ITT Automotive Electrical Products Division

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ITT Automotive Electrical Products Division and International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-13214 August 30, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER On March 21, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Donald R. Holley issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively, filed exceptions, support- ing briefs, and answering briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Order. Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find that Respondent, through its supervisors, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by questioning employees Putnam and Genson as to why they were wearing union buttons. Putnam and Genson were members of the Union's organizing committee and, as part of the Union's organizational campaign, they wore union buttons at work. Shortly after Putnam began wearing a union button, Plant Manager Shaw asked her why she was wearing it, but Putnam did not respond. Later that day, Shaw reminded her that she had not answered his question, but Putnam again did not respond. Later that week, Foreman Horn told Putnam that she and the union button did not go together. Putnam replied that they did and that things had happened of which he was unaware. When Horn pursued the matter, Putnam stated that she was "hurt" when she had been transferred from her previous position. Subsequently, Foreman Horn asked Genson why she was wearing a union button. Genson replied that she had her reason, but that she could not discuss it on company time. The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon- dent's questioning of Putnam and Genson, through its supervisors, did not constitute unlawful interroga- tion. We disagree. Although Putnam and Genson had openly de- clared that they were union adherents, Respondent was not thereby free to probe directly or indirectly into their reasons for supporting the Union. In our 231 NLRB No. 163 view, such probing tends to have a coercive effect upon employees, whether or not the employees have openly declared their support for a union. Accord- ingly, we conclude that Respondent's questioning of Putnam and Genson as to why they were wearing union buttons constitutes interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, ITT Automotive Electrical Products Division, East Jordan, Michigan, its officers, agents, sucessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. MEMBER WALTHER, dissenting in part: Contrary to my colleagues, I would adopt the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of those portions of the complaint alleging that Respondent, through its supervisors, interrogated Putnam and Genson in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Furthermore, although I agree with my colleagues' adoption of the Administrative Law Judge's finding of an 8(a)(1) violation with respect to the interroga- tion of employee Olds by Respondent's supervisor, I believe that this single, isolated violation does not warrant the issuance of a remedial order under the facts of this case. See Rock Island Franciscan Hospital, 226 NLRB 291 (1976). I we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent did not engage in unlawful surveillance when its supervisors observed its employees openly distributing union literature on its premises in August 1976. In so doing, however, we specifically do not adopt his rationale that there must be actual interference by an employer with the employees' activity to establish a violation. Rather. we rely solely on the facts herein that Respondent's observation was limited to a brief inspection at the outset of the handbilling of the manner in which such activity was being conducted and that such observation was merely for the purpose of ascertaining the legality of the employees' activity. See Dumas, Inc., d/b/a Sterling Manufactunng Company, 169 NLRB 892 (168); Milco, Inc., 159 NLRB 812 (1966). 2 Carolina American Textiles, Inc., 219 NLRB 457 (1975); Essex Wire Corporation, 188 NLRB 397 (1971). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge: The charge herein was filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 878 ITT AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS Workers of America (UAW), herein called the Union on July 26, 1976,1 and a copy thereof was duly served on ITT Automobile Electrical Products Division, herein called the Respondent. Complaint was issued on September 2 and served on Respondent on September 7. Summarized, the complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating employees and by unlawfully engaging in surveillance of employees' union activities. Respondent duly filed its answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me in Charlevoix, Michigan, on December 16. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to introduce and meet material evidence, and to engage in oral argument.2 Respondent filed a brief subsequent to the hearing and it has been carefully considered together with oral argument made by General Counsel at the hearing. On the entire record in the case, the brief and arguments, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent, a Delaware corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business in Oak Park, Michigan, and operates plants in Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, and other States. It is engaged in the manufac- ture, sale, and distribution of electrical wiring assemblies and other products for the automotive industry. Its East Jordan, Michigan, plant is the only facility directly involved in this proceeding. During calendar year 1975, a representative period, it purchased and caused to be shipped to its East Jordan plant from points located outside the State of Michigan, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 and, during the same period, it manufactured, sold, and caused to be shipped from its East Jordan plant to points located outside the State of Michigan products valued in excess of $50,000. Upon the foregoing admitted facts, I find that at all times material herein Respondent was, and has been, an employer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in "commerce" and in operations affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION As admitted in the answer, I find that the Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I All relevant events in this case occurred during the calendar year 1976 aind. unless otherwise indicated. all dates hereinafter shall refer to the year 1976. 2 At the close of the hearing Respondent renewed a motion to dismiss the complaint. MN Findings herein dispose of said motion. : The documents regarding the state court action were offered and III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent employs some 130 employees at its East Jordan, Michigan, plant where it manufactures wiring harnesses or assemblies for automobiles. It was admitted and I find that Respondent's employees were supervised, at all times material herein, by, inter alia, the following: Robert Shaw, plant manager; Michael Schyler, night-shift foreman; Larry Spence, assistant plant manager; and Daryl Horn, day-shift foreman. In addition to the East Jordan plant, which is designated by Respondent as plant 2, Respondent operates three other plants in northern Michigan, one of which is its plant I, located at Petosky, Michigan. The employees at the Petosky plant are represented by Local 1833 of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called Local 1833. At the time of the hearing, those employees had been on strike since their most recent contract with Respondent expired on March 9, 1976. In connection with the strike at plant 1, Respondent placed in evidence in this proceeding a complaint wherein it had sought injunctive relief in the state court from mass picketing which had allegedly interfered with ingress and egress to plant 1. Additionally, Respondent placed in evidence several transcripts of state court proceedings and further pleadings requesting injunctive relief from alleged acts of violence, vandalism, and other acts allegedly engaged in by Local 1833 and/or striking employees.3 B. The Facts In main, the facts in this case are undisputed. They concern several incidents which occurred during a union organizational campaign at the East Jordan plant during the period May - December 1976. It appears the organizational drive at this plant - plant 2 - was started by employees from plant I, who are represented by Local 1833. Thus, on two occasions in May, employees from plant 1 distributed literature to the employees of the East Jordan plant at the main entrance to the plant.4 The second distribution occurred on May 24, and General Counsel contends that Respondent's actions during that incident violated the Act. The record reveals that two plant 1 employees stood at the main entrance to plant 2 on the date in question and handed legal-size envelopes to day-shift employees as they left the plant at approximately 3:30 p.m. When Plant Manager Shaw learned of the activity, he drove out of the plant in a company station wagon and parked in the driveway of a funeral home located adjacent to the front entrance of the plant. While he remained parked for some 5 minutes, admittedly to observe the actions of the plant I employees, several employees of the East Jordan plant observed his surveillance of the activities. Shaw credibly testified he had received merely to show that there had been litigation in connection with the strike at plant I. 4 Literature was distributed on Ma) 3 and 24 by plant I emplo)ees. The literature described plant I's bargaining history with Respondent and urged plant 2 employees tojoin the Union. 879 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been instructed to watch plant I employees if they appeared at his plant to ascertain whether they were attempting to block ingress or egress to the plant as they had allegedly done elsewhere. He indicated and, I have no cause to doubt the assertion, that he made no attempt to record in any manner the names of the East Jordan employees who accepted literature. The record fails to reveal that the plant I employees were harassed or interfered with in any other way. After the plant I employees distributed literature at the East Jordan plant, the Union formed an employee organizational committee at the East Jordan plant. Elect- ing to campaign openly, the Union sent Respondent letters dated May 26 and June 8, informing it that employees Bonnie Genson, Fay Padgett, Virginia Putnam, Delores Stark, Betsy Trowbridge, and Elaine Olds were members of the UAW organizing committee at the East Jordan plant. About the same time, the above-named employees were given union buttons, which they each wore while in the plant from early June forward.5 In addition to wearing union buttons, the employee organizers distributed litera- ture at the employee door to the plant on several occasions during the months of June, July, and August. The literature distribution activities are discussed more fully below. The appearance of union buttons at the East Jordan plant evoked comment and discussion. General Counsel contends that Respondent's reaction on several occasions violated the Act. Three witnesses were offered to prove the alleged "coercive interrogation" violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Virginia Putnam testified she started wearing a union button at the plant about the second week in June. Shortly after she started wearing the button, Shaw met her in the plant and asked what she had the pin for. She laughed without answering and went to the bathroom. Later in the day, Putnam had occasion to go to the office in the plant and Shaw said, "You didn't answer my question yet." Putnam said nothing immediately and Shaw entered his office and closed the door. Later during the same week, Putnam conversed with her immediate foreman, Daryl Horn. Horn asked how things were going and the witness replied pretty well. He then commented that she and the union button did not go together. She replied yes they did - a lot of things had happened that he did not know about. He asked what things and she told him she had been hurt when she was removed from her quality job. Horn walked away at that point ending the conversation. Respondent did not controvert Putnam's testimony. Bonnie Genson's testimony was similar to that of Putnam. Thus, she testified she wore the same type of union button worn by Putnam while at the plant in June. On a date she could not recall precisely, 6 Horn approached her in the plant and said, "May I ask you something?" She said yes and he asked, "Why are you wearing that button." She replied she had her reason, she could not talk about it on company time, but she could talk to him on break and she had a card if he would like to sign it. Horn said nothing I The union buttons were round, about 2 inches in diameter, and read "Organizing Committee, Join UAW, Vote." The first day Horn worked as day-shift foreman. 7 Olds testified Shaw said "change for the better" on direct examination, more to her about the button. Genson's testimony is also uncontradicted. Elaine Olds also wore a union button at the plant in June. Several days after she put it on, Shaw asked her why she was wearing the pin. Olds replied she had some gripes and felt they needed a mediator - there had to be some things settled. Shaw replied there was an open-door policy and she could come talk to him anytime she wanted. Olds commented it was pretty hard to get through the chain of command, and Shaw reiterated there was an open-door policy and stated she could come talk anytime she wanted. He then asked what her complaints were. She told him about a situation wherein she had been hollered at for wearing jewelry despite the fact that everyone else wore it, and Shaw observed everyone was supposed to follow the rules but they could not see that everybody did all the time. She then observed that Pat Lutz, a former supervisor, had hollered at her unjustly on one occasion and Shaw told her that supervisor was gone and things were going to change.7 Finally, Olds said Respondent had, in a previous layoff situation, laid off senior employees while junior employees continued to work. Shaw stated that would not happen again; that they would layoff and recall by seniority. Olds' testimony was not controverted. While Respondent refrained from controverting the testimony of the three above-mentioned witnesses, it established through them, and its own witnesses as well, that Respondent did not, during the period May 1976 to the date of the hearing, wage an antiunion campaign at the plant. It did conduct a meeting attended by plant supervision early in the campaign at which supervisors were told what they could lawfully do and what they could not do during a union campaign. A summary of "do's and don'ts" given to supervision at the meeting was placed in evidence." The witnesses uniformly testified Respondent did not distribute any literature urging employees to refrain from joining the Union and that no antiunion employee meetings were held during the 7- or 8-month period in question. In connection with the literature distribution activities of East Jordan plant employees, General Counsel offered evidence to show unlawful Respondent surveillance of handbilling in August. Thus, on the occasion in question employees Bonnie Genson, Betsy Trowbridge, and Ginger Putnam positioned themselves at the door through which employees entered and left the plant at quitting time - 3:30 p.m. As day-shift employees left the plant, the employee organizers handed them union literature. When the day-shift employees had completed their exit, the three employee organizers remained at their location to distrib- ute literature to evening shift employees who were to be at their work stations at 4 p.m. At this juncture, Foreman Michael Schyler passed by the entrance at approximately 3:40 p.m. and observed the women with their literature. Schyler testified he entered the plant and reported the situation to his supervisor, Larry Spence, asking Spence if it was legal for the employees to engage in the activity. but testified on cross-examination he just said "change" without indicating whether the change would be for better or worse. 8 Resp. Exh. 10. 880 ITT AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS Spence didn't know whether the activity was legal and Schyler left him to discuss the situation with Tom Mathis, Respondent's area personnel manager. In the meantime, Spence went to the door where the employees were positioned and observed their activity while talking to some construction workers located some 10 feet from the employee organizers. Approximately 10 minutes later, Schyler joined Spence and informed him Mathis, the personnel manager had said the employees were legally entitled to engage in their literature distribution activity. Spence remained in the general area for an additional 5 to 10 minutes while he talked to the foreman of the construction crew.9 Schyler and Spence credibly testified they did not verbally or physically interfere with the literature distribution activities of the employees and that no attempt was made to record the names of the few afternoon shift employees who accepted literature. C. The Issues The issues posed by the complaint are: (I) whether Shaw and Horn "coercively" interrogated employees Putnam, Genson, and Olds; and (2) whether Respondent engaged in unlawful surveillance of employees union activities through the observation of literature distribution by Supervisors Shaw, Spence. and Schyler. D. Analysis and Conclusions I. The alleged coercive interrogation In this case we are dealing with discussions between company representatives and known union adherents. Board precedent reveals that the questioning of employees, who have openly declared their union membership to management, concerning their reasons for joining the Union, does not constitute a per se violation of the Act.' 0 Accordingly. the totality of the circumstances must be viewed and considered to ascertain whether the employ- ee(s) was threatened, restrained, or coerced in the exercise of those rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. I find nothing in the record in this case which permits the conclusion that employees Putnam and Genson were coerced by the limited remarks made to them by Shaw or Horn. The totality of Putnam's testimony is that Shaw asked her "what she had the pin for" and when she walked off without answering he later observed "you didn't answer my question yet" and entered his office without waiting for a reply. Horn simply commented "she and the Union button didn't go together" and when she replied, giving brief reasons she felt she and the button went together, Horn walked off without reply. Genson's situation is even more succinct. Horn merely asked her "why are you wearing that button" and when she said she could not talk 1+ General Counsel's witnesses testified both Spence and Schyler remained in the area for 15 20 minutes, and they testified they did not recall seeing Spence talk to construction personnel. My observation of all the witnesses who gave testimony concerning this situation convinces me there is no credihilits problem as the) attempted to state their best recollection of events. The above findings represent a composite of the testimony. "' See Flight Safevr: Inc.. 197 NLRB 223 (1972), and Federal Paper Board (otprani. Inc. 206 NLRB 681,683 ( 1973). ' Esw r ire (orporraruwn. 188 NLRB 397 (1971): Monroe .Manufacturing (omponrn 200 NLRB 62 (1972): . C. Penner Co.. 209 NL RB 313 (1974); to him then, he said nothing and left. As General Counsel offered no evidence other than the bare words uttered during the conversations in question to show why the comments were coercive, I am compelled to conclude General Counsel, in effect, contends the interrogation of these employees who had publicly announced that they were union adherents amounts to a per se violation of the Act. As indicated above, this contention is without merit. Noting that Respondent did nothing to dissuade employees Putnam and Genson from continuing to wear their union buttons and engage in activities on behalf of the Union from May to December 1976, I find that General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent coercively interrogated these employees in violation of Section 8(aXI) of the Act as alleged." Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of these com- plaint allegations. Unlike the above-described instances of interrogation, Shaw's interrogation of employee Olds concerning her reason for wearing a union button was accompanied by an attempt by Shaw to cause Olds to air her grievance, which he immediately sought to satisfy. Thus, when she com- plained that a prior layoff had not been accomplished in accordance with seniority, Shaw assured her layoff and recall would be accomplished by seniority in the future. I find that Shaw's solicitation of the reasons behind Olds' support of the Union, followed by a request that she state her grievance, occurred under conditions tending to imply to Olds that Shaw viewed her complaints favorably. The solicitation of grievances under such circumstances consti- tutes interrogation which tends to impede employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights.t2 Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged through Shaw's above-described conduct. 2. The alleged surveillance As indicated by the factual recitation above, Respon- dent's supervisory personnel engaged in two types of surveillance in the instant case; i.e., observation of employee organizers while they distributed union literature on company property and observation of persons distrib- uting union literature who were employed by Respondent at a plant other than the one being organized. For the reasons set forth below, I find that Respondent did not engage in unlawful surveillance on either occasion. While General Counsel contends that Supervisors Schy- ler and Spence violated the Act by intentionally watching three employee organizers distribute literature to four or five second-shift employees on one occasion, no cases supporting such a contention were cited.'3 My review of case precedent relating to in-plant surveillance of union activities which are openly engaged in convinces me that a and L O. F Glass, Inc., 216 NLRB 845 (1975), relied on by General Counsel, are factually distinguishable as the interrogation in those cases was accompanied by the commission of other unfair labor practices as part of the antiunion campaigns waged hy the employers therein involved. 12 Federal Paper Board Co., Inc., supra; Carolina American Te.xtiles, Inc.. 219 NLRB 457 (1975). ia General Counsel cited Elano Corporation. 216 NLRB 691 (1975); Lube Devices, Inc., 197 NLRB 770 (1972); and Mid Island Textile Industries. Inc., 214 NLRB 484 (1974), as support for the contention that surveillance by (Continued) 881 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD party respondent must do something which interferes with the distribution activity before a violation occurs. On the occasion in question, Schyler and Spence merely observed the employees in question for 15-20 minutes and refrained during that period from physically interfering with the employees. No attempt was made to record the names of employees accepting literature and observation was not repeated when literature was subsequently distributed at the same place. Balancing the right of management to observe what occurs in its plant with the right of employees to engage in union activity without employer interference, I conclude that General Counsel has not shown the requisite degree of interference with the literature distribution activities of employees in this case to establish the violation alleged.i 4 Accordingly, I shall recommend that the allega- tion of unlawful surveillance through the activities of Schyler and Spence be dismissed. With regard to the May 24 incident wherein Shaw observed the plant I employees for 5 minutes from the funeral home driveway, Shaw credibly testified he engaged in the surveillance pursuant to instruction that he was to monitor the activities of plant I employees at his plant to assure that they did not engage in unlawful activity there. Shaw testified he made no attempt to record the names of employees who accepted union literature and no evidence was offered to show that he sought to interfere with the activities of the plant I employees who were distributing literature. I find that Shaw's explanation of his reason for observing the activities of plant I employees on the occasion was plausible and I conclude that his conduct, under the circumstances, did not constitute surveillance within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.'5 Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of this complaint allegation. There remains for consideration Respondent's conten- tion that issuance of a remedial order is not justified in this case b&cause the conduct in question was isolated and the violation was minor and insignificant. Statistically, Re- spondent's argument is persuasive as I have found that Respondent, by its plant manager, unlawfully interrogated I employee in a unit approximating 130 employees during an organization campaign which had spanned some 7 months at the time of the hearing. Notwithstanding the statistics, I reject this contention and find that a remedial order is appropriate for the reasons set forth below. The appropriateness of issuance of a remedial order in a situation quite analogous to that existing in the instant case was treated by the Board in Carolina American Textiles, Inc., supra. There, the Administrative Law Judge found the respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by asking an employee why she wore a union button and informing her of the source from which she obtained the button. Due to the fact that the record in that case revealed a harmonious relationship between the respondent and the union, unblemished by any acrimony, the Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint. The Board reversed, stating: Supervisors Shaw. Schyler. and Spence were unlawful. In each cited case elements of interference with literature distribution were shown byaggravat- ed conduct not present in the case subjudice. A See Borden Cabinets Corporation, 148 NLRB 996, 1001 (1964) and cases cited therein: Tarrant Manufacturing Company. 196 NLRB 794 (1972). We regard as a serious violation of the Act the Respondent's conduct. . . and view it as an attempt to restrain its employees from exercising rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the purpose of the Act to issue ... our usual remedial order for the violations found. While Respondent contends in the instant case that the record affirmatively reveals that it waged no systematic antiunion campaign at the East Jordan plant, I feel constrained to observe that the intelligent employer refrains from waging such a campaign until such time as the union files a petition for an election in an organization- al campaign. If no such petition has been filed to date, one may be filed in the future. Moreover, I note that the UAW and Respondent have been involved in a bitter economic strike situation with regard to plant I located at Petosky, Michigan, since March 1976. Considering all the circum- stances, I find no reason for deviating from the Board's recently announced policy regarding single instances of violation as described above and in Carolina American Textiles, Inc., supra. In the moving situation which presently exists at the East Jordan plant, I feel the letter of the law is best observed and, accordingly, find that issuance of the normal remedial order is justified and appropriate. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Respondent, ITT Automotive Electrical Pro- ducts Division, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating an employee concerning her reasons for wearing a union button under circumstances which tend to coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Except as specifically provided herein, Respondent has not violated Section 8(a) I) of the Act. 1i Milco, Inc., 159 NLRB 812, 814 (1966); Monogram Models, Inc., 170 NLRB 636(1968); LarandLeisurelies, Inc., 213 NLRB 197, 205 (1974). 882 ITT AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it is necessary, and recommend, that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practice found herein, and from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in any like manner. I shall order that the usual notice be posted. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 's The Respondent, ITT Automotive Electrical Products Division, East Jordan, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their reasons for wearing union buttons under circumstances which tend to coerce them in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is found necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Post at its East Jordan, Michigan, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." '7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative shall be posted by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily 'i In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 17 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to post this notice. The Act gives the employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization, to form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing To engage in activities together for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from the exercises of any or all such activities. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their reasons for wearing union buttons. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. ITT ArTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION 883