vice president of operations. J G A , , des Subsequently, Hege told Jeffress that they could not Je su s G onza lez : A s m d l ca ted ab o v e , G o n zal ez, despite Suve a meeting wit toldhe em yees thbca they ould no his position as chief steward for the IBEW, was an origi- have a meeting with the employees because they would nal and consistent advocate of the IRWA. Gonzalez tes- nal and consistent advocate of the IRWA. Gonzalez tes- be violating the law. Jeffress communicated this informa- tified that Hueuink arranged a meeting between Gonza- tion to Lopez, tified that Hueuink arranged a meeting between Gonza- tion to Lopez. Jeffress also testified that he had a lengthy meeting lez ad Thomson on June 18 in Thomson's office. Thom- with Lopez during this period and showed Lopez the son asked Gonzalez if Gonzalez knew what he was IBEW label on a housing item. Jeffress pointed out to doing i bringing the new Union into the plant. Gonza- Lopez that a tradesman would not install the product if lez said that he had not brought the Union in, but it it did not have the label and that meant the Company could happen. Thomson told Gonzalez that if the Com- would not sell its product. About this time Jeffress also pany lost the IBEW it would lose the label and that had a discussion with Lopez about contract negotiations. meant at least one-third of the employees would be laid Jeffress told Lopez that if the IRWA won the election off. Thomson asked Gonzalez to support the IBEW, to they would have to start from the first page and the first make the right decision. As Gonzalez was leaving, letter; that with the IBEW the employees had a contract Thomson said, "Don't answer me today; answer me that had been developed over 20 years. Monday." Gonzalez said, "O.K. I want an appointment Jeffress testified in a frank and open manner, freely ad- with you Monday and I'll answer you Monday." In mitting he had discussed with Lopez the IBEW label and Gonzalez' meeting with Thomson on June 25 Thomson the advantage to the employees in contract negotiations made substantially the same statements with respect to if they voted for the IBEW rather than the IRWA. the loss of the label, the resultant loss of business, and Lopez, on the other hand, had nothing to say about his the loss of jobs that Thomson stated in his speech to the conversations with Jeffress even though Lopez had employees a few days before the election. The conversa- translated a portion of Jeffress' remarks to Cabrera at the tion of June 18 was somewhat different in that Thomson meeting in Jeffress' office. Nor was Lopez called on re- repeated in a positive way that there would be a loss of buttal to contradict Jeffress' testimony that Lopez was jobs if the Company lost the right to use the IBEW told by Jeffress that a meeting with Thomson could not label. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 711 the hearing most of his testimony was given through an be arranged because it would be unlawful. Cabrera's interpreter. Cabrera testified that he understood some of knowledge of English is poor and it may well be he mis- what Jeffress said and Lopez translated other portions. understood or misinterpreted Jeffress' remarks. In any According to Cabrera, Jeffress asked the employees if event, in view of Jeffress' believable testimony and the more money or more benefits were the main thing the failure of Lopez to confirm Cabrera's testimony or to employees wanted. Cabrera said, "Yes, it is, more contradict the testimony of Jeffress, I credit Jeffress over money, more benefits, more something, you know." Jef- Cabrera as to the above conversation in Jeffress' office. fress said he would try; he would go to Thomson and maybe Thomson could find something for everybody. h. By President Dan T Thomson Jeffress said the Company could move to some place and lay off the foremen. If the new Union won the election Concepcion Ocampo, who had been employed by Re- the Company would lay off half the people, maybe 200 spondent for 6 years at the time of the hearing, testified to 300 people and the foremen too. On several other oc- t h a t on a day in the early part of August she and about casions Jeffress told Cabrera the employees would lose a 2 0 other employees met with Thomson at the production lot of benefits if the new Union came in; the new Union line. Ocampo told Thomson the employees were con- was small and could not support a company the size of fused by all the papers that had been passed out to them Halo. about the label and asked him to explain the situation to Lopez testified that he recalled the meeting in Jeffress' them. Thomson said the label used by the Company was office with Cabrera and Rodriquez, but did not recall recognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the what was said. Rodriguez did not testify. product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- Jeffress testified that he was informed by Lizardi that stall it. The employees asked why that was so since there several employees wanted to talk to Jeffress privately were many other factories that were making lamps and about working conditions. Jeffress met with the above did not use the label and still had sales. Thomson said employees in his office about a month or a month and a there was no way that they could prove that and be- half before the election. Lopez told Jeffress that the em- cause of the label Halo was No. I in selling lamps. ployees thought things were getting out of hand and all Thomson distinguished the situation where a lamp was that the employees wanted was to correct some working sold in a store from the installation of a lamp at a con- conditions. Jeffress told the employees he could not struction site. Thomson said the electricians belonged to make any promises and could not discuss the matter, but the same union and in refusing to install the products asked what some of the working conditions were. The Halo would have less orders, less sales, and less work. employees said they wanted to talk to Thomson. Jeffress Ocampo also testified that prior to the election Thom- asked for the names of people who were concerned and son made a speech to the employees in the cafeteria; that what they wanted to talk about and he would see what he spoke about the label; that he read from a piece of could be done. Jeffress denied making the statements at- paper; and that he said almost the same thing he had said tributed to him by Cabrera. Thereafter, Lizardi gave Jef- to the employees on the production line in the above fress a list of names of employees. Jeffress gave the list meeting. to his boss, Greg Hege, vice president of operations. Jeu G As i abv, , dsi Subsequently, Hcge told Jeffress that they could not Jesu s. G mnz a lez. A s mnd l ca t ed ab o v e, G o n zale z, dep 116 have a meeting with the employees because they would his p o sitio n a s c h ie f s t e w a r d fo r t h e I B E W , w a s a n o figi- hve aio eeting th lwith.the Jemployess c cased they wnfould n a l and consistent advocate of the IRWA. Gonzalez tes- be violating the law. Jeffress communicated this informa- tiedhaHuinarngdamtngbwenG z- tion to Lopez.ltiffed that Hueumk arranged a meeting between Gonza- Jeffress also testified that he had a lengthy meeting le z w d Thomson on June 18 in Thomson's office. Thom- with Lopez during this period and showed Lopez the so n a s k e d Gonzalez if Gonzalez knew what he was IBEW label on a housing item. Jeffress pointed out to doing in bringing the new Union into the plant. Gonza- Lopez that a tradesman would not install the product if le z said t h a t h e h a d n o t brought the Union in, but it it did not have the label and that meant the Company c o u ld happen. Thomson told Gonzalez that if the Com- would not sell its product. About this time Jeffress also pany lo s t t h e I B E W it w o u l d lose the label and that had a discussion with Lopez about contract negotiations. m e a n t a t le a st one-third of the employees would be laid Jeffress told Lopez that if the IRWA won the election off. Thomson asked Gonzalez to support the IBEW, to they would have to start from the first page and the first m a k e th e right decision. As Gonzalez was leaving, letter; that with the IBEW the employees had a contract Thomson said, "Don't answer me today; answer me that had been developed over 20 years. Monday." Gonzalez said, "O.K. I want an appointment Jeffress testified in a frank and open manner, freely ad- with you Monday and I'll answer you Monday." In mitting he had discussed with Lopez the IBEW label and Gonzalez' meeting with Thomson on June 25 Thomson the advantage to the employees in contract negotiations made substantially the same statements with respect to if they voted for the IBEW rather than the IRWA. the loss of the label, the resultant loss of business, and Lopez, on the other hand, had nothing to say about his the loss of jobs that Thomson stated in his speech to the conversations with Jeffress even though Lopez had employees a few days before the election. The conversa- translated a portion of Jeffress' remarks to Cabrera at the tion of June 18 was somewhat different in that Thomson meeting in Jeffress' office. Nor was Lopez called on re- repeated in a positive way that there would be a loss of buttal to contradict Jeffress' testimony that Lopez was jobs if the Company lost the right to use the IBEW told by Jeffress that a meeting with Thomson could not label. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 711 the hearing most of his testimony was given through an be arranged because it would be unlawful. Cabrera's interpreter. Cabrera testified that he understood some of knowledge of English is poor and it may well be he mis- what Jeffress said and Lopez translated other portions. understood or misinterpreted Jeffress' remarks. In any According to Cabrera, Jeffress asked the employees if event, in view of Jeffress' believable testimony and the more money or more benefits were the main thing the failure of Lopez to confirm Cabrera's testimony or to employees wanted. Cabrera said, "Yes, it is, more contradict the testimony of Jeffress, I credit Jeffress over money, more benefits, more something, you know." Jef- Cabrera as to the above conversation in Jeffress' office. fress said he would try; he would go to Thomson and maybe Thomson could find something for everybody. h. By President Dan T Thomson Jeffress said the Company could move to some place and lay off the foremen. If the new Union won the election Concepcion Ocampo, who had been employed by Re- the Company would lay off half the people, maybe 200 spondent for 6 years at the time of the hearing, testified to 300 people and the foremen too. On several other oc- t h a t on a day in the early part of August she and about casions Jeffress told Cabrera the employees would lose a 2 0 other employees met with Thomson at the production lot of benefits if the new Union came in; the new Union line. Ocampo told Thomson the employees were con- was small and could not support a company the size of fused by all the papers that had been passed out to them Halo. about the label and asked him to explain the situation to Lopez testified that he recalled the meeting in Jeffress' them. Thomson said the label used by the Company was office with Cabrera and Rodriquez, but did not recall recognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the what was said. Rodriguez did not testify. product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- Jeffress testified that he was informed by Lizardi that stall it. The employees asked why that was so since there several employees wanted to talk to Jeffress privately were many other factories that were making lamps and about working conditions. Jeffress met with the above did not use the label and still had sales. Thomson said employees in his office about a month or a month and a there was no way that they could prove that and be- half before the election. Lopez told Jeffress that the em- cause of the label Halo was No. I in selling lamps. ployees thought things were getting out of hand and all Thomson distinguished the situation where a lamp was that the employees wanted was to correct some working sold in a store from the installation of a lamp at a con- conditions. Jeffress told the employees he could not struction site. Thomson said the electricians belonged to make any promises and could not discuss the matter, but the same union and in refusing to install the products asked what some of the working conditions were. The Halo would have less orders, less sales, and less work. employees said they wanted to talk to Thomson. Jeffress Ocampo also testified that prior to the election Thom- asked for the names of people who were concerned and son made a speech to the employees in the cafeteria; that what they wanted to talk about and he would see what he spoke about the label; that he read from a piece of could be done. Jeffress denied making the statements at- paper; and that he said almost the same thing he had said tributed to him by Cabrera. Thereafter, Lizardi gave Jef- to the employees on the production line in the above fress a list of names of employees. Jeffress gave the list meeting. to his boss, Greg Hege, vice president of operations. Jeu G As i abv, , dsi Subsequently, Hcge told Jeffress that they could not Jesu s. G mnz a lez. A s mnd l ca t ed ab o v e, G o n zale z, dep 116 have a meeting with the employees because they would his p o sitio n a s c h ie f s t e w a r d fo r t h e I B E W , w a s a n o figi- hve aio eeting th lwith.the Jemployess c cased they wnfould n a l and consistent advocate of the IRWA. Gonzalez tes- be violating the law. Jeffress communicated this informa- tiedhaHuinarngdamtngbwenG z- tion to Lopez.ltiffed that Hueuink arranged a meeting between Gonza- Jeffress also testified that he had a lengthy meeting le z w d Thomson on June 18 in Thomson's office. Thom- with Lopez during this period and showed Lopez the so n a s k e d Gonzalez if Gonzalez knew what he was IBEW label on a housing item. Jeffress pointed out to doing in bringing the new Union into the plant. Gonza- Lopez that a tradesman would not install the product if le z said t h a t h e h a d n o t brought the Union in, but it it did not have the label and that meant the Company c o u ld happen. Thomson told Gonzalez that if the Com- would not sell its product. About this time Jeffress also pany lo s t t h e I B E W it w o u l d lose the label and that had a discussion with Lopez about contract negotiations. m e a n t a t le a st one-third of the employees would be laid Jeffress told Lopez that if the IRWA won the election off. Thomson asked Gonzalez to support the IBEW, to they would have to start from the first page and the first m a k e th e right decision. As Gonzalez was leaving, letter; that with the IBEW the employees had a contract Thomson said, "Don't answer me today; answer me that had been developed over 20 years. Monday." Gonzalez said, "O.K. I want an appointment Jeffress testified in a frank and open manner, freely ad- with you Monday and I'll answer you Monday." In mitting he had discussed with Lopez the IBEW label and Gonzalez' meeting with Thomson on June 25 Thomson the advantage to the employees in contract negotiations made substantially the same statements with respect to if they voted for the IBEW rather than the IRWA. the loss of the label, the resultant loss of business, and Lopez, on the other hand, had nothing to say about his the loss of jobs that Thomson stated in his speech to the conversations with Jeffress even though Lopez had employees a few days before the election. The conversa- translated a portion of Jeffress' remarks to Cabrera at the tion of June 18 was somewhat different in that Thomson meeting in Jeffress' office. Nor was Lopez called on re- repeated in a positive way that there would be a loss of buttal to contradict Jeffress' testimony that Lopez was jobs if the Company lost the right to use the IBEW told by Jeffress that a meeting with Thomson could not label. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 711 the hearing most of his testimony was given through an be arranged because it would be unlawful. Cabrera's interpreter. Cabrera testified that he understood some of knowledge of English is poor and it may well be he mis- what Jeffress said and Lopez translated other portions. understood or misinterpreted Jeffress' remarks. In any According to Cabrera, Jeffress asked the employees if event, in view of Jeffress' believable testimony and the more money or more benefits were the main thing the failure of Lopez to confirm Cabrera's testimony or to employees wanted. Cabrera said, "Yes, it is, more contradict the testimony of Jeffress, I credit Jeffress over money, more benefits, more something, you know." Jef- Cabrera as to the above conversation in Jeffress' office. fress said he would try; he would go to Thomson and maybe Thomson could find something for everybody. h. By President Dan T Thomson Jeffress said the Company could move to some place and lay off the foremen. If the new Union won the election Concepcion Ocampo, who had been employed by Re- the Company would lay off half the people, maybe 200 spondent for 6 years at the time of the hearing, testified to 300 people and the foremen too. On several other oc- t h a t on a day in the early part of August she and about casions Jeffress told Cabrera the employees would lose a 2 0 other employees met with Thomson at the production lot of benefits if the new Union came in; the new Union line. Ocampo told Thomson the employees were con- was small and could not support a company the size of fused by all the papers that had been passed out to them Halo. about the label and asked him to explain the situation to Lopez testified that he recalled the meeting in Jeffress' them. Thomson said the label used by the Company was office with Cabrera and Rodriquez, but did not recall recognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the what was said. Rodriguez did not testify. product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- Jeffress testified that he was informed by Lizardi that stall it. The employees asked why that was so since there several employees wanted to talk to Jeffress privately were many other factories that were making lamps and about working conditions. Jeffress met with the above did not use the label and still had sales. Thomson said employees in his office about a month or a month and a there was no way that they could prove that and be- half before the election. Lopez told Jeffress that the em- cause of the label Halo was No. I in selling lamps. ployees thought things were getting out of hand and all Thomson distinguished the situation where a lamp was that the employees wanted was to correct some working sold in a store from the installation of a lamp at a con- conditions. Jeffress told the employees he could not struction site. Thomson said the electricians belonged to make any promises and could not discuss the matter, but the same union and in refusing to install the products asked what some of the working conditions were. The Halo would have less orders, less sales, and less work. employees said they wanted to talk to Thomson. Jeffress Ocampo also testified that prior to the election Thom- asked for the names of people who were concerned and son made a speech to the employees in the cafeteria; that what they wanted to talk about and he would see what he spoke about the label; that he read from a piece of could be done. Jeffress denied making the statements at- paper; and that he said almost the same thing he had said tributed to him by Cabrera. Thereafter, Lizardi gave Jef- to the employees on the production line in the above fress a list of names of employees. Jeffress gave the list meeting. to his boss, Greg Hege, vice president of operations. Jeu G As i abv, , dsi Subsequently, Hcge told Jeffress that they could not Jesu s. G mnz a lez. A s mnd l ca t ed abov 0 1 ^" Gozlz ^p 116 have a meeting with the employees because they would his p o sitio n a s c h ie f s t e w a r d fo r t h e I B E W , w a s a n o figi- hve aio eeting th lwith.the Jemployess c cased they wnfould n a l and consistent advocate of the IRWA. Gonzalez tes- be violating the law. Jeffress communicated this informa- tiedhaHuinarngdamtngbwenG z- tion to Lopez.ltiffed that Hueuink arranged a meeting between Gonza- Jeffress also testified that he had a lengthy meeting le z w d Thomson on June 18 in Thomson's office. Thom- with Lopez during this period and showed Lopez the so n a s k e d Gonzalez if Gonzalez knew what he was IBEW label on a housing item. Jeffress pointed out to doing in bringing the new Union into the plant. Gonza- Lopez that a tradesman would not install the product if le z said t h a t h e h a d n o t brought the Union in, but it it did not have the label and that meant the Company c o u ld happen. Thomson told Gonzalez that if the Com- would not sell its product. About this time Jeffress also pany lo s t t h e I B E W it w o u l d lose the label and that had a discussion with Lopez about contract negotiations. m e a n t a t le a st one-third of the employees would be laid Jeffress told Lopez that if the IRWA won the election off. Thomson asked Gonzalez to support the IBEW, to they would have to start from the first page and the first m a k e th e right decision. As Gonzalez was leaving, letter; that with the IBEW the employees had a contract Thomson said, "Don't answer me today; answer me that had been developed over 20 years. Monday." Gonzalez said, "O.K. I want an appointment Jeffress testified in a frank and open manner, freely ad- with you Monday and I'll answer you Monday." In mitting he had discussed with Lopez the IBEW label and Gonzalez' meeting with Thomson on June 25 Thomson the advantage to the employees in contract negotiations made substantially the same statements with respect to if they voted for the IBEW rather than the IRWA. the loss of the label, the resultant loss of business, and Lopez, on the other hand, had nothing to say about his the loss of jobs that Thomson stated in his speech to the conversations with Jeffress even though Lopez had employees a few days before the election. The conversa- translated a portion of Jeffress' remarks to Cabrera at the tion of June 18 was somewhat different in that Thomson meeting in Jeffress' office. Nor was Lopez called on re- repeated in a positive way that there would be a loss of buttal to contradict Jeffress' testimony that Lopez was jobs if the Company lost the right to use the IBEW told by Jeffress that a meeting with Thomson could not label. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thomson confirmed Gonzalez' direct testimony that on June 18 and June 25 and that the ostensible purpose they met on two occasions. Thomson, however, placed of the meetings was the issue of time off for Gonzalez to the first meeting on June 25 and the second between attend to stewardship duties. I find Further that the issue June 25 and July 6. According to Thomson, the meeting of the IBEW label was discussed at both meetings and was suggested by Vice President of Manufacturing Bob that Gonzalez' version of what Thomson said is believ- Rieger and arranged through Gonzalez' line foreman. able and substantially accurate, except that I do not The meeting was initiated as a result of a request by credit Gonzalez to the extent he testified that Thomson Gonzalez that he be allowed more time during work to said that one-third of the employees would be laid off if fulfill his responsibilities as shop steward. Thomson testi- the Company lost the IBEW label. Such a specific pre- fied that the first meeting with Gonzalez was concerned diction would be inconsistent with all other written and only with this issue and that Gonzalez was granted half oral statements by Thomson on this subject to employees an hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon generally and to Ocampo in particular. to attend to his stewardship duties. Thomson denied that there was any discussion of the IBEW label at this meet- 2. Surveillance of union activity ing. Thomson testified that the second meeting with Gonzalez occurred at Thomson's request and was due to As indicated above, IRWA organizational activity Gonzalez' failure to adhere to the time limitation. During bean on June 5. On that date James Wel, union direc this meeting Gonzalez asked Thomson if what Gonzalez tor ofthe IRWA, Rick Bugajsky, Frank Woljak, and had been hearing about the IBEW label was actually the Tony Mecca, other IRWA representatives, arrived at fact. Thomson did not recall how he responded, but the Halo parking lot at or about 6 a.m. Shortly thereafter thought he probably used the Truman Library situation Hueuin, Schrader, and several other supervisors ar- as an example of the problem the Company would face rived. Hueuink accosted the IRWA organizers and or- without the IBEW label. dered them off the property. Thereafter, Weil and his co- The record shows that Thomson drafted and distribut- workers passed out authorization cards on the easement ed to subordinates a memo, dated June 26, referring to a of the driveway leading to the company parking lot. meeting with Gonzalez on June 25 and authorizing a half Schrader and other company supervisors were also on hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon to the parking lot between 6 and 7 a.m. on June 6, 7, and 8. permit Gonzalez to discuss employee problems relating Beginning on June 5 IBEW stewards Gonzalez, Ivan to the interpretation of the contract. Cruz, Carmel Galarza, Ronald Loyo, and Tony Bea The original notice of representation hearing issued on were engaged in soliciting employees to sign authoriza- June 15 for a hearing on June 25, thereafter rescheduled tion cards for the IRWA. The supervisors noted this ac- to July 5, at which time the stipulation for an election tivity and overheard some of the conversations. was entered into. Hueuink and Schrader had received information on On rebuttal Gonzalez testified that it was during a June 4 that there might be violence on June 5 in connec- third meeting with Thomson that the question of addi- tion with the IRWA's organizational campaign. Schrader tional time to perform his duties was discussed. notified the police department on June 4 that the Compa- Although there is a great disparity between the eco- ny anticipated some difficulty on June 5 and requested nomic and social positions of Gonzalez and Thomson, their assistance. Between June 5 and 8 an estimated 100 both men are men of high caliber. Both had much to lose to 500 employees milled about the parking lot in the or gain in the outcome of this proceeding and both testi- early morning hours. There was considerable commo- fled with a certain wariness and, I am satisfied, without tion, yelling, and screaming. On June 6 two employees, complete candor. On the one hand, Thomson was aware Frank Lopez and Pedro Reyes, engaged in some form of that Gonzalez was spearheading the drive for the IRWA. altercation, which was resolved by a police officer. As the General Counsel points out, Thomson had never Schrader made a note of this incident, but otherwise previously met with Gonzalez in a private interview. took no notes and did not record the names of employ- The issue of granting Gonzalez extra time to attend to ees signing or refusing to sign cards.5 his stewardship duties could easily have been arranged without the personal attention of the president of the 3. Cancellation of Company's picnic Company. Moreover, the timing of Thomson's meeting On May 2 Respondent issued a circular, announcing with Gonzalez was at the outset of the IRWA's cam- with Gonzalez was at the outset of the IRWA's cam- that the second annual Halo fiesta day would be held on paign, a few days before a scheduled Board hearing. On the other hand, Gonzalez did not mention during his On June 5 Gonzalez, Bea, and Galarza were suspended. Gonzalez direct and cross-examination that he and Thomson had filed an unfair labor practice charge with respect to these suspensions. discussed extra time for Gonzalez to attend to his stew- The parties stipulated that the charge was dismissed by the Regional Di- ardship duties. Only on rebuttal, following the introduc- rector on the ground that any possible violation of the Act had been re- tion of the memo dated June 26, did Gonzalez concede medied. In these circumstances, contrary to the General Counsel, no in- tion of te m o datd Je 2, did G zalz c ference can be drawn from these suspensions that Respondent's conduct that he and Thomson had discussed this topic. Gonzalez served to highlight the danger to employees of passing out IRWA litera- testified for the first time that there had been a third ture on company property. Employees do not have an absolute right to meeting, although he had previously testified that he had distribute literature at all times and in all places on company property. met with Thomson twice, on June 18 and 25. The Regional Director was satisfied to dismiss the charge without resolv- ing the legality of Respondent's conduct. The General Counsel cannot The testimony of neither of the above witnesses can be have it both ways. So far as this case is concerned, the employees' reac- credited in its entirety. I find that the two men met only tion to the above suspensions is immaterial and irrelevant. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thomson confirmed Gonzalez' direct testimony that on June 18 and June 25 and that the ostensible purpose they met on two occasions. Thomson, however, placed of the meetings was the issue of time off for Gonzalez to the first meeting on June 25 and the second between attend to stewardship duties. I find Further that the issue June 25 and July 6. According to Thomson, the meeting of the IBEW label was discussed at both meetings and was suggested by Vice President of Manufacturing Bob that Gonzalez' version of what Thomson said is believ- Rieger and arranged through Gonzalez' line foreman. able and substantially accurate, except that I do not The meeting was initiated as a result of a request by credit Gonzalez to the extent he testified that Thomson Gonzalez that he be allowed more time during work to said that one-third of the employees would be laid off if fulfill his responsibilities as shop steward. Thomson testi- the Company lost the IBEW label. Such a specific pre- fied that the first meeting with Gonzalez was concerned diction would be inconsistent with all other written and only with this issue and that Gonzalez was granted half oral statements by Thomson on this subject to employees an hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon generally and to Ocampo in particular. to attend to his stewardship duties. Thomson denied that there was any discussion of the IBEW label at this meet- 2. Surveillance of union activity ing. Thomson testified that the second meeting with A i above, I o a Gonzalez occurred at Thomson's request and was due to A s b odicated aboven IRWA organizational activity Gonzalez' failure to adhere to the time limitation. During tb eor o n J th e 5 I O n t h at d at e J am e s k W e Fr un k o nj d a recn this meeting Gonzalez asked Thomson if what Gonzalez to r o f t h e I R W A , R o c k I Bugajsky, Frank Woljak, and had been hearing about the IBEW label was actually the the M ec c Hpk o t h er I R W A representativesb arrived at fact. Thomson did not recall how he responded, but th e H a l u Parking lot at or about 6 a.m. Shortly thereafter thought he probably used the Truman Library situation Hueumk, Schrader, and several other supervisors ar- as an example of the problem the Company would face rived. Hueuink accosted the IRWA organizers and or- without the IBEW label. dered them off the property. Thereafter, Well and his co- The record shows that Thomson drafted and distribut- w o r k e r passed out authorization cards on the easement ed to subordinates a memo, dated June 26, referring to a o f t h e driveway leading to the company parking lot. meeting with Gonzalez on June 25 and authorizing a half Schrader and other company supervisors were also on hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon to the parking lot between 6 and 7 a.m. on June 6, 7, and 8. permit Gonzalez to discuss employee problems relating Beginning on June 5 IBEW stewards Gonzalez, Ivan to the interpretation of the contract. Cruz, Carmel Galarza, Ronald Loyo, and Tony Bea The original notice of representation hearing issued on were engaged in soliciting employees to sign authoriza- June 15 for a hearing on June 25, thereafter rescheduled tion cards for the IRWA. The supervisors noted this ac- to July 5, at which time the stipulation for an election tivity and overheard some of the conversations. was entered into. Hueuink and Schrader had received information on On rebuttal Gonzalez testified that it was during a June 4 that there might be violence on June 5 in connec- third meeting with Thomson that the question of addi- tion with the IRWA's organizational campaign. Schrader tional time to perform his duties was discussed. notified the police department on June 4 that the Compa- Although there is a great disparity between the eco- ny anticipated some difficulty on June 5 and requested nomic and social positions of Gonzalez and Thomson, their assistance. Between June 5 and 8 an estimated 100 both men are men of high caliber. Both had much to lose to 500 employees milled about the parking lot in the or gain in the outcome of this proceeding and both testi- early morning hours. There was considerable commo- fied with a certain wariness and, I am satisfied, without tion, yelling, and screaming. On June 6 two employees, complete candor. On the one hand, Thomson was aware Frank Lopez and Pedro Reyes, engaged in some form of that Gonzalez was spearheading the drive for the IRWA. altercation, which was resolved by a police officer. As the General Counsel points out, Thomson had never Schrader made a note of this incident, but otherwise previously met with Gonzalez in a private interview. took no notes and did not record the names of employ- The issue of granting Gonzalez extra time to attend to ees signing or refusing to sign cards.' his stewardship duties could easily have been arranged without the personal attention of the president of the 3. Cancellation of Company's picnic Company. Moreover, the timing of Thomson's meeting On May 2 Respondent issued a circular, announcing with Gonzalez was at the outset of the IRWA's cam- J ^ withGonzlezwas t th ouset f th IR A's am- that the second annual Halo fiesta day would be held on paign, a few days before a scheduled Board hearing. On the other hand, Gonzalez did not mention during his . On June 5 Gonzale, Bea, and Galarza were suspended. Gonzalez direct and cross-examination that he and Thomson had filed an unfair labor practice charge with respect to these suspensions. discussed extra time for Gonzalez to attend to his Stew- 1The parties stipulated that the charge was dismissed by the Regional Di- ardship duties. Only on rebuttal, following the introduc- rect or on the ground that any possible violation of the Act hid been re- tion of the memo dated June 26, did Gonzalez concede medied. I n these circumstances. contrary to the General Counsel, no in- tion of the memo dated June 26a did Gonzalez concede ference can be drawn from these suspensions that Respondent's conduct that he and Thomson had discussed this topic. Gonzalez served to highlight the danger to employees of passing out IRWA litera- testified for the first time that there had been a third ture on company property. Employees do not have an absolute right to meeting, although he had previously testified that he had distribute literature at all times and in all places on company property. met with Thomson twice, on June 18 and 25. T h e Regional Director w as satisfied to dismiss the charge without resolv- ing the legality of Respondent's conduct. The General Counsel cannot The testimony Of neither of the above Witnesses can be have it both ways. So far as this case is concerned, the employees' reac- credited in its entirety. I find that the two men met only tion to the above suspensions is immaterial and irrelevant. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thomson confirmed Gonzalez' direct testimony that on June 18 and June 25 and that the ostensible purpose they met on two occasions. Thomson, however, placed of the meetings was the issue of time off for Gonzalez to the first meeting on June 25 and the second between attend to stewardship duties. I find Further that the issue June 25 and July 6. According to Thomson, the meeting of the IBEW label was discussed at both meetings and was suggested by Vice President of Manufacturing Bob that Gonzalez' version of what Thomson said is believ- Rieger and arranged through Gonzalez' line foreman. able and substantially accurate, except that I do not The meeting was initiated as a result of a request by credit Gonzalez to the extent he testified that Thomson Gonzalez that he be allowed more time during work to said that one-third of the employees would be laid off if fulfill his responsibilities as shop steward. Thomson testi- the Company lost the IBEW label. Such a specific pre- fied that the first meeting with Gonzalez was concerned diction would be inconsistent with all other written and only with this issue and that Gonzalez was granted half oral statements by Thomson on this subject to employees an hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon generally and to Ocampo in particular. to attend to his stewardship duties. Thomson denied that there was any discussion of the IBEW label at this meet- 2. Surveillance of union activity ing. Thomson testified that the second meeting with A i above, I o a Gonzalez occurred at Thomson's request and was due to A s b odicated aboven IRWA organizational activity Gonzalez' failure to adhere to the time limitation. During tb eor o n J th e 5 I O n t h at d at e J am e s k W e Fr un k o nj d a recn this meeting Gonzalez asked Thomson if what Gonzalez to r o f t h e I R W A , ote RBugajsky, Frank Woljak, and had been hearing about the IBEW label was actually the the M ec c Hpk o t h er I R W A representativesb arrived at fact. Thomson did not recall how he responded, but th e H a l u Parking lot at or about 6 a.m. Shortly thereafter thought he probably used the Truman Library situation Hueumk, Schrader, and several other supervisors ar- as an example of the problem the Company would face rived. Hueuink accosted the IRWA organizers and or- without the IBEW label. dered them off the property. Thereafter, Well and his co- The record shows that Thomson drafted and distribut- w o r k e r passed out authorization cards on the easement ed to subordinates a memo, dated June 26, referring to a o f t h e driveway leading to the company parking lot. meeting with Gonzalez on June 25 and authorizing a half Schrader and other company supervisors were also on hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon to the parking lot between 6 and 7 a.m. on June 6, 7, and 8. permit Gonzalez to discuss employee problems relating Beginning on June 5 IBEW stewards Gonzalez, Ivan to the interpretation of the contract. Cruz, Carmel Galarza, Ronald Loyo, and Tony Bea The original notice of representation hearing issued on were engaged in soliciting employees to sign authoriza- June 15 for a hearing on June 25, thereafter rescheduled tion cards for the IRWA. The supervisors noted this ac- to July 5, at which time the stipulation for an election tivity and overheard some of the conversations. was entered into. Hueuink and Schrader had received information on On rebuttal Gonzalez testified that it was during a June 4 that there might be violence on June 5 in connec- third meeting with Thomson that the question of addi- tion with the IRWA's organizational campaign. Schrader tional time to perform his duties was discussed. notified the police department on June 4 that the Compa- Although there is a great disparity between the eco- ny anticipated some difficulty on June 5 and requested nomic and social positions of Gonzalez and Thomson, their assistance. Between June 5 and 8 an estimated 100 both men are men of high caliber. Both had much to lose to 500 employees milled about the parking lot in the or gain in the outcome of this proceeding and both testi- early morning hours. There was considerable commo- fied with a certain wariness and, I am satisfied, without tion, yelling, and screaming. On June 6 two employees, complete candor. On the one hand, Thomson was aware Frank Lopez and Pedro Reyes, engaged in some form of that Gonzalez was spearheading the drive for the IRWA. altercation, which was resolved by a police officer. As the General Counsel points out, Thomson had never Schrader made a note of this incident, but otherwise previously met with Gonzalez in a private interview. took no notes and did not record the names of employ- The issue of granting Gonzalez extra time to attend to ees signing or refusing to sign cards.' his stewardship duties could easily have been arranged without the personal attention of the president of the 3. Cancellation of Company's picnic Company. Moreover, the timing of Thomson's meeting On May 2 Respondent issued a circular, announcing with Gonzalez was at the outset of the IRWA's cam- J ^ withGonzlezwas t th ouset f th IR A's am- that the second annual Halo fiesta day would be held on paign, a few days before a scheduled Board hearing. On the other hand, Gonzalez did not mention during his . On June 5 Gonzale, Bea, and Galarza were suspended. Gonzalez direct and cross-examination that he and Thomson had filed an unfair labor practice charge with respect to these suspensions. discussed extra time for Gonzalez to attend to his Stew- 1The parties stipulated that the charge was dismissed by the Regional Di- ardship duties. Only on rebuttal, following the introduc- rector on the ground that any possible violation of the Act hd been re- tion of the memo dated June 26, did Gonzalez concede medied. I n these circumstances. contrary to the General Counsel, no in- tion of the memo dated June 26a did Gonzalez concede ference can be drawn from these suspensions that Respondent's conduct that he and Thomson had discussed this topic. Gonzalez served to highlight the danger to employees of passing out IRWA litera- testified for the first time that there had been a third ture on company property. Employees do not have an absolute right to meeting, although he had previously testified that he had distribute literature at all times and in all places on company property. met With Thomson twice, on June 18 and 25. T h e Regional Director was satisfied to dismiss the charge without resolv- ing the legality of Respondent's conduct. The General Counsel cannot The testimony Of neither of the above Witnesses can be have it both ways. So far as this case is concerned, the employees' reac- credited in its entirety. I find that the two men met only tion to the above suspensions is immaterial and irrelevant. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thomson confirmed Gonzalez' direct testimony that on June 18 and June 25 and that the ostensible purpose they met on two occasions. Thomson, however, placed of the meetings was the issue of time off for Gonzalez to the first meeting on June 25 and the second between attend to stewardship duties. I find Further that the issue June 25 and July 6. According to Thomson, the meeting of the IBEW label was discussed at both meetings and was suggested by Vice President of Manufacturing Bob that Gonzalez' version of what Thomson said is believ- Rieger and arranged through Gonzalez' line foreman. able and substantially accurate, except that I do not The meeting was initiated as a result of a request by credit Gonzalez to the extent he testified that Thomson Gonzalez that he be allowed more time during work to said that one-third of the employees would be laid off if fulfill his responsibilities as shop steward. Thomson testi- the Company lost the IBEW label. Such a specific pre- fied that the first meeting with Gonzalez was concerned diction would be inconsistent with all other written and only with this issue and that Gonzalez was granted half oral statements by Thomson on this subject to employees an hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon generally and to Ocampo in particular. to attend to his stewardship duties. Thomson denied that there was any discussion of the IBEW label at this meet- 2. Surveillance of union activity ing. Thomson testified that the second meeting with A i above, I o a Gonzalez occurred at Thomson's request and was due to A s b odicated aboven IRWA organizational activity Gonzalez' failure to adhere to the time limitation. During tb eor o n J th e 5 I O n t h at d at e J am e s k W e Fr un k o nj d a recn this meeting Gonzalez asked Thomson if what Gonzalez to r o f M t h e I R W A , ohrI Bugajsky, Frank Woljak, and had been hearing about the IBEW label was actually the the M ec c Hpk o t h er I R W A representativesb arrived at fact. Thomson did not recall how he responded, but th e H a l u Parking lot at or about 6 a.m. Shortly thereafter thought he probably used the Truman Library situation Hueumk, Schrader, and several other supervisors ar- as an example of the problem the Company would face rived. Hueuink accosted the IRWA organizers and or- without the IBEW label. dered them off the property. Thereafter, Well and his co- The record shows that Thomson drafted and distribut- w o r k e r passed out authorization cards on the easement ed to subordinates a memo, dated June 26, referring to a o f t h e driveway leading to the company parking lot. meeting with Gonzalez on June 25 and authorizing a half Schrader and other company supervisors were also on hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon to the parking lot between 6 and 7 a.m. on June 6, 7, and 8. permit Gonzalez to discuss employee problems relating Beginning on June 5 IBEW stewards Gonzalez, Ivan to the interpretation of the contract. Cruz, Carmel Galarza, Ronald Loyo, and Tony Bea The original notice of representation hearing issued on were engaged in soliciting employees to sign authoriza- June 15 for a hearing on June 25, thereafter rescheduled tion cards for the IRWA. The supervisors noted this ac- to July 5, at which time the stipulation for an election tivity and overheard some of the conversations. was entered into. Hueuink and Schrader had received information on On rebuttal Gonzalez testified that it was during a June 4 that there might be violence on June 5 in connec- third meeting with Thomson that the question of addi- tion with the IRWA's organizational campaign. Schrader tional time to perform his duties was discussed. notified the police department on June 4 that the Compa- Although there is a great disparity between the eco- ny anticipated some difficulty on June 5 and requested nomic and social positions of Gonzalez and Thomson, their assistance. Between June 5 and 8 an estimated 100 both men are men of high caliber. Both had much to lose to 500 employees milled about the parking lot in the or gain in the outcome of this proceeding and both testi- early morning hours. There was considerable commo- fied with a certain wariness and, I am satisfied, without tion, yelling, and screaming. On June 6 two employees, complete candor. On the one hand, Thomson was aware Frank Lopez and Pedro Reyes, engaged in some form of that Gonzalez was spearheading the drive for the IRWA. altercation, which was resolved by a police officer. As the General Counsel points out, Thomson had never Schrader made a note of this incident, but otherwise previously met with Gonzalez in a private interview. took no notes and did not record the names of employ- The issue of granting Gonzalez extra time to attend to ees signing or refusing to sign cards.' his stewardship duties could easily have been arranged without the personal attention of the president of the 3. Cancellation of Company's picnic Company. Moreover, the timing of Thomson's meeting On May 2 Respondent issued a circular, announcing with Gonzalez was at the outset of the IRWA's cam- J ^ withGonzlezwas t th ouset f th IR A's am- that the second annual Halo fiesta day would be held on paign, a few days before a scheduled Board hearing. On the other hand, Gonzalez did not mention during his . On June 5 Gonzale, Bea, and Galarza were suspended. Gonzalez direct and cross-examination that he and Thomson had filed an unfair labor practice charge with respect to these suspensions. discussed extra time for Gonzalez to attend to his Stew- 1The parties stipulated that the charge was dismissed by the Regional Di- ardship duties. Only on rebuttal, following the introduc- rector on the ground that any possible violation of the Act hd been re- tion of the memo dated June 26, did Gonzalez concede medied. I n these circumstances. contrary to the General Counsel, no in- tion of the memo dated June 26a did Gonzalez concede ference can be drawn from these suspensions that Respondent's conduct that he and Thomson had discussed this topic. Gonzalez served to highlight the danger to employees of passing out IRWA litera- testified for the first time that there had been a third ture on company property. Employees do not have an absolute right to meeting, although he had previously testified that he had distribute literature at all times and in all places on company property. met With Thomson twice, on June 18 and 25. T h e Regional Director was satisfied to dismiss the charge without resolv- ing the legality of Respondent's conduct. The General Counsel cannot The testimony Of neither of the above Witnesses can be have it both ways. So far as this case is concerned, the employees' reac- credited in its entirety. I find that the two men met only tion to the above suspensions is immaterial and irrelevant. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 713 Saturday, July 7, for all internal personnel. The picnic, B. Assistance to IBEW scheduled to last from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., provided for various forms of entertainment, including swimming, 1. Disparate treatment of IRWA non-employee tennis, softball, children's games, dancing, refreshments, organizers with respect to campaigning on and prizes. For the next several months additional bulle- Respondent's plant premises tins were issued in English and Spanish requesting em- Respondent's contract with the IBEW in effect during ployees to sign up for the picnic and the various games. times material herein provides that representatives of the Respondent had purchased prizes to be distributed to the IBEW "shall have access to the factory premises of the employees and their families. It was anticipated that Employer at any time during working hours for the pur- about 700 employees would attend the picnic. pose of investigating and adjusting matters covered by or During the last week of June Hueuink began receiving arising under this Agreement." Pursuant to the above reports of possible problems, including violence, that provision Cortes and Kingsley requested and were grant- might occur at the picnic. Pedro Reyes, a member of the ed permission by Hueuink or Schrader during the pree- organizing committee, told Hueuink that Reyes had been lection period to enter the plant premises either together questioned by employees about the use of knives and or individually two or three times a week. As was cus- guns at the picnic; that he had heard that the IRWA ad- tomary, they met in Respondent's conference room to vocates were going to attend and show everybody who discuss grievances, complaints, and other union business was boss. Unfer, a nurse, warned Hueuink that there and to confer with the IBEW stewards, grievants and, if might be violence at the picnic, suggesting that the necessary, company officials or supervisors. Usually, IRWA in-plant organizers Cabrera, Rodriguez, Gonzales, grievances were filed verbally and were reduced to writ- and Pedro Sanchez planned to attend and cause "trou- ing only if they could not be resolved at the supervisory ble." level. During the period from June 6 to July 17 at least By memo dated July 5 Respondent canceled the 10 written grievances were filed. Hueuink conceded that picicC Thomsn e d te r n fr te ortes and Kingsley were also granted permission to go tion. omson el d te rson for t c ll- into the plant and investigate grievances of employees on t*ion as follows:^ the line. Both Hueuink and Schrader testified that they Information has come to our attention that the or- would break up unauthorized meetings between the ganizers for the Independent Radionic Workers of IBEW representatives and the employees. America (IRWA), the independent union that is at- Several witnesses for the General Counsel testified tempting to become the bargaining agent for our that they observed Cortes talking to employees and plant production employees, although not invited to rging support for the IBEW. Supervisors in the vicinity plant production employees, although not invited to our picnic, have made known their intentions to not nterfere wh es conduct The record is clear that Respondent did not permit appear there. Recent incidents related to their orga- T he re co r d is cl ear that Responden did not permit "., .~~~... . . IRWA nonemployee organizers to distribute campaign nizational activities have created increased tensions op re e or to siit su t r and aroused feelings among our employees. We be- material on plant premises or to solicit support for the and aroused feelings among our employees. We be- IRWA lieve the picnic would be used by them as a forum to pursue further organizational activities, and if 2. Disparate treatment of IRWA employee that happens, it would only interfere with the pur- organizers with respect to campaigning on pose of our picnic. Since adequate security to deal Respondent's plant premises with such a condition is not available, we believe it is in everyone's best interest to avoid such an inci- As indicated above, the IRWA campaign was initiated dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling the by the IBEW stewards. During the early days of the picnic. IRWA's organizing drive most of the IBEW stewards actively solicited IRWA authorization cards from Re- Weil testified that at an IRWA meeting on June 20 the spondent's employees and passed out IRWA literature on officials of that union decided that IRWA organizers the parking lot and in the Company's cafeteria. Curious- would not attend the picnic. During the 2-week period ly, as the campaign progressed, literature for both the prior to the date of the scheduled picnic Weil informed IBEW and the IRWA was distributed by some stewards, Respondent's employees in English during the course of apparently without discrimination. In August toward the his handbilling activities in front of the Halo plant that end ofthe campagn the stewards sentiment shifted to the IBEW. However, stewards Gonzalez, Ivan Cruz, IRWA organizers would not attend the picnic. Other te How r, steards oni nued to pass ou Ronald Loyo, and Lydia Santiago continued to pass out IRWA representatives also made the same statement. material for the IRWA on plant premises without inter- However, the IRWA did not so inform the employees in ference by Respondent's officials.6 its handbills or other publications. Nor did officials of __ Respondent contact the IRWA to determine whether or In making this finding I place no reliance on a document dated July not IRWA organizers planned to be present at the 26 and signed by all IBEW stewards repudiating their support for the picnic. The decision of the IRWA with respect to this IRWA and urging support for the IBEW. Kingsley informed the stew- matter was due, in part, to a concern that there might be ards that they could not remai n IBEW s tewards unless they sigd document. Nevertheless, Gonzalez remained a supporter of the IRWA a confrontation among competing groups at the picnic. and Santiago, his close friend, continued her support for the IRWA until a few days before the election. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 713 Saturday, July 7, for all internal personnel. The picnic, B. Assistance to IBEW scheduled to last from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., provided for various forms of entertainment, including swimming, 1. Disparate treatment of IRWA non-employee tennis, softball, children's games, dancing, refreshments, organizers with respect to campaigning on and prizes. For the next several months additional bulle- Respondent's plant premises tins were issued in English and Spanish requesting em- Respondent's contract with the IBEW in effect during ployees to sign up for the picnic and the various games. times material herein provides that representatives of the Respondent had purchased prizes to be distributed to the IBEW "shall have access to the factory premises of the employees and their families. It was anticipated that Employer at any time during working hours for the pur- about 700 employees would attend the picnic. pose of investigating and adjusting matters covered by or During the last week of June Hueuink began receiving arising under this Agreement." Pursuant to the above reports of possible problems, including violence, that provision Cortes and Kingsley requested and were grant- might occur at the picnic. Pedro Reyes, a member of the ed permission by Hueuink or Schrader during the pree- organizing committee, told Hueuink that Reyes had been lection period to enter the plant premises either together questioned by employees about the use of knives and or individually two or three times a week. As was cus- guns at the picnic; that he had heard that the IRWA ad- tomary, they met in Respondent's conference room to vocates were going to attend and show everybody who discuss grievances, complaints, and other union business was boss. Unfer, a nurse, warned Hueuink that there and to confer with the IBEW stewards, grievants and, if might be violence at the picnic, suggesting that the necessary, company officials or supervisors. Usually, IRWA in-plant organizers Cabrera, Rodriguez, Gonzales, grievances were filed verbally and were reduced to writ- and Pedro Sanchez planned to attend and cause "trou- ing only if they could not be resolved at the supervisory ble." level. During the period from June 6 to July 17 at least By memo dated July 5 Respondent canceled the 10 written grievances were filed. Hueuink conceded that picnic. Thomson explained the reason for the cancella- C o r t e s a n d K ingsley were also granted permission to go tion as follows: into the plant and investigate grievances of employees on the line. Both Hueuink and Schrader testified that they Information has come to our attention that the or- would break up unauthorized meetings between the ganizers for the Independent Radionic Workers of I B E W representatives and the employees. America (IRWA), the independent union that is at- Several witnesses for the General Counsel testified tempting to become the bargaining agent for our t h at they observed Cortes talking to employees and plant production employees, although not invited to urging support for the IBEW. Supervisors in the vicinity our picnic, have made known their intentions to d id n o t int e r f e re w it h C o r t es c o n d uc t . appear there. Recent incidents related to their orga- T h e r e c o r d is c l e a r that Responden did not permit "., .... . . B ~~~~~~IRWA nonemployee organizers to distribute campaign nizational activities have created increased tensions I plopee or to stribut camptie and roued feligs aongour mplyees Webe- material on plant premises or to solicit support for the and aroused feelings among our employees. We be- IRWA. lieve the picnic would be used by them as a forum to pursue further organizational activities, and if 2. Disparate treatment of IRWA employee that happens, it would only interfere with the pur- organizers with respect to campaigning on pose of our picnic. Since adequate security to deal Respondent's plant premises with such a condition is not available, we believe it is in everyone's best interest to avoid such an inci- A s indicated above, the IRWA campaign was initiated dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling the by the I B E W stewards. During the early days of the picnic. IRWA's organizing drive most of the IBEW stewards actively solicited IRWA authorization cards from Re- Weil testified that at an IRWA meeting on June 20 the spondent's employees and passed out IRWA literature on officials of that union decided that IRWA organizers the parking lot and in the Company's cafeteria. Curious- would not attend the picnic. During the 2-week period ly, as the campaign progressed, literature for both the prior to the date of the scheduled picnic Weil informed I B E W an d t he I R W A w a s distributed by some stewards, Respondent's employees in English during the course of apparently without discrimination. In August toward the his handbilling activities in front of the Halo plant that en d o f t h e c pag t h e swards sentiment shifted to .- ,.,. ° 1.1 , . ,,. . ,-,.,! the IBEW. However, stewards Gonzalez, Ivan Cruz, IRWA organizers would not attend the picnic. Other t I H conzaled Ivan out IRWAreprsenativs alo mde te sae satemnt. Ronald Loyo, and Lydia Santiago continued to pass out IRWA representatives also made the same statement. material for the IRWA on plant premises without inter- However, the IRWA did not so inform the employees in ference by Respondent's officials.' its handbills or other publications. Nor did officials of Respondent contact the IRWA to determine whether or In makng this finding I place no reliance on a document dated July not IRWA organizers planned to be present at the 26 and signed by all IBEW stewards repudiating their support for the picnic. The decision of the IRWA with respect to this 1RW A an d urging support for the IBEW. Kingsley informed the stew- matter was due, in part, to a concern that there might be ards that they could not remain IBEW stewards unless they signed the mattr wa due in artto aconcrn tat tere ightbe ocument. Nevertheless, Gonzalez remained a supporter of the IRWA a confrontation among competing groups at the picnic. and Santiago, his close friend, continued her support for the IRWA until a few days before the election. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 713 Saturday, July 7, for all internal personnel. The picnic, B. Assistance to IBEW scheduled to last from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., provided for various forms of entertainment, including swimming, 1. Disparate treatment of IRWA non-employee tennis, softball, children's games, dancing, refreshments, organizers with respect to campaigning on and prizes. For the next several months additional bulle- Respondent's plant premises tins were issued in English and Spanish requesting em- Respondent's contract with the IBEW in effect during ployees to sign up for the picnic and the various games. times material herein provides that representatives of the Respondent had purchased prizes to be distributed to the IBEW "shall have access to the factory premises of the employees and their families. It was anticipated that Employer at any time during working hours for the pur- about 700 employees would attend the picnic. pose of investigating and adjusting matters covered by or During the last week of June Hueuink began receiving arising under this Agreement." Pursuant to the above reports of possible problems, including violence, that provision Cortes and Kingsley requested and were grant- might occur at the picnic. Pedro Reyes, a member of the ed permission by Hueuink or Schrader during the pree- organizing committee, told Hueuink that Reyes had been lection period to enter the plant premises either together questioned by employees about the use of knives and or individually two or three times a week. As was cus- guns at the picnic; that he had heard that the IRWA ad- tomary, they met in Respondent's conference room to vocates were going to attend and show everybody who discuss grievances, complaints, and other union business was boss. Unfer, a nurse, warned Hueuink that there and to confer with the IBEW stewards, grievants and, if might be violence at the picnic, suggesting that the necessary, company officials or supervisors. Usually, IRWA in-plant organizers Cabrera, Rodriguez, Gonzales, grievances were filed verbally and were reduced to writ- and Pedro Sanchez planned to attend and cause "trou- ing only if they could not be resolved at the supervisory ble." level. During the period from June 6 to July 17 at least By memo dated July 5 Respondent canceled the 10 written grievances were filed. Hueuink conceded that picnic. Thomson explained the reason for the cancella- C o r t e s a n d K ingsley were also granted permission to go tion as follows: into the plant and investigate grievances of employees on the line. Both Hueuink and Schrader testified that they Information has come to our attention that the or- would break up unauthorized meetings between the ganizers for the Independent Radionic Workers of I B E W representatives and the employees. America (IRWA), the independent union that is at- Several witnesses for the General Counsel testified tempting to become the bargaining agent for our t h at they observed Cortes talking to employees and plant production employees, although not invited to urging support for the IBEW. Supervisors in the vicinity our picnic, have made known their intentions to d id n o t int e r f e re w it h C o r t es c o n d uc t . appear there. Recent incidents related to their orga- T h e r e c o r d is c l e a r that Responden did not permit "., .... . . B ~~~~~~IRWA nonemployee organizers to distribute campaign nizational activities have created increased tensions I plopee or to stribut camptie and roued feligs aongour mplyees Webe- material on plant premises or to solicit support for the and aroused feelings among our employees. We be- IRWA. lieve the picnic would be used by them as a forum to pursue further organizational activities, and if 2. Disparate treatment of IRWA employee that happens, it would only interfere with the pur- organizers with respect to campaigning on pose of our picnic. Since adequate security to deal Respondent's plant premises with such a condition is not available, we believe it is in everyone's best interest to avoid such an inci- A s indicated above, the IRWA campaign was initiated dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling the by the I B E W stewards. During the early days of the picnic. IRWA's organizing drive most of the IBEW stewards actively solicited IRWA authorization cards from Re- Weil testified that at an IRWA meeting on June 20 the spondent's employees and passed out IRWA literature on officials of that union decided that IRWA organizers the parking lot and in the Company's cafeteria. Curious- would not attend the picnic. During the 2-week period ly, as the campaign progressed, literature for both the prior to the date of the scheduled picnic Weil informed I B E W an d t he I R W A w a s distributed by some stewards, Respondent's employees in English during the course of apparently without discrimination. In August toward the his handbilling activities in front of the Halo plant that en d o f t h e cmi t h e swards sentiment shifted to .- ,.,. ° 1.1 , . ,,. . ,-,.,! the IBEW. However, stewards Gonzalez, Ivan Cruz, IRWA organizers would not attend the picnic. Other t I H conzaled Ivan out IRWAreprsenativs alo mde te sae satemnt. Ronald Loyo, and Lydia Santiago continued to pass out IRWA representatives also made the same statement. material for the IRWA on plant premises without inter- However, the IRWA did not so inform the employees in ference by Respondent's officials.' its handbills or other publications. Nor did officials of Respondent contact the IRWA to determine whether or In makng this finding I place no reliance on a document dated July not IRWA organizers planned to be present at the 26 and signed by all IBEW stewards repudiating their support for the picnic. The decision of the IRWA with respect to this 1RW A an d urging support for the IBEW. Kingsley informed the stew- matte wasdue, n pat, t a cocernthattheremigh be rds that they could not remain IBEW stewards unless they signed the matter was due, in part, to a concern that there might be a^ocument. NeverthelessGonzalez remained a supporter of the IRWA a confrontation among competing groups at the picnic. and Santiago, his close friend, continued her support for the IRWA until a few days before the election. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 713 Saturday, July 7, for all internal personnel. The picnic, B. Assistance to IBEW scheduled to last from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., provided for various forms of entertainment, including swimming, 1. Disparate treatment of IRWA non-employee tennis, softball, children's games, dancing, refreshments, organizers with respect to campaigning on and prizes. For the next several months additional bulle- Respondent's plant premises tins were issued in English and Spanish requesting em- Respondent's contract with the IBEW in effect during ployees to sign up for the picnic and the various games. times material herein provides that representatives of the Respondent had purchased prizes to be distributed to the IBEW "shall have access to the factory premises of the employees and their families. It was anticipated that Employer at any time during working hours for the pur- about 700 employees would attend the picnic. pose of investigating and adjusting matters covered by or During the last week of June Hueuink began receiving arising under this Agreement." Pursuant to the above reports of possible problems, including violence, that provision Cortes and Kingsley requested and were grant- might occur at the picnic. Pedro Reyes, a member of the ed permission by Hueuink or Schrader during the pree- organizing committee, told Hueuink that Reyes had been lection period to enter the plant premises either together questioned by employees about the use of knives and or individually two or three times a week. As was cus- guns at the picnic; that he had heard that the IRWA ad- tomary, they met in Respondent's conference room to vocates were going to attend and show everybody who discuss grievances, complaints, and other union business was boss. Unfer, a nurse, warned Hueuink that there and to confer with the IBEW stewards, grievants and, if might be violence at the picnic, suggesting that the necessary, company officials or supervisors. Usually, IRWA in-plant organizers Cabrera, Rodriguez, Gonzales, grievances were filed verbally and were reduced to writ- and Pedro Sanchez planned to attend and cause "trou- ing only if they could not be resolved at the supervisory ble." level. During the period from June 6 to July 17 at least By memo dated July 5 Respondent canceled the 10 written grievances were filed. Hueuink conceded that picnic. Thomson explained the reason for the cancella- C o r t e s a n d K ingsley were also granted permission to go tion as follows: into the plant and investigate grievances of employees on the line. Both Hueuink and Schrader testified that they Information has come to our attention that the or- would break up unauthorized meetings between the ganizers for the Independent Radionic Workers of I B E W representatives and the employees. America (IRWA), the independent union that is at- Several witnesses for the General Counsel testified tempting to become the bargaining agent for our t h at they observed Cortes talking to employees and plant production employees, although not invited to urging support for the IBEW. Supervisors in the vicinity our picnic, have made known their intentions to d id n o t int e r f e re w it h C o r t es c o n d uc t . appear there. Recent incidents related to their orga- T h e r e c o r d is c l e a r that Responden did not permit "., .... . . B ~~~~~~IRWA nonemployee organizers to distribute campaign nizational activities have created increased tensions I plopee or to stribut camptie and roued feligs aongour mplyees Webe- material on plant premises or to solicit support for the and aroused feelings among our employees. We be- IRWA. lieve the picnic would be used by them as a forum to pursue further organizational activities, and if 2. Disparate treatment of IRWA employee that happens, it would only interfere with the pur- organizers with respect to campaigning on pose of our picnic. Since adequate security to deal Respondent's plant premises with such a condition is not available, we believe it is in everyone's best interest to avoid such an inci- A s indicated above, the IRWA campaign was initiated dent; and, as a precaution, we are cancelling the by the I B E W stewards. During the early days of the picnic. IRWA's organizing drive most of the IBEW stewards actively solicited IRWA authorization cards from Re- Weil testified that at an IRWA meeting on June 20 the spondent's employees and passed out IRWA literature on officials of that union decided that IRWA organizers the parking lot and in the Company's cafeteria. Curious- would not attend the picnic. During the 2-week period ly, as the campaign progressed, literature for both the prior to the date of the scheduled picnic Weil informed I B E W an d t he I R W A w a s distributed by some stewards, Respondent's employees in English during the course of apparently without discrimination. In August toward the his handbilling activities in front of the Halo plant that en d o f t h e cmi t h e swards sentiment shifted to .- ,.,. ° 1.1 , . ,,. . ,-,.,! the IBEW. However, stewards Gonzalez, Ivan Cruz, IRWA organizers would not attend the picnic. Other t I H conzaled Ivan out IRWAreprsenativs alo mde te sae satemnt. Ronald Loyo, and Lydia Santiago continued to pass out IRWA representatives also made the same statement. material for the IRWA on plant premises without inter- However, the IRWA did not so inform the employees in ference by Respondent's officials.' its handbills or other publications. Nor did officials of Respondent contact the IRWA to determine whether or In makng this finding I place no reliance on a document dated July not IRWA organizers planned to be present at the 26 and signed by all IBEW stewards repudiating their support for the picnic. The decision of the IRWA with respect to this 1RW A an d urging support for the IBEW. Kingsley informed the stew- matte wasdue, n pat, t a cocernthattheremigh be rds that they could not remain IBEW stewards unless they signed the matter was due, in part, to a concern that there might be a^ocument. NeverthelessGonzalez remained a supporter of the IRWA a confrontation among competing groups at the picnic. and Santiago, his close friend, continued her support for the IRWA until a few days before the election. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Literature for both Unions was passed along the as- employee rights to distribute campaign literature in non- sembly lines without interference from Respondent. Baez working areas on nonworking time. It makes no sense testified that Santiago passed out IBEW handbills on that they would inconsistently grant such permission to Baez' assembly line with his permission. According to IRWA employee supporters with respect to the parking Baez, his supervisor, Art Kavanaugh, directed that the lot, a nonworking area, while denying permission to steward be permitted to pass out any campaign literature campaign in other nonworking areas or on nonworking that came into the plant without differentiating between time. the IRWA and the IBEW. Literature for both Unions was regularly posted on IV. ANALYSIS AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent's bulletin boards except for a single bulletin board that was glass-enclosed and locked. 7 Hueuink and A. Conduct Violative of Section 8(a)(1) his assistant would tour the plant nightly and remove the I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the literature of both Unions from the bulletin boards. Re- At i t f Act in the following respects: spondent has about 450 "towveyor" carts that move rset spondent has about 450 "towveyor" carts that move (1) Supervisor Tony Lizardi's promise of benefit to throughout the plant. During the election campaign signs Supervisor Tony Lizardi's promise of benefit to in English and Spanish appeared in chalk on the carts, antiago Cabrera in mid-August that if Cabrera kept advocating that employees vote for the IBEW or the quiet and kept calm and helped to calm down the other IRWA. Respondent's supervisors would attempt to employees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money and remove the signs in the evenings. more benefits in the context of Cabrera's open advocacy Buttons for both Unions were worn by the employees of the IRWA and Respondent's opposition to that Union. without interference from Respondent's officials. (2) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera in mid-August that if A few days before the election banners were hung the IRWA won the election the employees would go from the ceiling advocating, respectively, that employees back to making $2.90 per hour. vote for the IBEW or the IRWA. Hueuink ordered both (3) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection banners removed. period that Respondent would lay off half the employees and maybe even half the supervisors if the IRWA came 3. Rejection of the IRWA's request on behalf of into the plant. IRWA employee organizers (4) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection On August 23 Weil, accompanied by IRWA Repre- period that if the employees continued to try to put in a sentatives Frank Woljak, Rick Bugajsky, and Tony new union it would end with employees laid off and sala- Meccia met with Hueuink and Schrader in the latter's ries reduced. office. (5) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection The testimony as to what occurred is conflicting. period that if the employees did not vote for the IBEW Weil, corroborated by Bugajsky, testified that they Respondent could move the Company to California or asked Schrader four questions: (1) Whether IRWA non- any place because McGraw Edison was a big company employee representatives could pass out literature in the and had a lot of money. parking lot; (2) whether Halo employees could pass out (6) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection IRWA literature in the parking lot; (3) whether IRWA period that if Respondent lost the use of the IBEW label nonemployee organizers could pass out IRWA literature the Company would have to lay off half the employees, in nonworking areas on nonworking time; and (4) wheth- lay off some of the supervisors, and reduce salaries to er IRWA employee supporters could pass out IRWA lit- $2.90. erature in nonworking areas on nonworking time. (7) Lizardi's promise of benefit to William Velasquez Schrader replied affirmatively to question (2) and nega- and other employees on or about July 20 to the effect tively to all other questions. that Lizardi would go to personnel and try to get the Hueuink and Schrader denied that they had refused employees a raise of 25 cents per hour if they voted for permission for IRWA employee supporters to pass out the IBEW. IRWA literature on nonworking time in nonworking (8) Lizardi's threat to Velasquez that the employees' areas. salaries would be lower if a new union came into Halo. I credit Hueuink and Schrader. The record is clear (9) Lizardi's threat to Dionisio Perez and other em- that IRWA employee supporters in fact passed out ployees during the preelection period that if the employ- IRWA literature in the parking lot and in the cafeteria ees did not vote for the IBEW the employees would lose during the entire preelection period without interference benefits and would have to start with minimum wages. by Respondent. Certainly, at least since the incident in- employees volving the suspensions of Gonzalez and other IRWA volving the suspensions of Gonzalez and other IRWA during the preelection period that the plant could move supporters, Hueuink and Schrader were well aware of t anther lct if the employees did not vote for the 'I do not credit the testimony of James Weil that he saw a handbill for IBEW. the IBEW posted inside the glass-enclosed bulletin board on the day of (11) Lizardi's solicitation of employee grievances the election. Having credited Hueuink that he regularly removed litera- during the preelection period by informing Perez and ture for both Unions from the bulletin boards, it is most unlikely that he other employees that Lizardi could set up a meeting with would permit the posting of campaign literature for the IBEW on a bul- letin board under the complete control of Respondent on the day of the Thomson for them and they could talk to Thomson election. about whatever they needed, including an increase. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Literature for both Unions was passed along the as- employee rights to distribute campaign literature in non- sembly lines without interference from Respondent. Baez working areas on nonworking time. It makes no sense testified that Santiago passed out IBEW handbills on that they would inconsistently grant such permission to Baez' assembly line with his permission. According to IRWA employee supporters with respect to the parking Baez, his supervisor, Art Kavanaugh, directed that the lot, a nonworking area, while denying permission to steward be permitted to pass out any campaign literature campaign in other nonworking areas or on nonworking that came into the plant without differentiating between time. the IRWA and the IBEW. Literature for both Unions was regularly posted on IV. ANALYSIS AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent's bulletin boards except for a single bulletin board that was glass-enclosed and locked. 7 Hueuink and A. Conduct Violative of Section 8(a)(l) his assistant would tour the plant nightly and remove the I rind that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(\) of the literature of both Unions from the bulletin boards. Re- A in the fo rpt , , . . .... „ „ . ,, ,~~~Act in the following respects: spondent has about 450 "towveyor" carts that move -S T L p of beneit t throughout the plant. During the election campaign signs W Supervisor Tony Lizardi- s promise of benefit to in English and Spanish appeared in chalk on the carts, qSantiago Cabrera in mid-August that if Cabrera kept advocating that employees vote for the IBEW or the empetoy d k e sL c al m awd helped to calm down the other IRWA. Respondent's supervisors would attempt toemployees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money and remove the signs in the evenings. m o r e b e n efi t s in t h e c o n t ex t o f C ab r e r a 's open advocacy Buttons for both Unions were worn by the employees o f the IRWA and Respondent's opposition to that Union. without interference from Respondent's officials. (2) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera in mid-August that if A few days before the election banners were hung the IRWA won the election the employees would go from the ceiling advocating, respectively, that employees b a c k to making $2.90 per hour. vote for the IBEW or the IRWA. Hueuink ordered both (3) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection banners removed. period that Respondent would lay off half the employees and maybe even half the supervisors if the IRWA came 3. Rejection of the IRWA's request on behalf of into the plant. IRWA employee organizers (4) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection On August 23 Weil, accompanied by IRWA Repre- period that if the employees continued to try to put in a sentatives Frank Woljak, Rick Bugajsky, and Tony n"ew union it would end with employees laid off and sala- Meccia met with Hueuink and Schrader in the latter's ri e s reduced. office. (5) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection The testimony as to what occurred is conflicting. period that if the employees did not vote for the IBEW Weil, corroborated by Bugajsky, testified that they Respondent could move the Company to California or asked Schrader four questions: (1) Whether IRWA non- any place because McGraw Edison was a big company employee representatives could pass out literature in the and had a lot of money. parking lot; (2) whether Halo employees could pass out (6) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection IRWA literature in the parking lot; (3) whether IRWA period that if Respondent lost the use of the IBEW label nonemployee organizers could pass out IRWA literature the Company would have to lay off half the employees, in nonworking areas on nonworking time; and (4) wheth- lay off some of the supervisors, and reduce salaries to er IRWA employee supporters could pass out IRWA lit- $2.90. erature in nonworking areas on nonworking time. (7) Lizardi's promise of benefit to William Velasquez Schrader replied affirmatively to question (2) and nega- and other employees on or about July 20 to the effect tively to all other questions. that Lizardi would go to personnel and try to get the Hueuink and Schrader denied that they had refused employees a raise of 25 cents per hour if they voted for permission for IRWA employee supporters to pass out the IBEW. IRWA literature on nonworking time in nonworking (8) Lizardi's threat to Velasquez that the employees' areas. salaries would be lower if a new union came into Halo. I credit Hueuink and Schrader. -The record is clear (9) Lizardi's threat to Dionisio Perez and other em- t h at I R W A employee supporters in fact passed out ployees during the preelection period that if the employ- IRWA literature in the parking lot and in the cafeteria ees did not vote for the IBEW the employees would lose during the entire preelection period without interference benefits and would have to start with minimum wages. by Respondent. Certainly, at least since the incidenti- (0 L r t to P a employees volving the suspensions of Gonzalez and other IRWA'during the preelection period that the plant could move supporters, Hueuink and Schrader were well aware of to at if the employees did not vote for the ' I do not credit the testimony of James Weil that he saw a handbill for I the IBEW posted inside the glass-enclosed bulletin board on the day of (11) Lizardi's Solicitation of employee grievances the election. Having credited Hueuink that he regularly removed litera- during the preelection period by informing Perez and ture for both Unions from the bulletin boards, it is most unlikely that he o t h er employees that Lizardi could set up a meeting with would permit the posting of campaign literature for the IBEW on a bul- letin board under the complete control of Respondent on the day of the Thomson for them and they Could talk to Thomson election. about whatever they needed, including an increase. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Literature for both Unions was passed along the as- employee rights to distribute campaign literature in non- sembly lines without interference from Respondent. Baez working areas on nonworking time. It makes no sense testified that Santiago passed out IBEW handbills on that they would inconsistently grant such permission to Baez' assembly line with his permission. According to IRWA employee supporters with respect to the parking Baez, his supervisor, Art Kavanaugh, directed that the lot, a nonworking area, while denying permission to steward be permitted to pass out any campaign literature campaign in other nonworking areas or on nonworking that came into the plant without differentiating between time. the IRWA and the IBEW. Literature for both Unions was regularly posted on IV. ANALYSIS AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent's bulletin boards except for a single bulletin board that was glass-enclosed and locked. 7 Hueuink and A. Conduct Violative of Section 8(a)(l) his assistant would tour the plant nightly and remove the I rind that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(\) of the literature of both Unions from the bulletin boards. Re- A in the fo rpt , , . . .... „ „ . ,, ,~~~Act in the following respects: spondent has about 450 "towveyor" carts that move -S T L p of beneit t throughout the plant. During the election campaign signs W Supervisor Tony Lizardi- s promise of benefit to in English and Spanish appeared in chalk on the carts, qSantiago Cabrera in mid-August that if Cabrera kept advocating that employees vote for the IBEW or the empetoy d k e sL c al m awd helped to calm down the other IRWA. Respondent's supervisors would attempt toemployees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money and remove the signs in the evenings. m o r e b e n efi t s in t h e c o n t ex t o f C ab r e r a 's open advocacy Buttons for both Unions were worn by the employees o f the IRWA and Respondent's opposition to that Union. without interference from Respondent's officials. (2 ) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera in mid-August that if A few days before the election banners were hung the IRWA won the election the employees would go from the ceiling advocating, respectively, that employees b a c k to making $2.90 per hour. vote for the IBEW or the IRWA. Hueuink ordered both (3) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection banners removed. period that Respondent would lay off half the employees and maybe even half the supervisors if the IRWA came 3. Rejection of the IRWA's request on behalf of into the plant. IRWA employee organizers (4) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection On August 23 Weil, accompanied by IRWA Repre- period that if the employees continued to try to put in a sentatives Frank Woljak, Rick Bugajsky, and Tony n"ew union it would end with employees laid off and sala- Meccia met with Hueuink and Schrader in the latter's ri e s reduced. office. (5) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection The testimony as to what occurred is conflicting. period that if the employees did not vote for the IBEW Weil, corroborated by Bugajsky, testified that they Respondent could move the Company to California or asked Schrader four questions: (1) Whether IRWA non- any place because McGraw Edison was a big company employee representatives could pass out literature in the and had a lot of money. parking lot; (2) whether Halo employees could pass out (6) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection IRWA literature in the parking lot; (3) whether IRWA period that if Respondent lost the use of the IBEW label nonemployee organizers could pass out IRWA literature the Company would have to lay off half the employees, in nonworking areas on nonworking time; and (4) wheth- lay off some of the supervisors, and reduce salaries to er IRWA employee supporters could pass out IRWA lit- $2.90. erature in nonworking areas on nonworking time. (7) Lizardi's promise of benefit to William Velasquez Schrader replied affirmatively to question (2) and nega- and other employees on or about July 20 to the effect tively to all other questions. that Lizardi would go to personnel and try to get the Hueuink and Schrader denied that they had refused employees a raise of 25 cents per hour if they voted for permission for IRWA employee supporters to pass out the IBEW. IRWA literature on nonworking time in nonworking (8) Lizardi's threat to Velasquez that the employees' areas. salaries would be lower if a new union came into Halo. I credit Hueuink and Schrader. -The record is clear (9) Lizardi's threat to Dionisio Perez and other em- t h at I R W A employee supporters in fact passed out ployees during the preelection period that if the employ- IRWA literature in the parking lot and in the cafeteria ees did not vote for the IBEW the employees would lose during the entire preelection period without interference benefits and would have to start with minimum wages. by Respondent. Certainly, at least since the incidenti- (0 L r t to P a employees volving the suspensions of Gonzalez and other IRWA'during the preelection period that the plant could move supporters, Hueuink and Schrader were well aware of to at if the employees did not vote for the ' I do not credit the testimony of James Weil that he saw a handbill for I the IBEW posted inside the glass-enclosed bulletin board on the day of (11) Lizardi's Solicitation of employee grievances the election. Having credited Hueuink that he regularly removed litera- during the preelection period by informing Perez and ture for both Unions from the bulletin boards, it is most unlikely that he o t h er employees that Lizardi could set up a meeting with would permit the posting of campaign literature for the IBEW on a bul- letin board under the complete control of Respondent on the day of the Thomson for them and they Could talk to Thomson election. about whatever they needed, including an increase. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Literature for both Unions was passed along the as- employee rights to distribute campaign literature in non- sembly lines without interference from Respondent. Baez working areas on nonworking time. It makes no sense testified that Santiago passed out IBEW handbills on that they would inconsistently grant such permission to Baez' assembly line with his permission. According to IRWA employee supporters with respect to the parking Baez, his supervisor, Art Kavanaugh, directed that the lot, a nonworking area, while denying permission to steward be permitted to pass out any campaign literature campaign in other nonworking areas or on nonworking that came into the plant without differentiating between time. the IRWA and the IBEW. Literature for both Unions was regularly posted on IV. ANALYSIS AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent's bulletin boards except for a single bulletin board that was glass-enclosed and locked. 7 Hueuink and A. Conduct Violative of Section 8(a)(l) his assistant would tour the plant nightly and remove the I rind that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(\) of the literature of both Unions from the bulletin boards. Re- A in the fo rpt , , . . .... „ „ . ,, ,~~~Act in the following respects: spondent has about 450 "towveyor" carts that move -S T L p of beneit t throughout the plant. During the election campaign signs W Supervisor Tony Lizardi- s promise of benefit to in English and Spanish appeared in chalk on the carts, qSantiago Cabrera in mid-August that if Cabrera kept advocating that employees vote for the IBEW or the empetoy d k e sL c al m awd helped to calm down the other IRWA. Respondent's supervisors would attempt toemployees Lizardi would get Cabrera more money and remove the signs in the evenings. m o r e b e n efi t s in t h e c o n t ex t o f C ab r e r a 's open advocacy Buttons for both Unions were worn by the employees o f the IRWA and Respondent's opposition to that Union. without interference from Respondent's officials. (2) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera in mid-August that if A few days before the election banners were hung the IRWA won the election the employees would go from the ceiling advocating, respectively, that employees b a c k to making $2.90 per hour. vote for the IBEW or the IRWA. Hueuink ordered both (3) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection banners removed. period that Respondent would lay off half the employees and maybe even half the supervisors if the IRWA came 3. Rejection of the IRWA's request on behalf of into the plant. IRWA employee organizers (4) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection On August 23 Weil, accompanied by IRWA Repre- period that if the employees continued to try to put in a sentatives Frank Woljak, Rick Bugajsky, and Tony n"ew union it would end with employees laid off and sala- Meccia met with Hueuink and Schrader in the latter's ri e s reduced. office. (5) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection The testimony as to what occurred is conflicting. period that if the employees did not vote for the IBEW Weil, corroborated by Bugajsky, testified that they Respondent could move the Company to California or asked Schrader four questions: (1) Whether IRWA non- any place because McGraw Edison was a big company employee representatives could pass out literature in the and had a lot of money. parking lot; (2) whether Halo employees could pass out (6) Lizardi's threat to Cabrera during the preelection IRWA literature in the parking lot; (3) whether IRWA period that if Respondent lost the use of the IBEW label nonemployee organizers could pass out IRWA literature the Company would have to lay off half the employees, in nonworking areas on nonworking time; and (4) wheth- lay off some of the supervisors, and reduce salaries to er IRWA employee supporters could pass out IRWA lit- $2.90. erature in nonworking areas on nonworking time. (7) Lizardi's promise of benefit to William Velasquez Schrader replied affirmatively to question (2) and nega- and other employees on or about July 20 to the effect tively to all other questions. that Lizardi would go to personnel and try to get the Hueuink and Schrader denied that they had refused employees a raise of 25 cents per hour if they voted for permission for IRWA employee supporters to pass out the IBEW. IRWA literature on nonworking time in nonworking (8) Lizardi's threat to Velasquez that the employees' areas. salaries would be lower if a new union came into Halo. I credit Hueuink and Schrader. -The record is clear (9) Lizardi's threat to Dionisio Perez and other em- t h at I R W A employee supporters in fact passed out ployees during the preelection period that if the employ- IRWA literature in the parking lot and in the cafeteria ees did not vote for the IBEW the employees would lose during the entire preelection period without interference benefits and would have to start with minimum wages. by Respondent. Certainly, at least since the incidenti- (0 L r t to P a employees volving the suspensions of Gonzalez and other IRWA'during the preelection period that the plant could move supporters, Hueuink and Schrader were well aware of to at if the employees did not vote for the ' I do not credit the testimony of James Weil that he saw a handbill for I the IBEW posted inside the glass-enclosed bulletin board on the day of (11) Lizardi's Solicitation of employee grievances the election. Having credited Hueuink that he regularly removed litera- during the preelection period by informing Perez and ture for both Unions from the bulletin boards, it is most unlikely that he o t h er employees that Lizardi could set up a meeting with would permit the posting of campaign literature for the IBEW on a bul- letin board under the complete control of Respondent on the day of the Thomson for them and they Could talk to Thomson election. about whatever they needed, including an increase. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 715 (12) Lizardi's threat to Pedro Fortis in June that if the B. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(l) IBEW lost the election the Company would move the IBEW lost the election the Company would move the I find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(aXl) factory to another place. in the following respects: (13) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis during the n the following respects preelection period that if the employees supported the (I) Preident Thomon prediction to employee Con- IBEW and the IBEW won the election Lizardi would cePcion Ocampo and other employees in the early part of August that the label used by the Company was rec- take the employees out to eat and they could drink what of Agu that thelabel ued b e Company was rec- they wanted. ognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- (14) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection stl t ad in re in th a t lab l they wo u l d re fuse to wo period that if the IRWA won the ection the Company stall it and in refusing to install the products Halo would period that if the IRWA won the election the Company have less orders, less sales, and less work; President would pay the employees $2.90 per hour instead of the h av e les s o r d ers, l ess sa les, a d les s w o rk; P resid en t would pay wthe employees 2.90 per hour instead of the Thomson's similar statements to Jesus Gonzalez in their $5.17 they were making and the employees would not meetings on June 18 and 25 have any kind of benefits. meetings on June 18 and 25. a (15) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis that if Li- I have given long and serious consideration to the zardi could legally find out who voted in favor of the above issue, recognzng, as I do, the enormous advan- IBEW Lizardi would try to get the employees a 25-cent- tage to the IBEW and the serious detriment to the ,per-hour, i^^ncrease. *' " IRWA if Respondent may lawfully inform its employees per-hour increase. immediately prior to a Board election that a vote for the (16) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection mmedately prior toa Board ection that a vote for the period that if the IBEW lost the election the Company IRWA rather than the IBEW is, in effect, a vote to lose would not be able to use the label and therefore they jobs, possibly their own. But the question presented to would move the factory. me in this case is not the impact on the employees of Re- would' move. the, factory spondent's repeated warnings that the loss of the IBEW (17) Lizardi's threat to Francisco Lopez and other em- ndens reeaed warn t the loss of the I label would have an adverse effect on the Company and ployees in mid-August to stay with the Union the em- lel ol e an erse eect on te ompy ployees had because voting for a new union was like its employees. The legality of an employer's preelection ployees had because voting for a new union was like throwing away salaries and no benefits; that if the IRWA tatements rests rather onthe truth or fals of such won the election that the Company would have to start statements and the power of the employer to influence or won the election that the Company would have to start from the bottom on the Federal rates and from new affect the consequences it predicts. The Supreme Court from the bottom on the Federal rates and from new benefits. has held that an employer is free to communicate to its ne Lizardi's promise of benefit to Lopez ad othr employees his views about unionism and particular (18) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Lopez and other unions. He may predict the precise effect unionism will employes in early August that they could have a better have on its company provided its prediction is based on job if they would "stick with us" in the context of Re- o ve fac as o demonstrably probable conse- objective fact "as to demonstrably probable conse- spondent's active campaign on behalf of the IBEW. quences beyond his control." N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing (19) Supervisor Castor Colon's threat to Pedro Fortis Co. Inc. 395 U.S. 575 618 (1969). The prediction falls in August that if the IRWA won the election there was a int the category of an unlawful threat if there is any possibility that the factory would move to another loca- suggestion or implication that the Employer "may or tion.(0CootistratoWlimVlsuz ndon. may not take action solely on his own initiative for rea- (20) Colon's threat to William Velasquez and other employees in early August that if the IRWA won the 'Falling into the same category of statements not violative of Sec. election salaries would be lowered and the Company 8(aXl) are statements made by Lizardi to Velasquez and Perez and ad- would be obliged to move the plant to another location. mittedly made by Lizardi to employees generally during the preelection \(21) Supervisor , Gpomer Baez' threat on or about period when he explained to them the importance of the IBEW label in selling the Company's products and retaining jobs for the employees. August 22 to an unidentified employee, overheard by Also included is the explanation of Supervisor Vince Monaco to Luz Ve- Jesus Gonzalez, that if the IRWA won the election the lasquez in July of a handbill relating to the importance of the IBEW label Company would call the Immigration Service and a lot to the Company and its employees; the prediction of Supervisor Daniel Hueuink to Dionisio Perez and other employees in late July or early of people who had no legal rights would get into trou- August with respect to the loss of the IBEW label, the loss in sales and ble. the loss in employment; the prediction of Traffic Manager Charles Ora- (22) Baez' threat to Gonzalez on the same occasion, butt in mid-August made to Lopez, Fortis, and other employees that if when Gonzalez objected to Baez' comment, that Gonza- the IBEW label were not on the product it could be a problem if the electricians did not install it, that the loss of the IBEW label would mean lez had better keep going, that he was "hot," thereby im- a loss of sales for the Company, a loss of jobs because of the loss of busi- plying that Gonzalez was risking discharge or other ad- ness, and there would be layoffs throughout the Company; Supervisors verse action by Respondent because of Gonzalez' con- Bez' and Saez' prediction to Angela Sanchez about 2 or 3 weeks before the election that electricians would not install the Company's products if cern on behalf of the employee and the IRWA. they did not bear the IBEW label with a result that the merchandise (23) Baez' threat to Angela Sanchez 2 or 3 weeks would be sent back and employees would be laid off; Director of Distri- before the election that Baez knew Sanchez was for the bution Joe Jeffress' explanation to Lopez during the preelection period new Union (IRWA) and she was running the risk of that the tradesmen would not install the Company's products if they did not have the IBEW label. being fired; that if the IBEW won the election Sanchez Not included, however, as found above, are statements that the loss of would be the first one to be fired. the IBEW label would result in half the employees or half the supervi- The unfair labor practices found above are unfair labor sor being laid off. While the loss of business and the loss of jobs, for reasons stated below, was a probable consequence beyond the Employ- practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of ers control resulting from the loss of the IBEW label, the record will not the Act. support such a finding with respect to a specific number of jobs. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 715 (12) Lizardi's threat to Pedro Fortis in June that if the B. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(l) IBEW lost the election t h e C o m p a n y w o u l d m o v e t h e I f nd t h at Rponden d id n o t v io l at e Section 8 ) factory to another place. ~~~in the following respects: (13) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis during the 'n Presint Toson'sp preelection period that if the employees supported the pcion Thomsnd predlytin to early part IBEW and the IBEW won the election Lizardi would ^P 0 ceco ^ m p o a d o h e r em p l o y w l ainteer y par IBEWand he IEW wn th eletionLizadi wuld of August that the label used by the Company was rec- take the employees out to eat and they could drink what o gnized sb t h e Elc ta l Workers Unio an , t e th wanted~~~~~~~~~ognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the they wanted. ~~~~~~~~~product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- (14) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection stl i d n orfuin t oi t a l t h e p o uct sH owol period that if the IRWA won the election the Company s a 1 l n d " fungt salteprucsaowud period thatyif the employes $n ther e iour inthead Com h av e les s o r d er s, l es s sales, and les s w o r k ; Pr esid en t would pay the employees w2.90 per hour instead of the Thomson's similar statements to Jesus Gonzalez in their $5.17 they were makting and the employees would not metnsoJue1ad251 have any kind of benefits, meetings on June 18 and 25.' , (15) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis that if Li- I h av e given l o n g a nd s eri o u s consideration to the zardi could legally find out who voted in favor of theL ab o v e is su e , r e c o g n izin g , as I d o, t h e en o r m o us ad v an - IBEW Lizardi would try to get the employees a 25cent- tage to th e I B E W an d t h e serious detriment to the IBE L.izardi would try to get the employees' a 25-cent- IRWA if Respondent may lawfully inform its employees ucr-nour increase'. .- , _ - per-hour increase. ~~~~~~immediately prior to a Board election that a vote for the (16) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection l m e l t l n T t a T" 1 1 "* 8 o e ^ (16)Lizrdis treatto orts dringtheprelecion IRWA rather than the IBEW is, in effect, a vote to lose period that if the IBEW lost the election the Company jbosl th e n th e que stion prset e t o would not be able to use the label and therefore they j b s, posiby t h el r own. But the question presented to would move the factory.u m e in th is c ase is no t th e im pa c t o n th e employees of Re- would„ move the factory spondent's repeated warnings that the loss of the IBEW (17) Lizardi's threat to Francisco Lopez and other em- l w h a a e o t C ' ' . .,. . . . ... * ,, . .label would have an adverse effect on the Company and ployees in mid-August to stay with the Union the em- i e T l .i o a e prelcto * ' ... " .. ' . ,., ~~~~~~~its employees. The legality of an employer s preelection ployees had because voting for a new union was like s rests rh r i o such throwing away salaries and no benefits; that if the IRWA st a t em e n ts and t h er o ft h e empl o r to i f l u ce won te elctionthatthe ompan woud hav to tart ements and the power of the employer to influence or wont elcion that tyoaffect the consequences it predicts. The Supreme Court from the bottom on the Federal rates and from new ,. .. i.etth oseun i ' predcs *»..-.em C from the bhas held that an employer is free to communicate to its be ne rits. T *-** r - r . j employees his views about unionism and particular (18) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Lopez and other unions. He may predict the precise effect unionism will employes in early August that they could have a better have on its company provided its prediction is based on job if they would "stick with us" in the context of Re- o f " demonstrably probable conse- spondent's active campaign on behalf of the IBEW.qn b h cn 1." N R v G P (19) Supervisor Castor Colon's threat to Pedro Fortis Co., Inc. 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). The prediction falls in August that if the IRWA won the election there was a into the category of an unlawful threat if there is any possibility that the factory would move to another loca- suggestion or implication that the Employer "may or tio n . may not take action solely on his own initiative for rea- (20) Colon's threat to William Velasquez and other employees in early August that if the IRWA won the .Faling into the same category of statements not violative of Sec. election salaries would be lowered and the Company 8(aXl) are statements made by Lizardi to Velasquez and Perez and ad- would be Obliged to move the plant to another location,. mittedly made by Lizardi to employees generally during the preelection /ill <;,..,„,or ,;,,^- <-^»me n»^z' *hreat il > o„ a t t period when he explained to them the importance of the IBEW label in (21) Supervisor Goiner Baez' threat on or about selling the Company's products and retaining jobs for the employees. August 22 to an unidentified employee, overheard by Also included is the explanation of Supervisor Vince Monaco to Luz Ve- Jesus Gonzalez, that if the IRWA won the election the lasquez in July or a handbill relating to the importance of the IBEW label Company would call the Immigration Service and a lot to the Company and its employees; the prediction of Supervisor Daniel Hueuink to Dionisio Perez and other employees in late July or early Of people Who had no legal rights would get into trou- August with respect to the loss of the IBEW label, the loss in sales and ble. the loss in employment; the prediction of Traffic Manager Charles Ora- (22) Baez' threat to Gonzalez on the same occasion, bu tt in mid-August made to Lopez, Fotis, and other employees that if when Gonzalez objected to Baez' comment, that Gonza- the IBEW label were not on the product it could be a problem if the electricians did not install it, that the loss of the IBEW label would mean lez had better keep going, that he was "hot," thereby im- a loss of sales for the Company, a loss of jobs because of the loss of busi- plying that Gonzalez was risking discharge or other ad- ness, and there would be layoffs throughout the Company; Supervisors verse action by Respondent because of Gonzalez' con- Baez' and Saez' prediction to Angela Sanchez about 2 or 3 weeks before th e election that electricians would not install the Company's products if cern on behalf of the employee and the IRWA. they did not bar the IBEW label with a result that the merchandise (23) Baez' threat to Angela Sanchez 2 or 3 weeks would be sent back and employees would be laid off; Director of Distri- before the election that Baez knew Sanchez was for the bu tion Jo e Jeffress' explanation to Lopez during the preelection period new Union (IRWA) and she was running the risk of that the tradesmen would not install the Company's products if they did being fired; that if the IBEW won the election Sanchez Not included, however, as round above, are statements that the loss of would be the first one to be fired. the IBEW label would result in half the employees or half the supervi- The unfair labor practices found above are unfair labor so rs bei"n laid of . While t he loss of business and the loss of j obs, for reasons stated below, was a probable consequence beyond the Employ- practices within the meaning Of Section 2(6) and (7) of es control resulting from the loss of the IBEW label, the record will not the Act. support such a finding with respect to a specific number of jobs. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 715 (12) Lizardi's threat to Pedro Fortis in June that if the B. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(l) IBEW lost the election t h e C o m p a n y w o u l d m o v e t h e I f nd t h at Rponen d id n o t v io l at e Section 8 ) factory to another place. ~~~in the following respects: (13) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis during the 'n Presint Toson'sp preelection period that if the employees supported the pcion Thomsnd pr e stin to early part IBEW and the IBEW won the election Lizardi would ^P 0 ceco ^ m p o a d o h e r em p l o y w l ainteer y par IBEWand he IEW wn th eletionLizadi wuld of August that the label used by the Company was rec- take the employees out to eat and they could drink what o g by t h e lel Worke Uonpand if te th wanted~~~~~~~~~ognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the they wanted. ~~~~~~~~~product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- (14) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection stl i d n orfuin t oi t a l t h e p o uct sH owol period that if the IRWA won the election the Company s a 1 l n d " fungt salteprucsaowud period thatyif the employes $n ther e iour inthead Com h av e les s o r d er s, l es s sales, and les s w o r k ; Pr esid en t would pay the employees w2.90 per hour instead of the Thomson's similar statements to Jesus Gonzalez in their $5.17 they were makting and the employees would not metnsoJue1ad251 have any kind of benefits, meetings on June 18 and 25.' , (15) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis that if Li- I h av e given l o n g a nd s eri o u s consideration to the zardi could legally find out who voted in favor of theL ab o v e is su e , r e c o g n izin g , as I d o, t h e en o r m o us ad v an - IBEW Lizardi would try to get the employees a 25cent- tage to th e I B E W an d t h e serious detriment to the IBE L.izardi would try to get the employees' a 25-cent- IRWA if Respondent may lawfully inform its employees ucr-nour increase'. .- , _ - per-hour increase. ~~~~~~immediately prior to a Board election that a vote for the (16) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection l m e l t l n T t a T" 1 1 "* 8 o e ^ (16)Lizrdis treatto orts dringtheprelecion IRWA rather than the IBEW is, in effect, a vote to lose period that if the IBEW lost the election the Company jbosl th e n th e que stion prset e t o would not be able to use the label and therefore they j b s, posiby t h el r own. But the question presented to would move the factory.u m e in th is c ase is no t th e im pa c t o n th e employees of Re- would„ move the factory spondent's repeated warnings that the loss of the IBEW (17) Lizardi's threat to Francisco Lopez and other em- l w h a a e o t C ' ' . .,. . . . ... * ,, . .label would have an adverse effect on the Company and ployees in mid-August to stay with the Union the em- i e T l .i o a e prelcto * ' ... " .. ' . ,., ~~~~~~~its employees. The legality of an employer s preelection ployees had because voting for a new union was like s rests rh r i o such throwing away salaries and no benefits; that if the IRWA st a t em e n ts and t h er o ft h e empl o r to i f l u ce won te elctionthatthe ompan woud hav to tart ements and the power of the employer to influence or wont elcion that tyoaffect the consequences it predicts. The Supreme Court from the bottom on the Federal rates and from new ,. .. i.etth oseun i ' predcs *»..-.em C from the bhas held that an employer is free to communicate to its be ne rits. T *-** r - r . j employees his views about unionism and particular (18) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Lopez and other unions. He may predict the precise effect unionism will employes in early August that they could have a better have on its company provided its prediction is based on job if they would "stick with us" in the context of Re- o f " demonstrably probable conse- spondent's active campaign on behalf of the IBEW.qn b h cn 1." N R v G P (19) Supervisor Castor Colon's threat to Pedro Fortis Co., Inc. 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). The prediction falls in August that if the IRWA won the election there was a into the category of an unlawful threat if there is any possibility that the factory would move to another loca- suggestion or implication that the Employer "may or tio n . may not take action solely on his own initiative for rea- (20) Colon's threat to William Velasquez and other employees in early August that if the IRWA won the .Faling into the same category of statements not violative of Sec. election salaries would be lowered and the Company 8(aXl) are statements made by Lizardi to Velasquez and Perez and ad- would be Obliged to move the plant to another location,. mittedly made by Lizardi to employees generally during the preelection /ill <;,..,„,or ,;,,^- <-^»me n»^z' *hreat il > o„ a t t period when he explained to them the importance of the IBEW label in (21) Supervisor Goiner Baez' threat on or about selling the Company's products and retaining jobs for the employees. August 22 to an unidentified employee, overheard by Also included is the explanation of Supervisor Vince Monaco to Luz Ve- Jesus Gonzalez, that if the IRWA won the election the lasquez in July or a handbill relating to the importance of the IBEW label Company would call the Immigration Service and a lot to the Company and its employees; the prediction of Supervisor Daniel Hueuink to Dionisio Perez and other employees in late July or early Of people Who had no legal rights would get into trou- August with respect to the loss of the IBEW label, the loss in sales and ble. the loss in employment; the prediction of Traffic Manager Charles Ora- (22) Baez' threat to Gonzalez on the same occasion, butt in mid-August made to Lopez, Fotis, and other employees that if when Gonzalez objected to Baez' comment, that Gonza- the IBEW label were not on the product it could be a problem if the electricians did not install it, that the loss of the IBEW label would mean lez had better keep going, that he was "hot," thereby im- a loss of sales for the Company, a loss of jobs because of the loss of busi- plying that Gonzalez was risking discharge or other ad- ness, and there would be layoffs throughout the Company; Supervisors verse action by Respondent because of Gonzalez' con- Baez' and Saez' prediction to Angela Sanchez about 2 or 3 weeks before the election that electricians would not install the Company's products if cern on behalf of the employee and the IRWA. they did not bar the IBEW label with a result that the merchandise (23) Baez' threat to Angela Sanchez 2 or 3 weeks would be sent back and employees would be laid off; Director of Distri- before the election that Baez knew Sanchez was for the bution Joe Jeffress' explanation to Lopez during the preelection period new Union (IRWA) and she was running the risk of that the tradesmen would not install the Company's products if they did being fired; that if the IBEW won the election Sanchez Not included, however, as round above, are statements that the loss of would be the first one to be fired. the IBEW label would result in half the employees or half the supervi- The unfair labor practices found above are unfair labor so rs bei"n laid of . While t he loss of business and the loss of j obs, for reasons stated below, was a probable consequence beyond the Employ- practices within the meaning Of Section 2(6) and (7) of es control resulting from the loss of the IBEW label, the record will not the Act. support such a finding with respect to a specific number of jobs. HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 715 (12) Lizardi's threat to Pedro Fortis in June that if the B. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(l) IBEW lost the election t h e C o m p a n y w o u l d m o v e t h e I f nd t h at Rponen d id n o t v io l at e Section 8 ) factory to another place. ~~~in the following respects: (13) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis during the 'n Presint Toson'sp preelection period that if the employees supported the pcion Thomsnd pr e stin to early part IBEW and the IBEW won the election Lizardi would ^P 0 ceco ^ m p o a d o h e r em p l o y w l ainteer y par IBEWand he IEW wn th eletionLizadi wuld of August that the label used by the Company was rec- take the employees out to eat and they could drink what o g by t h e lel Worke Uonpand if te th wanted~~~~~~~~~ognized by the Electrical Workers Union and if the they wanted. ~~~~~~~~~product did not bear that label they would refuse to in- (14) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection stl i d n orfuin t oi t a l t h e p o uct sH owol period that if the IRWA won the election the Company s a 1 l n d " fungt salteprucsaowud period thatyif the employes $n ther e iour inthead Com h av e les s o r d er s, l es s sales, and les s w o r k ; Pr esid en t would pay the employees w2.90 per hour instead of the Thomson's similar statements to Jesus Gonzalez in their $5.17 they were makting and the employees would not metnsoJue1ad251 have any kind of benefits, meetings on June 18 and 25.' , (15) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Fortis that if Li- I h av e given l o n g a nd s eri o u s consideration to the zardi could legally find out who voted in favor of theL ab o v e is su e , r e c o g n izin g , as I d o, t h e en o r m o us ad v an - IBEW Lizardi would try to get the employees a 25cent- tage to th e I B E W an d t h e serious detriment to the IBE L.izardi would try to get the employees' a 25-cent- IRWA if Respondent may lawfully inform its employees ucr-nour increase'. .- , _ - per-hour increase. ~~~~~~immediately prior to a Board election that a vote for the (16) Lizardi's threat to Fortis during the preelection l m e l t l n T t a T" 1 1 "* 8 o e ^ (16)Lizrdis treatto orts dringtheprelecion IRWA rather than the IBEW is, in effect, a vote to lose period that if the IBEW lost the election the Company jbosl th e n th e que stion prset e t o would not be able to use the label and therefore they j b s, posiby t h el r own. But the question presented to would move the factory.u m e in th is c ase is no t th e im pa c t o n th e employees of Re- would„ move the factory spondent's repeated warnings that the loss of the IBEW (17) Lizardi's threat to Francisco Lopez and other em- l w h a a e o t C ' ' . .,. . . . ... * ,, . .label would have an adverse effect on the Company and ployees in mid-August to stay with the Union the em- i e T l .i o a e prelcto * ' ... " .. ' . ,., ~~~~~~~its employees. The legality of an employer s preelection ployees had because voting for a new union was like s rests rh r i o such throwing away salaries and no benefits; that if the IRWA st a t em e n ts and t h er o ft h e empl o r to i f l u ce won te elctionthatthe ompan woud hav to tart ements and the power of the employer to influence or wont elcion that tyoaffect the consequences it predicts. The Supreme Court from the bottom on the Federal rates and from new ,. .. i.etth oseun i ' predcs *»..-.em C from the bhas held that an employer is free to communicate to its be ne rits. T *-** r - r . j employees his views about unionism and particular (18) Lizardi's promise of benefit to Lopez and other unions. He may predict the precise effect unionism will employes in early August that they could have a better have on its company provided its prediction is based on job if they would "stick with us" in the context of Re- o f " demonstrably probable conse- spondent's active campaign on behalf of the IBEW.qn b h cn 1." N R v G P (19) Supervisor Castor Colon's threat to Pedro Fortis Co., Inc. 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). The prediction falls in August that if the IRWA won the election there was a into the category of an unlawful threat if there is any possibility that the factory would move to another loca- suggestion or implication that the Employer "may or tio n . may not take action solely on his own initiative for rea- (20) Colon's threat to William Velasquez and other employees in early August that if the IRWA won the .Faling into the same category of statements not violative of Sec. election salaries would be lowered and the Company 8(aXl) are statements made by Lizardi to Velasquez and Perez and ad- would be Obliged to move the plant to another location,. mittedly made by Lizardi to employees generally during the preelection /ill <;,..,„,or ,;,,^- <-^»me n»^z' *hreat il > o„ a t t period when he explained to them the importance of the IBEW label in (21) Supervisor Goiner Baez' threat on or about selling the Company's products and retaining jobs for the employees. August 22 to an unidentified employee, overheard by Also included is the explanation of Supervisor Vince Monaco to Luz Ve- Jesus Gonzalez, that if the IRWA won the election the lasquez in July or a handbill relating to the importance of the IBEW label Company would call the Immigration Service and a lot to the Company and its employees; the prediction of Supervisor Daniel Hueuink to Dionisio Perez and other employees in late July or early Of people Who had no legal rights would get into trou- August with respect to the loss of the IBEW label, the loss in sales and ble. the loss in employment; the prediction of Traffic Manager Charles Ora- (22) Baez' threat to Gonzalez on the same occasion, butt in mid-August made to Lopez, Fotis, and other employees that if when Gonzalez objected to Baez' comment, that Gonza- the IBEW label were not on the product it could be a problem if the electricians did not install it, that the loss of the IBEW label would mean lez had better keep going, that he was "hot," thereby im- a loss of sales for the Company, a loss of jobs because of the loss of busi- plying that Gonzalez was risking discharge or other ad- ness, and there would be layoffs throughout the Company; Supervisors verse action by Respondent because of Gonzalez' con- Baez' and Saez' prediction to Angela Sanchez about 2 or 3 weeks before the election that electricians would not install the Company's products if cern on behalf of the employee and the IRWA. they did not bar the IBEW label with a result that the merchandise (23) Baez' threat to Angela Sanchez 2 or 3 weeks would be sent back and employees would be laid off; Director of Distri- before the election that Baez knew Sanchez was for the bution Joe Jeffress' explanation to Lopez during the preelection period new Union (IRWA) and she was running the risk of that the tradesmen would not install the Company's products if they did being fired; that if the IBEW won the election Sanchez Not included, however, as round above, are statements that the loss of would be the first one to be fired. the IBEW label would result in half the employees or half the supervi- The unfair labor practices found above are unfair labor so rs bei"n laid of . While t he loss of business and the loss of j obs, for reasons stated below, was a probable consequence beyond the Employ- practices within the meaning Of Section 2(6) and (7) of es control resulting from the loss of the IBEW label, the record will not the Act. support such a finding with respect to a specific number of jobs. 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sons unrelated to economic necessities and known only While the General Counsel challenges the conclusions to him." Ibid. to be drawn from the above testimony, he introduced no In the instant case Respondent introduced substantial evidence to refute the accuracy of such testimony. No evidence in support of its position that the right to stamp witness for the General Counsel testified that journey- its products with the IBEW label was an important, if men electricians on commercial jobsites would be willing not the most important, factor in the rise of Halo from a to install electrical fixtures that did not bear the IBEW small three-man facility to the largest manufacturer in label. No evidence was introduced to show that a single the world of incandescent recessed lighting. major competitor of Respondent used a label other than Thomson testified that the Company's first major sale that of the IBEW. In these circumstances the General of incandescent lighting fixtures was made in 1956 for Counsel's contention that Respondent's expressed con- the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. On that cern over the possible loss of the IBEW label amounts to occasion the electricans on the jobsite were unwilling to "unfounded speculation" is, to say the least, without install the lamps because they did not bear the IBEW merit. label. As a result of that experience, the Company sought As indicated above, I have reached my conclusion on out the IBEW, the employees of the Company became this issue after serious consideration and on the basis of members of that Union, and a contractual relationship the evidence presented. Nevertheless, I must say that the between the IBEW and Respondent has continued from General Counsel's bifurcation of the evidence by failing that time until August 31. to allege that Respondent's letters and memos to its em- Respondent's major competitors all have the use of the ployees, signed by Thomson himself and Thomson's IBEW label. These include: Lightolier in Jersey City, speech of August 23, specifically referring to the loss of New Jersey; Progress Lighting in Philadephia, Pennsyl- business and the loss of jobs as a result of the loss of the vania; Gotham in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio; IBEW label are unlawful, has given me pause. Despite Omega in Long Island, New York; and Thomas Indus- the vigor of the General Counsel's argument in his brief, tries in Kentucky. tries ine Kentucky. of Repnetssls flgtn i- his failure to include in the complaint conduct in written Ninety percent of Respondent's sales of lighting fix- form otherwise alleged to be unlawful in spoken form form otherwise alleged to be unlawful in spoken form tures are made in the United States. Ninety-five percent raises considerable doubt as to his own conviction in this raises considerable doubt as to his own conviction in this of Respondent's products are sold to distributors or con- matter. tractors for use in large commercial construction projects e er r r of Distr n such as auditoriums, commercial offices, and shopping fs ) T h e conversation of Drector of Dtstrrbuthon Joe centers. Jeffress with Santiago Cabrera in the former's office centers. On occasion when Respondent's products were sent to during the last 2 weeks of July, the testimony of Cabrera the field without the IBEW label, company officials as to this conversation having been discredited. were reminded that the label was missing. On those oc- (3) Surveillance of union activity: The evidence ad- casions Respondent was required either to send IBEW duced by the General Counsel is that supervisors of Re- labels to the field for those products or to confirm that spondent were present on Respondent's parking lot on Respondent was still affiliated with the IBEW. June 5, 6, 7, and 8 at times when nonemployee and em- Patrick Quinn, eastern regional sales manager for Re- ployee organizers for the IRWA were engaged in solicit- spondent, testified that in sales presentations he would let ing authorization cards from Respondent's employees. the customer know at the outset that the Company was No evidence was adduced that Respondent's supervisors an IBEW Company. During his prior experience as a noted the names of employees signing cards for the journeyman electrician on a construction site it was IRWA or that pictures of card signing activity were Quinn's custom and that of other electricians to check to taken. The evidence is that notes were not taken. Re- see that the electrical product bore the IBEW label, spondent was informed that organizational activity commonly referred to as the "bug." During Quinn's ex- would occur on its parking lot on June 5 and had reason perience in lighting installations Quinn had never come to believe that there was a possibility of violence. In fact, across a union label on an electrical product other than an altercation did occur on one of the above dates re- the IBEW label. quiring the presence of a police officer. Respondent has a Joseph Duffy, business representative of the IBEW, right to police anticipated violence on its property and a testified that in his experience as a journeyman electri- right to eject nonemployee union organizers from its cian on a construction site it was normal for the union parking lot. N.LR.B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, steward to check whether the fixtures bore the label of a 351 U.S. 105 (1965). In these circumstances the mere union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. If the fixtures did presence of Respondent's supervisors on its parking lot not show such a label the steward on the job would call on June 5, 6, 7, and 8 did not constitute unlawful surveil- the IBEW office to determine whether the manufacturer lance of union activity. was a union company. Once that was established the (4) Cancellation of the company picnic: The evidence company would be notified to send their labels to the does not establish that Respondent's purpose in canceling jobsite to be affixed to the fixtures. the picnic scheduled for July or its effect was to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees unlawfully in the Sec. 8(bX4) of the Act forbids union activity of a secondary nature exercise of their Section 7 rights. For 2 months, includ- with respect to the refusal of employees to handle nonunion products. As ing the month of June when the IRWA pursued its orga- a union agent, Duffy's testimony was somewhat circumspect in response to questions relating to the practice of IBEW electricians in refusing to nizational drive, Respondent made plans for an elaborate install products that did not bear an acceptable union label. picnic to be enjoyed by the entire complement of plant not the most important, factor in the rise of Halo from a to install ele-c---------x-u-----------------b--- -h------ 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sons unrelated to economic necessities and known only While the General Counsel challenges the conclusions to him." Ibid. to be drawn from the above testimony, he introduced no In the instant case Respondent introduced substantial evidence to refute the accuracy of such testimony. No evidence in support of its position that the right to stamp witness for the General Counsel testified that journey- its products with the IBEW label was an important, if men electricians on commercial jobsites would be willing not the most important, factor in the rise of Halo from a to install electrical fixtures that did not bear the IBEW small three-man facility to the largest manufacturer in label. No evidence was introduced to show that a single the world of incandescent recessed lighting. major competitor of Respondent used a label other than Thomson testified that the Company's first major sale that of the IBEW. In these circumstances the General of incandescent lighting fixtures was made in 1956 for Counsel's contention that Respondent's expressed con- the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. On that cem over the possible loss of the IBEW label amounts to occasion the electricans on the jobsite were unwilling to "unfounded speculation" is, to say the least, without install the lamps because they did not bear the IBEW merit. label. As a result of that experience, the Company sought As indicated above, I have reached my conclusion on out the IBEW, the employees of the Company became this issue after serious consideration and on the basis of members of that Union, and a contractual relationship the evidence presented. Nevertheless, I must say that the between the IBEW and Respondent has continued from General Counsel's bifurcation of the evidence by failing that time until August 31. to allege that Respondent's letters and memos to its em- Respondent's major competitors all have the use of the ployees, signed by Thomson himself and Thomson's IBEW label. These include: Lightolier in Jersey City, speech of August 23, specifically referring to the loss of New Jersey; Progress Lighting in Philadephia, Pennsyl- business and the loss of jobs as a result of the loss of the vania; Gotham in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio; IBEW label are unlawful, has given me pause. Despite Omega in Long Island, New York; and Thomas Indus- the vigor of the General Counsel's argument in his brief, tries in Kentucky. ....... ,. his failure to include in the complaint conduct in written Ninety percent of Respondent's sales of lighting fix- o otherwise alleged to be unlawful in spoken form tures are made in the United States. Ninety-five percent raises considerable doubt as to his own conviction in this of Respondent's products are sold to distributors or con- matter. tractors for use in large commercial construction projects 2T e c s of rector of Dis Joe such as auditoriums, commercial offices, and shopping J w) T h e conversation of Director of Distribution Joe centers.Jeffress with Santiago Cabrera in the formers office On occasion when Respondent's products were sent to during the last 2 weeks of July, the testimony of Cabrera the field without the IBEW label, company officials as to this conversation having been discredited. were reminded that the label was missing. On those oc- (3) Surveillance of union activity: The evidence ad- casions Respondent was required either to send IBEW duced by the General Counsel is that supervisors of Re- labels to the field for those products or to confirm that spondent were present on Respondent's parking lot on Respondent was still affiliated with the IBEW. June 5, 6, 7, and 8 at times when nonemployee and em- Patrick Quinn, eastern regional sales manager for Re- ployee organizers for the IRWA were engaged in solicit- spondent, testified that in sales presentations he would let ing authorization cards from Respondent's employees. the customer know at the outset that the Company was No evidence was adduced that Respondent's supervisors an IBEW Company. During his prior experience as a noted the names of employees signing cards for the journeyman electrician on a construction site it was IRWA or that pictures of card signing activity were Quinn's custom and that of other electricians to check to taken. The evidence is that notes were not taken. Re- see that the electrical product bore the IBEW label, spondent was informed that organizational activity commonly referred to as the "bug." During Quinn's ex- would occur on its parking lot on June 5 and had reason perience in lighting installations Quinn had never come to believe that there was a possibility of violence. In fact, across a union label on an electrical product other than an altercation did occur on one of the above dates re- the IBEW label. quiring the presence of a police officer. Respondent has a Joseph Duffy, business representative of the IBEW, right to police anticipated violence on its property and a testified that in his experience as a journeyman electri- right to eject nonemployee union organizers from its cian on a construction site it was normal for the union parking lot. N.LR.B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, steward to check whether the fixtures bore the label of a 351 U.S. 105 (1965). In these circumstances the mere union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. If the fixtures did presence of Respondent's supervisors on its parking lot not show such a label the steward on the job would call on June 5, 6, 7, and 8 did not constitute unlawful surveil- the IBEW office to determine whether the manufacturer lance of union activity. was a union company. Once that was established the (4) Cancellation of the company picnic: The evidence company would be notified to send their labels to the does not establish that Respondent's purpose in canceling jobsite to be affixed to the fixtures." the picnic scheduled for July or its effect was to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees unlawfully in the *Sec. 8(bX4) of the Act forbids union activity of a secondary nature exercise of their Section 7 rights. For 2 months, includ- with respect to the refusal of employees to handle nonunion products. As ing the month of June when the IRWA pursued its orga- a union agent, Duffy's testimony was somewhat circumspect in response . . to questions relating to the practice of IBEW electricians in refusing to nizational drive, Respondent made plans for an elaborate install products that did not bear an acceptable union label. picnic to be enjoyed by the entire complement of plant 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sons unrelated to economic necessities and known only While the General Counsel challenges the conclusions to him." Ibid. to be drawn from the above testimony, he introduced no In the instant case Respondent introduced substantial evidence to refute the accuracy of such testimony. No evidence in support of its position that the right to stamp witness for the General Counsel testified that journey- its products with the IBEW label was an important, if men electricians on commercial jobsites would be willing not the most important, factor in the rise of Halo from a to install electrical fixtures that did not bear the IBEW small three-man facility to the largest manufacturer in label. No evidence was introduced to show that a single the world of incandescent recessed lighting. major competitor of Respondent used a label other than Thomson testified that the Company's first major sale that of the IBEW. In these circumstances the General of incandescent lighting fixtures was made in 1956 for Counsel's contention that Respondent's expressed con- the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. On that cem over the possible loss of the IBEW label amounts to occasion the electricans on the jobsite were unwilling to "unfounded speculation" is, to say the least, without install the lamps because they did not bear the IBEW merit. label. As a result of that experience, the Company sought As indicated above, I have reached my conclusion on out the IBEW, the employees of the Company became this issue after serious consideration and on the basis of members of that Union, and a contractual relationship the evidence presented. Nevertheless, I must say that the between the IBEW and Respondent has continued from General Counsel's bifurcation of the evidence by failing that time until August 31. to allege that Respondent's letters and memos to its em- Respondent's major competitors all have the use of the ployees, signed by Thomson himself and Thomson's IBEW label. These include: Lightolier in Jersey City, speech of August 23, specifically referring to the loss of New Jersey; Progress Lighting in Philadephia, Pennsyl- business and the loss of jobs as a result of the loss of the vania; Gotham in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio; IBEW label are unlawful, has given me pause. Despite Omega in Long Island, New York; and Thomas Indus- the vigor of the General Counsel's argument in his brief, tries in Kentucky. ....... ,. his failure to include in the complaint conduct in written Ninety percent of Respondent's sales of lighting fix- o otherwise alleged to be unlawful in spoken form tures are made in the United States. Ninety-five percent raises considerable doubt as to his own conviction in this of Respondent's products are sold to distributors or con- matter. tractors for use in large commercial construction projects 2T e c s of rector of Dis Joe such as auditoriums, commercial offices, and shopping J w) T h e conversation of Director of Distribution Joe centers.Jeffress with Santiago Cabrera in the formers office On occasion when Respondent's products were sent to during the last 2 weeks of July, the testimony of Cabrera the field without the IBEW label, company officials as to this conversation having been discredited. were reminded that the label was missing. On those oc- (3) Surveillance of union activity: The evidence ad- casions Respondent was required either to send IBEW duced by the General Counsel is that supervisors of Re- labels to the field for those products or to confirm that spondent were present on Respondent's parking lot on Respondent was still affiliated with the IBEW. June 5, 6, 7, and 8 at times when nonemployee and em- Patrick Quinn, eastern regional sales manager for Re- ployee organizers for the IRWA were engaged in solicit- spondent, testified that in sales presentations he would let ing authorization cards from Respondent's employees. the customer know at the outset that the Company was No evidence was adduced that Respondent's supervisors an IBEW Company. During his prior experience as a noted the names of employees signing cards for the journeyman electrician on a construction site it was IRWA or that pictures of card signing activity were Quinn's custom and that of other electricians to check to taken. The evidence is that notes were not taken. Re- see that the electrical product bore the IBEW label, spondent was informed that organizational activity commonly referred to as the "bug." During Quinn's ex- would occur on its parking lot on June 5 and had reason perience in lighting installations Quinn had never come to believe that there was a possibility of violence. In fact, across a union label on an electrical product other than an altercation did occur on one of the above dates re- the IBEW label. quiring the presence of a police officer. Respondent has a Joseph Duffy, business representative of the IBEW, right to police anticipated violence on its property and a testified that in his experience as a journeyman electri- right to eject nonemployee union organizers from its cian on a construction site it was normal for the union parking lot. N.LR.B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, steward to check whether the fixtures bore the label of a 351 U.S. 105 (1965). In these circumstances the mere union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. If the fixtures did presence of Respondent's supervisors on its parking lot not show such a label the steward on the job would call on June 5, 6, 7, and 8 did not constitute unlawful surveil- the IBEW office to determine whether the manufacturer lance of union activity. was a union company. Once that was established the (4) Cancellation of the company picnic: The evidence company would be notified to send their labels to the does not establish that Respondent's purpose in canceling jobsite to be affixed to the fixtures." the picnic scheduled for July or its effect was to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees unlawfully in the *Sec. 8(bX4) of the Act forbids union activity of a secondary nature exercise of their Section 7 rights. For 2 months, includ- with respect to the refusal of employees to handle nonunion products. As ing the month of June when the IRWA pursued its orga- a union agent, Duffy's testimony was somewhat circumspect in response . . to questions relating to the practice of IBEW electricians in refusing to nizational drive, Respondent made plans for an elaborate install products that did not bear an acceptable union label. picnic to be enjoyed by the entire complement of plant 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sons unrelated to economic necessities and known only While the General Counsel challenges the conclusions to him." Ibid. to be drawn from the above testimony, he introduced no In the instant case Respondent introduced substantial evidence to refute the accuracy of such testimony. No evidence in support of its position that the right to stamp witness for the General Counsel testified that journey- its products with the IBEW label was an important, if men electricians on commercial jobsites would be willing not the most important, factor in the rise of Halo from a to install electrical fixtures that did not bear the IBEW small three-man facility to the largest manufacturer in label. No evidence was introduced to show that a single the world of incandescent recessed lighting. major competitor of Respondent used a label other than Thomson testified that the Company's first major sale that of the IBEW. In these circumstances the General of incandescent lighting fixtures was made in 1956 for Counsel's contention that Respondent's expressed con- the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. On that cem over the possible loss of the IBEW label amounts to occasion the electricans on the jobsite were unwilling to "unfounded speculation" is, to say the least, without install the lamps because they did not bear the IBEW merit. label. As a result of that experience, the Company sought As indicated above, I have reached my conclusion on out the IBEW, the employees of the Company became this issue after serious consideration and on the basis of members of that Union, and a contractual relationship the evidence presented. Nevertheless, I must say that the between the IBEW and Respondent has continued from General Counsel's bifurcation of the evidence by failing that time until August 31. to allege that Respondent's letters and memos to its em- Respondent's major competitors all have the use of the ployees, signed by Thomson himself and Thomson's IBEW label. These include: Lightolier in Jersey City, speech of August 23, specifically referring to the loss of New Jersey; Progress Lighting in Philadephia, Pennsyl- business and the loss of jobs as a result of the loss of the vania; Gotham in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio; IBEW label are unlawful, has given me pause. Despite Omega in Long Island, New York; and Thomas Indus- the vigor of the General Counsel's argument in his brief, tries in Kentucky. ....... ,. his failure to include in the complaint conduct in written Ninety percent of Respondent's sales of lighting fix- o otherwise alleged to be unlawful in spoken form tures are made in the United States. Ninety-five percent raises considerable doubt as to his own conviction in this of Respondent's products are sold to distributors or con- matter. tractors for use in large commercial construction projects 2T e c s of rector of Dis Joe such as auditoriums, commercial offices, and shopping J w) T h e conversation of Director of Distribution Joe centers.Jeffress with Santiago Cabrera in the formers office On occasion when Respondent's products were sent to during the last 2 weeks of July, the testimony of Cabrera the field without the IBEW label, company officials as to this conversation having been discredited. were reminded that the label was missing. On those oc- (3) Surveillance of union activity: The evidence ad- casions Respondent was required either to send IBEW duced by the General Counsel is that supervisors of Re- labels to the field for those products or to confirm that spondent were present on Respondent's parking lot on Respondent was still affiliated with the IBEW. June 5, 6, 7, and 8 at times when nonemployee and em- Patrick Quinn, eastern regional sales manager for Re- ployee organizers for the IRWA were engaged in solicit- spondent, testified that in sales presentations he would let ing authorization cards from Respondent's employees. the customer know at the outset that the Company was No evidence was adduced that Respondent's supervisors an IBEW Company. During his prior experience as a noted the names of employees signing cards for the journeyman electrician on a construction site it was IRWA or that pictures of card signing activity were Quinn's custom and that of other electricians to check to taken. The evidence is that notes were not taken. Re- see that the electrical product bore the IBEW label, spondent was informed that organizational activity commonly referred to as the "bug." During Quinn's ex- would occur on its parking lot on June 5 and had reason perience in lighting installations Quinn had never come to believe that there was a possibility of violence. In fact, across a union label on an electrical product other than an altercation did occur on one of the above dates re- the IBEW label. quiring the presence of a police officer. Respondent has a Joseph Duffy, business representative of the IBEW, right to police anticipated violence on its property and a testified that in his experience as a journeyman electri- right to eject nonemployee union organizers from its cian on a construction site it was normal for the union parking lot. N.LR.B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, steward to check whether the fixtures bore the label of a 351 U.S. 105 (1965). In these circumstances the mere union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. If the fixtures did presence of Respondent's supervisors on its parking lot not show such a label the steward on the job would call on June 5, 6, 7, and 8 did not constitute unlawful surveil- the IBEW office to determine whether the manufacturer lance of union activity. was a union company. Once that was established the (4) Cancellation of the company picnic: The evidence company would be notified to send their labels to the does not establish that Respondent's purpose in canceling jobsite to be affixed to the fixtures." the picnic scheduled for July or its effect was to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees unlawfully in the *Sec. 8(bX4) of the Act forbids union activity of a secondary nature exercise of their Section 7 rights. For 2 months, includ- with respect to the refusal of employees to handle nonunion products. As ing the month of June when the IRWA pursued its orga- a union agent, Duffy's testimony was somewhat circumspect in response . . to questions relating to the practice of IBEW electricians in refusing to nizational drive, Respondent made plans for an elaborate install products that did not bear an acceptable union label. picnic to be enjoyed by the entire complement of plant HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 717 employees and their families. It was only upon informa- sion that Respondent permitted sympathizers for the tion volunteered by employees that the picnic might de- IBEW to distribute literature in nonwork areas of the generate into conflict between opposing groups of em- plant on nonwork time and to post campaign materials ployees that Respondent made the decision at the last inside Respondent's plant while denying similar rights to minute to cancel the picnic. Lizardi testified as to the sympathizers of the IRWA. emotional temperament of many of Respondent's em- ployees. Their feelings for and against the IRWA ran D. Objections to the Conduct of the Election deep. There was talk of knives and guns. In this context Included in the IRWA's objections are the following: it was understandable that employees would be reluctant Emloer utilized its plant bulletin boards to (1) that the Employer utilized its plant bulletin boards to to subject their families or themselves to an uncomfort- h , letters, and other IBEW papers; able and possibly violent confrontation between IRWA d ' l , , an e pe s and IBEW supporters. Indeed officials of the IRWA de- (2) that the employer and the IBEW representatives met and IBEW supporters. Indeed, officials of the IRWA de- dd oIn June 2 ot. hed wou nioia a the pi n d collectively and individually with captive groups of em- cided on June 20 that they would not attend the picnic because of their own concern that such a confrontation ployes i the plant during lorkit pamphlets and other the Employer distributed letters, pamphlets, and other While Respondent's information that IRWA nonem- literature to the employees threatening loss of jobs and ployee organizers planned to attend the picnic may have otherbenefits f they were no longer represented by the been inaccurate, I am satisfied that the question was suf- ficiently muddy and Respondent's concern sufficiently le- I find no merit in these objections. For reasons stated gitimate to rebut the General Counsel's allegation that above, the allegations of employer favoritism to the the cancellation of the picnic violated Section 8(aXl). IBEW over the IRWA have not been established. Nor does an employer engage in objectionable conduct by C. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) meeting with employees for campaign purposes on work- ing time. No evidence was introduced to refute the accu- I find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(aXI) racy of the facts and figures published in Respondent's and (2) of the Act in the following respects: letters and pamphlets. I have found above that Respond- (1) Disparate treatment of IRWA nonemployee orga- ent's oral predictions of a loss of business and loss of jobs nizers with respect to campaigning on plant premises: ad- s a consequence of the loss of the IBEW label are not mittedly, IBEW om icIalS Cortes and Kingsley were per- as a consequence of the loss of the IBEW label are not mittedly, IBEW Officials Cortes and Kinvgsley were per- violative of Section 8(aXl). Applying the standard appli- mitted to enter plant premises and investigate grievance cable to objections to the conduct of an election, I find problems in the plant proper while IRWA officials were cable to objections to the conduct of an election, I find problems in the plant proper while IRWA officials were predictions protected by Section denied access to the plant. It is, however, too well estab- sch oral and te as a basis for setti the eection lished to require citation of cases that an incumbent 8(c) and inadequate as a basis for setting the election lished to require citation of cases that an incumbent union with a contractual right may lawfully exercise that aside. These objectons are dismissed. right despite the denial of the same right to an outside Contrary to Respondent, however, the IRWA's objec- union with no representative status. During an election tions are broad enough to encompass conduct found campaign where, as here, there are hundreds of employ- above to constitute violations of Section 8(aX1) and the ees it is difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee that the objections are sustained on the basis of those findings. incumbent union will adhere strictly to the terms of the The IRWA filed its objections "for the reason that on contract and refrain from campaigning on its own behalf. August 29, 1979 and prior thereto, the Employer unduly The record shows that Hueuink and Schrader made rea- influenced and coerced employees in the exercise of their sonable efforts to restrict the IBEW officials' contact rights to a free and independent choice of bargaining with employees to legitimate investigation of grievances representative," including in its objections the above spe- and conferences with stewards. As a practical matter, cifc objections. this is the most that can be expected of an employer Respondent was on notice at the hearing that the caught in this situation. Inevitably, there were occasions, IRWA rested its case on the evidence adduced by the particularly involving Cortes, who spoke Spanish fluent- General Counsel with respect to conduct alleged to be ly, when employees would raise questions about various unfair labor practices and now, in part, so found. The pieces of literature and Cortes would respond. In the bal- mere fact that these unfair labor practices were not spe- ance to be struck between lawful and unlawful assistance cifically alleged in the IRWA's timely objections is insuf- such incidents do not rise to the level of unlawful con- ficient to disregard serious objectionable conduct within duct on the part of Respondent in the context of affirma- the critical preelection period that unduly influenced the tive attempts by Respondent's officials to restrict such employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. activities and the absence of evidence of a policy to Decoto Aircraft Inc., 209 NLRB 1034 (1974), 512 F.2d permit campaigning by the IBEW while denying such 758 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 836. permission to the IRWA. I shall recommend that the election held on August 29 (2) Disparate treatment of IRWA employee organizers be set aside and that the Regional Director for Region with respect to distribution of literature and posting of 13 conduct a new election in accordance with the campaign materials on Respondent's plant premises: The Board's established Rules and Regulations. credited testimony is insufficient to warrant the conclu- [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 717 employees and their families. It was only upon informa- sion that Respondent permitted sympathizers for the tion volunteered by employees that the picnic might de- IBEW to distribute literature in nonwork areas of the generate into conflict between opposing groups of em- plant on nonwork time and to post campaign materials ployees that Respondent made the decision at the last inside Respondent's plant while denying similar rights to minute to cancel the picnic. Lizardi testified as to the sympathizers of the IRWA. emotional temperament of many of Respondent's em- ployees. Their feelings for and against the IRWA ran D. Objections to the Conduct ofthe Election deep. There was talk of knives and guns. In this context Included in the IRWA's objections are the following: it was understandable that employees would be reluctant t Employer utilized its plant bulletin boards to to subject their families or themselves to an uncomfort- d y haill, letters, and other IBEW papers; able and possibly violent confrontation between IRWA , *'- ncv -. ,.„; J able and possibly violent confrontation between TIRW (2) that the employer and the IBEW representatives met and IBEW supporters. Indeed, officials of the IRWA de- c t a i w c g of em- *-. -i -m »i.. .1. ii . >. i .i. collectively and individually with captive groups of em- cided on June 20 that they would not attend the picnic p i t p d w h a ,3 that ,eas -f .,ei .w 'ocr .,a .uc , cfo.-tin ployees in the plant during working hours; and (3) that be~cause oftheir o w n c o n c e r n that such a c o nf r o n ta tio n the Employer distributed letters, pamphlets, and other mighte^Respondenfs infocuation that IRWA nonem- l it er at u r e to the employees threatening loss of jobs and While Respondent's information that IRWA nonem- ohrbnft fte een ogrrpeetdb h ployee organizers planned to attend the picnic may have o t e r be n efi ts l f t h e y w ere n o l o n g er BPWnted by the been inaccurate, I am satisfied that the question was suf- ficiently muddy and Respondent's concern sufficiently le- I find no merit in these objections. For reasons stated gitimate to rebut the General Counsel's allegation that above, the allegations of employer favoritism to the the cancellation of the picnic violated Section 8(aXl). I B E W o v e r t h e I R W A h a v e n o t b een established. Nor does an employer engage in objectionable conduct by C. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (2) meeting with employees for campaign purposes on work- I fi„d that Respondent did not violate Section 8a1 ^ . ing time. No evidence was introduced to refute the accu- and t a t 2poftheAc n o t th o l ate S ec t o n resecs:racy of the facts and figures published in Respondent's and (2) of the Act in the following resopects: letters and pamphlets. I have found above that Respond- (1) Disparate treatment of IRWA nonemployee orga- ^ en' ^ predictions of a loss of business and loss of jobs nizers with respect to campaigning on plant premises: ad- ens consequence of the loss of the IBEW label are not mittedly, IBEW Officials Cortes and Kingsley were per- a oneune of the loss of the lae are not mitted to enter plant premises and investigate grievance violativ objections to the conduct of an election, I find problems in the plant proper while IRWA officials were c t obje ctions protectd I fin dened cces t th plnt.It s, oweertoowel esab- such oral and written predictions protected by Section denied access to the plant. It is, however, too well estab- 8c n inadequate as a basis for setting the election lished to require citation of cases that an incumbent 8 a i q as a b f union with a contractual right may lawfully exercise that asid e . T h e se objections are dismissed. right despite the denial of the same right to an outside Contrary to Respondent, however, the IRWA's objec- union with no representative status. During an election ti o ns ar e br o ad en o u gh to encompass conduct found campaign where, as here, there are hundreds of employ- above to constitute violations of Section 8(aXI) and the ees it is difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee that the o bj ec tio n s a r e sustained on the basis of those findings. incumbent union will adhere strictly to the terms of the T h e I R W A f iled its objections "for the reason that on contract and refrain from campaigning on its own behalf. August 29, 19 7 9 and prior t h er e t o, t h e Employer unduly The record shows that Hueuink and Schrader made rea- influenced and coerced employees in the exercise of their sonable efforts to restrict the IBEW officials' contact rights to a free and independent choice of bargaining with employees to legitimate investigation of grievances representative," including in its objections the above spe- and conferences with stewards. As a practical matter, c ific objections. this is the most that can be expected of an employer Respondent was on notice at the hearing that the caught in this situation. Inevitably, there were occasions, IRWA rested its case on the evidence adduced by the particularly involving Cortes, who spoke Spanish fluent- General Counsel with respect to conduct alleged to be ly, when employees would raise questions about various unfair labor practices and now, in part, so found. The pieces of literature and Cortes would respond. In the bal- mere fact that these unfair labor practices were not spe- ance to be struck between lawful and unlawful assistance cifically alleged in the IRWA's timely objections is insuf- such incidents do not rise to the level of unlawful con- ficient to disregard serious objectionable conduct within duct on the part of Respondent in the context of affirma- the critical preelection period that unduly influenced the tive attempts by Respondent's officials to restrict such employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. activities and the absence of evidence of a policy to Decoto Aircraft Inc., 209 NLRB 1034 (1974), 512 F.2d permit campaigning by the IBEW while denying such 758 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 836. permission to the IRWA. I shall recommend that the election held on August 29 (2) Disparate treatment of IRWA employee organizers be set aside and that the Regional Director for Region with respect to distribution of literature and posting of 13 conduct a new election in accordance with the campaign materials on Respondent's plant premises: The Board's established Rules and Regulations. credited testimony is insufficient to warrant the conclu- [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 717 employees and their families. It was only upon informa- sion that Respondent permitted sympathizers for the tion volunteered by employees that the picnic might de- IBEW to distribute literature in nonwork areas of the generate into conflict between opposing groups of em- plant on nonwork time and to post campaign materials ployees that Respondent made the decision at the last inside Respondent's plant while denying similar rights to minute to cancel the picnic. Lizardi testified as to the sympathizers of the IRWA. emotional temperament of many of Respondent's em- ployees. Their feelings for and against the IRWA ran D. Objections to the Conduct ofthe Election deep. There was talk of knives and guns. In this context Included in the IRWA's objections are the following: it was understandable that employees would be reluctant t Employer utilized its plant bulletin boards to to subject their families or themselves to an uncomfort- d y haill, letters, and other IBEW papers; able and possibly violent confrontation between IRWA , *'- ncv -. ,.„; J ableand possibly violent confrontation between TIRA - (2) that the employer and the IBEW representatives met and IBEW supporters. Indeed, officials of the IRWA de- c t a i w c g of em- *-. -i -m »i.. .1. ii . >. i .i. collectively and individually with captive groups of em- cided on June 20 that they would not attend the picnic p i t p d w h a ,3 that ,eas -f .,ei .w 'ocr .,a .uc , cfo.-tin ployees in the plant during working hours; and (3) that be~cause oftheir o w n c o n c e r n that such a c o nf r o n ta tio n the Employer distributed letters, pamphlets, and other mighte^Respondenfs infocuation that IRWA nonem- l it er at u r e to the employees threatening loss of jobs and While Respondent's information that IRWA nonem- ohrbnft fte een ogrrpeetdb h ployee organizers planned to attend the picnic may have o t e r be n efi ts l f t h e y w ere n o l o n g er BPWnted by the been inaccurate, I am satisfied that the question was suf- ficiently muddy and Respondent's concern sufficiently le- I find no merit in these objections. For reasons stated gitimate to rebut the General Counsel's allegation that above, the allegations of employer favoritism to the the cancellation of the picnic violated Section 8(aXl). I B E W o v e r t h e I R W A h a v e n o t b een established. Nor does an employer engage in objectionable conduct by C. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (2) meeting with employees for campaign purposes on work- I fi„d that Respondent did not violate Section 8a1 ^ . ing time. No evidence was introduced to refute the accu- and t a t (2poftheAc n o t th o l ate S ec t o n resecs:racy of the facts and figures published in Respondent's and (2) of the Act in the following resopects: letters and pamphlets. I have found above that Respond- (1) Disparate treatment of IRWA nonemployee orga- ^ en' ^ predictions of a loss of business and loss of jobs nizers with respect to campaigning on plant premises: ad- ens consequence of the loss of the IBEW label are not mittedly, IBEW Officials Cortes and Kingsley were per- a oneune of the loss of the lae are not mitted to enter plant premises and investigate grievance violativ objections to the conduct of an election, I find problems in the plant proper while IRWA officials were c t obje ctions protectd I fin dened cces t th plnt.It s, oweertoowel esab- such oral and written predictions protected by Section denied access to the plant. It is, however, too well estab- 8c n inadequate as a basis for setting the election lished to require citation of cases that an incumbent 8 a i q as a b f union with a contractual right may lawfully exercise that asid e . T h e se objections are dismissed. right despite the denial of the same right to an outside Contrary to Respondent, however, the IRWA's objec- union with no representative status. During an election ti o ns ar e br o ad enough to encompass conduct found campaign where, as here, there are hundreds of employ- above to constitute violations of Section 8(aXI) and the ees it is difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee that the o bj ec tio n s a r e sustained on the basis of those findings. incumbent union will adhere strictly to the terms of the T h e I R W A f iled its objections "for the reason that on contract and refrain from campaigning on its own behalf. August 29, 19 7 9 and prior t h er e t o, t h e Employer unduly The record shows that Hueuink and Schrader made rea- influenced and coerced employees in the exercise of their sonable efforts to restrict the IBEW officials' contact rights to a free and independent choice of bargaining with employees to legitimate investigation of grievances representative," including in its objections the above spe- and conferences with stewards. As a practical matter, c ific objections. this is the most that can be expected of an employer Respondent was on notice at the hearing that the caught in this situation. Inevitably, there were occasions, IRWA rested its case on the evidence adduced by the particularly involving Cortes, who spoke Spanish fluent- General Counsel with respect to conduct alleged to be ly, when employees would raise questions about various unfair labor practices and now, in part, so found. The pieces of literature and Cortes would respond. In the bal- mere fact that these unfair labor practices were not spe- ance to be struck between lawful and unlawful assistance cifically alleged in the IRWA's timely objections is insuf- such incidents do not rise to the level of unlawful con- ficient to disregard serious objectionable conduct within duct on the part of Respondent in the context of affirma- the critical preelection period that unduly influenced the tive attempts by Respondent's officials to restrict such employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. activities and the absence of evidence of a policy to Decoto Aircraft Inc., 209 NLRB 1034 (1974), 512 F.2d permit campaigning by the IBEW while denying such 758 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 836. permission to the IRWA. I shall recommend that the election held on August 29 (2) Disparate treatment of IRWA employee organizers be set aside and that the Regional Director for Region with respect to distribution of literature and posting of 13 conduct a new election in accordance with the campaign materials on Respondent's plant premises: The Board's established Rules and Regulations. credited testimony is insufficient to warrant the conclu- [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] HALO LIGHTING DIV. OF MCGRAW EDISON 717 employees and their families. It was only upon informa- sion that Respondent permitted sympathizers for the tion volunteered by employees that the picnic might de- IBEW to distribute literature in nonwork areas of the generate into conflict between opposing groups of em- plant on nonwork time and to post campaign materials ployees that Respondent made the decision at the last inside Respondent's plant while denying similar rights to minute to cancel the picnic. Lizardi testified as to the sympathizers of the IRWA. emotional temperament of many of Respondent's em- ployees. Their feelings for and against the IRWA ran D. Objections to the Conduct ofthe Election deep. There was talk of knives and guns. In this context Included in the IRWA's objections are the following: it was understandable that employees would be reluctant t Employer utilized its plant bulletin boards to to subject their families or themselves to an uncomfort- d y haill, letters, and other IBEW papers; able and possibly violent confrontation between IRWA , *'- ncv -. ,.„; J ableand possibly violent confrontation between TIRA - (2) that the employer and the IBEW representatives met and IBEW supporters. Indeed, officials of the IRWA de- c t a i w c g of em- *-. -i -m »i.. .1. ii . >. i .i. collectively and individually with captive groups of em- cided on June 20 that they would not attend the picnic p i t p d w h a ,3 that ,eas -f .,ei .w 'ocr .,a .uc , cfo.-tin ployees in the plant during working hours; and (3) that be~cause oftheir o w n c o n c e r n that such a c o nf r o n ta tio n the Employer distributed letters, pamphlets, and other mighte^Respondenfs infocuation that IRWA nonem- l it er at u r e to the employees threatening loss of jobs and While Respondent's information that IRWA nonem- ohrbnft fte een ogrrpeetdb h ployee organizers planned to attend the picnic may have o t e r be n efi ts l f t h e y w ere n o l o n g er BPWnted by the been inaccurate, I am satisfied that the question was suf- ficiently muddy and Respondent's concern sufficiently le- I find no merit in these objections. For reasons stated gitimate to rebut the General Counsel's allegation that above, the allegations of employer favoritism to the the cancellation of the picnic violated Section 8(aXl). I B E W o v e r t h e I R W A h a v e n o t b een established. Nor does an employer engage in objectionable conduct by C. Conduct Not Violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (2) meeting with employees for campaign purposes on work- I fi„d that Respondent did not violate Section 8a1 ^ . ing time. No evidence was introduced to refute the accu- and t a t (2poftheAc n o t th o l ate S ec t o n resecs:racy of the facts and figures published in Respondent's and (2) of the Act in the following resopects: letters and pamphlets. I have found above that Respond- (1) Disparate treatment of IRWA nonemployee orga- ^ en' ^ predictions of a loss of business and loss of jobs nizers with respect to campaigning on plant premises: ad- ens consequence of the loss of the IBEW label are not mittedly, IBEW Officials Cortes and Kingsley were per- a oneune of the loss of the lae are not mitted to enter plant premises and investigate grievance violativ objections to the conduct of an election, I find problems in the plant proper while IRWA officials were c t obje ctions protectd I fin dened cces t th plnt.It s, oweertoowel esab- such oral and written predictions protected by Section denied access to the plant. It is, however, too well estab- 8c n inadequate as a basis for setting the election lished to require citation of cases that an incumbent 8 a i q as a b f union with a contractual right may lawfully exercise that asid e . T h e se objections are dismissed. right despite the denial of the same right to an outside Contrary to Respondent, however, the IRWA's objec- union with no representative status. During an election ti o ns ar e br o ad en o u gh to encompass conduct found campaign where, as here, there are hundreds of employ- above to constitute violations of Section 8(aXI) and the ees it is difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee that the o bj ec tio n s a r e sustained on the basis of those findings. incumbent union will adhere strictly to the terms of the T h e I R W A f iled its objections "for the reason that on contract and refrain from campaigning on its own behalf. August 29, 19 7 9 and prior t h er e t o, t h e Employer unduly The record shows that Hueuink and Schrader made rea- influenced and coerced employees in the exercise of their sonable efforts to restrict the IBEW officials' contact rights to a free and independent choice of bargaining with employees to legitimate investigation of grievances representative," including in its objections the above spe- and conferences with stewards. As a practical matter, cific objections. this is the most that can be expected of an employer Respondent was on notice at the hearing that the caught in this situation. Inevitably, there were occasions, IRWA rested its case on the evidence adduced by the particularly involving Cortes, who spoke Spanish fluent- General Counsel with respect to conduct alleged to be ly, when employees would raise questions about various unfair labor practices and now, in part, so found. The pieces of literature and Cortes would respond. In the bal- mere fact that these unfair labor practices were not spe- ance to be struck between lawful and unlawful assistance cifically alleged in the IRWA's timely objections is insuf- such incidents do not rise to the level of unlawful con- ficient to disregard serious objectionable conduct within duct on the part of Respondent in the context of affirma- the critical preelection period that unduly influenced the tive attempts by Respondent's officials to restrict such employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. activities and the absence of evidence of a policy to Decoto Aircraft Inc., 209 NLRB 1034 (1974), 512 F.2d permit campaigning by the IBEW while denying such 758 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 836. permission to the IRWA. I shall recommend that the election held on August 29 (2) Disparate treatment of IRWA employee organizers be set aside and that the Regional Director for Region with respect to distribution of literature and posting of 13 conduct a new election in accordance with the campaign materials on Respondent's plant premises: The Board's established Rules and Regulations. credited testimony is insufficient to warrant the conclu- [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]